THE LOW-VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE RESISTANCE · PDF fileThe low-velocity impact damage resistance of the composite structures - a review 129 Fig. 1. Photograph of fabricated composite

127The low-velocity impact damage resistance of the composite structures - a review

© 2015 Adva]ced Study Ce]ter Co. Ltd.

Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 40 (2015) 127-145

Corresponding author: Li Wei, e-mail: [email protected]

THE LOW-VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE RESISTANCE OFTHE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES - A REVIEW

Azzam Ahmed1, 2 and Li Wei1

1College of Textiles, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China2Sudan University Science and Technology, School of Engineering and Technology Industries,

Department of the Textile Engineering, Sudan

Received: July 07, 2014

Abstract. A brief review of research progress in dynamic and static response of compositesstructures subjected to low velocity impact and quasi-static loads has been presented. Thisreview paper focused on experimental and numerical studies done by many authors recently forthe low-velocity impact damage. For simulations of drop weight low-velocity impact damage,many researchers has used software programs in order to predict the failure modes in compos-ite structures such as ABAQUS/Explicit, LS-Dyna, and MSC. Dytran, DYNA3D, and 3DIMPACThave been commonly used. The impact response of high performance fiber composites isreviewed. An attempt is made to collect the work published in the literature and to identify thefundamental parameters determining the impact resistance of composite materials and theirproperties. The review concludes with detailed discussions on the damage mechanisms andfailure criteria for composite structures subjected to impact loads.

1. INTRODUCTION

In a variety of engineering fields, composite materi-als are rapidly replacing the so-called conventionalmaterials due to their specific properties and de-sign flexibility. Besides mechanical properties, sur-face finishing of composite parts is among the mostimportant criteria for quality control. Good surfacefinishing improves not only the aestheticism of thefinal structure, but also the quality of the part as-sembled after manufacturing [1-4]. The sandwichcomposite structure panels are increasingly beingused in aircraft, automotive, and aerospace indus-tries due to their high specific strengths and stiff-ness. However, sandwich composite structures aresusceptible to damage and failure due to transversecontact and to impact with foreign objects. The fail-ure mode map is found to be a good technique indesigning sandwich composite structures to opti-mize their energy absorption properties and load

carrying capacity with minimum weight to satisfythe quasi-static and impact loading requirements[5-8]. There has been a growing interest, particu-larly in the few last decades, in the use of compos-ite materials in structural applications ranging fromaircraft and space structures to automotive andmarine applications due to their behavior under im-pact loading is one of the major concerns [9]. Unidi-rectional laminated plates are highly susceptible tothe transverse impact loads resulting in significantdamages such as matrix cracks, delamination, andfiber fractures. Therefore, a lot of studies have beencarried out to help understand and improve the im-pact response of composite materials and struc-tures [10-14]. Impact damage is a major issue inthe design of laminated composite structures, as itmay reduce strength and stiffness significantly with-out any visible damage at the surface [15]. Typicalimpact damage appears in the form of matrix crack-

128 A. Azzam and W. Li

ing, fiber-matrix debonding, delamination, surfacemicro buckling, fiber shear-out, and fiber fracture. Inparticular, the internal delamination often occurs dueto the relatively low interlaminar shear (ILS) strength,which can lead to a significant strength reduction inpost-damage performance [16]. Composite lami-nates are expected to absorb low velocity impactseither during assembling or in use. When the lami-nate is subjected to even barely visible impact dam-age, micro-damage is incurred, which can have asignificant effect on the strength, durability, and sta-bility of the laminates [17-19]. A new characteriza-tion technique to measure and quantify surface de-fects in composites based on deflectrometry wasused by Fotsing et al., [20]. Damaged areas can beinvestigated visually by optical or electron micros-copy, ultrasonic B-scanning, C-scanning, and acous-tic imaging [21-23]. Synchrotron radiation computedtomography (SRCT) enabled an approach for dam-age assessment and quantification used by Bull etal., [24]. An approach to evaluate the impact dam-age initiation and propagation in composite platesis investigated by Luo et al. [28]The presence ofinternal damage was found to cause substantialdegradation in important mechanical properties, in-cluding strength and stiffness [25]. Static and low-velocity impact on mechanical behaviors of foamsandwiched composites with different ply anglesface sheets was investigated by Mohmmed et al.,[26]. Lightweight composites and sandwich com-posite structures are susceptible to impact dam-age, which may severely decrease the structuralstiffness, stability, and load carrying capacity. How-ever, the damage suffered internally by the panelduring impact is very difficult to inspect [27-32]. Anew nonlinear high order theory for sandwich beamswith the analytical and experimental investigationstudied by Dariushi and Sadighi. The experimentalresults of specimens with different arrangementsupport the claims which were based on analyticalpredictions about similarities and differences be-tween linear and nonlinear models. In all cases thegood agreement is obtained between the nonlinearanalytical predictions and experimental results [33].Most research detects impact behavior on thin lami-nates, typically no thicker than 2 or 3 mm. Only afew recent papers were found that analyzed or ex-perimented with considered as a thick laminate [34].The residual tensile, compressive, shear and bend-ing strengths of a sandwich structure have all beenshown to be reduced after low velocity impact. Per-haps the most susceptible to impact is the residualcompressive strength of the structure and thus thecompression after impact (CAI) test is the most

important in the impact characterization process[13,35-37]. The impact design problem is ap-proached in two ways: i) the first one is experimen-tal and requires several measurements of the im-pact behavior of the studied material under differentloading conditions and sample geometry; ii) thesecond one is mainly related to the simulation ofthe impact phenomena using finite element meth-ods and requires very powerful hardware and soft-ware resources [38]. Sandwich composites are find-ing increasing applications in aerospace as well ascommercial structures [39]. Furthermore, structuralmaterials can be subjected to complex loading con-figurations, thus prototyping and experimental test-ing in order to evaluate the mechanical responsecan be expensive and time consuming process [40].An approach to evaluate the impact damage initia-tion and propagation in composite plates is investi-gated by R. K. Luo et al. [41]. Although lightweightcomposites and composite sandwich structures aresusceptible to impact damage, which may severelydecrease the structural stiffness, stability and loadcarrying capacity. However, the damage sufferedinternally by the panel during impact is very difficultto inspect [42].

2. MATERIALS AND FABRICATION OFCOMPOSITES

Many types of the materials which have been usedin many research studies. However, this review fo-cuses on performance fibers to fabricate the com-posite such as: [15] T700/3234 epoxy compositelaminates are cured for 1 h 30 min at 130 °C and ata pressure of 0.5 MPa.

The face sheets of the sandwich panel werewove] carbo] fabric/epoxy lami]ates AGP370–5H/3501–6 S). The matrix is a] ami]e-cured epoxyresin. The final sandwich panel was a square plateof 27.9 cm dimensions with an overall thickness of2.82 cm and a mass of 0.83 kg (Fig. 1) [43]. ThreeE-glass fabrics, non-crimp fabric, woven fabric, andnon-woven mat, were selected as reinforcementsfor the composite laminates for impact test was usedby T. W. Shyr, Y.H. Pan [44].

Unidirectional E-glass fabric having a weight of509 g/m2 was used by M. Aktas et al., [45] as rein-forcing material. An epoxy matrix based on CY225resin and HY225 hardener was used. W.A. de Moraiset al. [55] has fabricated aramid, carbon and glassfiber fabric/epoxy resi]–matrix composites fabricatedby vacuum bagging prepreg laminas in an autoclave.The carbon fiber/epoxy composites used were wo-ven AGP193-PW/8552 (10 plies) and tape AS4/3051-


Fig. 1. Photograph of fabricated composite sand-wich panel.

6 with two lay-ups: cross-ply [0/90]3s

and quasi-iso-tropic [45/0/90]

s [46]. Material used by P. Rahmé et

al. [47] is a carbon-epoxy UD prepreg of T700/M21.Glass fiber-reinforced vinyl ester (glass/VE) panelswere produced using vacuum assisted resin trans-fer molding (VARTM) process [48]. Woven fiberVicotex M18-1/45%-G939 carbon epoxy prepregswith a crowfoot-type weave pattern in two thick-nesses (1.62 and 3.24 mm) are used to fabricateplate specimens [49]. Recently, carbon fiber becameused in an automotive application instead of steeland aluminum, especially in engine hoods due tomaterial selection for automotive closures is influ-enced by different factors such as cost, weight andstructural performance. Among closures, the auto-mobile hood must fulfill the requirements of pedes-trian safety [50-59].

3. TESTING METHODS

3.1. Impact test techniques forcomposite materials.

Actually, the impact test fixture should be designedto simulate the loading conditions to which a com-posite component is subjected in an operationalservice and then reproduce the failure modes andmechanisms, which are likely to occur. The formeris generally simulated using a falling weight or aswinging pendulum and the latter using a gas gunor some other ballistic launcher. However, as statedpreviously, due to a lack of experimental standardsa wide variety of testing techniques is presentlybeing employed in order to assess the dynamic re-sponse of reinforced plastics making direct com-parison difficult. In this section the more commonlyused techniques will be presented and discussedas well as the problems associated with the ensu-ing data analysis [60].

3.2. Low-velocity impact test.

Impact response of composite materials includesthe Charpy and Izod pendulums, the falling weightfixtures such as the Gardner and drop dart tests aswell as hydraulic machines designed to perform bothin-plane and out-of-plane testing at velocities up to10 m s-1.

3.3. Charpy pendulum

Many of the early impact studies on compositematerials were undertaken using the Charpy testmethod originally developed for testing metals. Thereason for this choice was the fact that the Charpypendulum is both simple to use and can be instru-mented, and therefore, in principle, can yield infor-mation on the processes of energy absorption anddissipation in composites. The test specimen isgenerally a thick beam, sometimes incorporating anotch at its midpoint as shown in Fig. 2. The speci-men is supported in a horizontal plane and impactedby the swinging pendulum directly opposite thenotch. The Charpy test is only suitable for rankingthe impact performance of continuous fiber com-posites and as a first step in determining the dy-namic toughness of these materials [61-66].

3.4. Izod test

The Izod impact test is shown schematically in Fig.3. The test set-up and procedure are similar to thoseoutlined above (Charpy impact test). In the Izod testspecimen is clamped in the vertical plane as a can-tilever beam and impacted by a swinging pendulumat the unsupported end. The test suffers similar prob-lems to those reported above and again is bestsuited as a tool for ranking the impact resistance ofcomposite materials [67-72].

Fig. 2. Charpy impact test.


3.5. Drop-weight impact tests.

Here a weight is allowed to fall from a pre-deter-mined height to strike the test specimen or platesupported in the horizontal plane. In general, theimpact event does not cause complete destructionof the test specimen hut rebounds, enabling a re-sidual energy to be determined if necessary. Theincident velocity of the impactor can be determinedfrom the equations of motion or by using opticalsensors located just above the target [44,73-78].

3.6. Hydraulic test machines.

Test geometries such as tensile dog bone speci-mens or double cantilever beam (DCB) type speci-mens can be tested over a wide range of strain rates.The advantage of this technique is that the test speci-mens permit the evaluation of basic material prop-erties such as tensile strength, modulus andinterlaminar fracture toughness without the contacteffects associated with falling weight impact [79-81].

3.7. Quasi-static indentationbehaviors

Quasi-static indentation had been widely used torepresent and understand the impact response,because strain-rate and wave propagation effectswere commonly negligible for the low velocity im-pacts [82]. Recently, several investigations havebeen carried out on sandwich panels with foam coresunder quasi-static and impact loadings. A prelimi-nary research in the quasi static indentation andlow velocity impact of sandwich panels with (PMI)foam core and carbon woven fabric face sheets us-ing a variety of impactors was performed by Flores-

Fig. 3. Izod impact test.

Johnson [83]. It was found that the resistance forcesof the sandwich panels were very similar in bothquasi-static indentation and low velocity impact in-dicating that quasi-static indentation can be usedto study low velocity impact responses. Mohan etal. [84] studied sandwich panels with aluminum foamcores and various types of face-sheets under quasi-static indentation testing using both flat and spheri-cal punches. The composite sandwich was foundto fail under several failure modes, namely core in-dentation, core crushing, and face-sheet punchingand face-sheet bending. This study shows no de-formation in the bottom face-sheet. Rizov et al. [85]studied low velocity impact on sandwich panels witha PMI foam core where panels with glass fiber-rein-forced polymer (GFRP) face sheets were indentedquasi-statically by hemi-spherical indenter. It wasobserved that the load-indentation curve showed alinear behavior for low values of indentation, followedby a non-linear regime with a quick decrease in thesandwich panel stiffness caused by the extensivefoam core crushing in the area under the indenter.The indenter nose shape had great influence on theindentation and impact resistance of sandwich pan-els which had been shown; for example, Zhou et al.[86] investigated the quasi-static indentation of sand-wich panels using hemi-spherical and flat indent-ers; and showed that the failure mechanisms de-pend on the indenter nose shape. Most investiga-tions about the effect of the nose shape on the quasi-static response of sandwich panels was limited toflat and hemi-spherical indenters. The first observa-tion can be explained by the fact that the stiffnessof the sandwich panel increased with the increaseof the density of the core [87]. For Rohacell 71WFand 200WF cores, the curves were calculated us-ing the analytical model developed by Flores-Johnson and Li [88]. It could be seen that the differ-ence between indentation resistance of sandwichand that of the core material depends on the coredensity and the indenter nose shape. Baral et al.[89] observed that the increase of core density ledto an increase of the flexural rigidity resulting in lowerdeflection of the structure, and thus, less energyabsorption at first damage. Flores-Johnson and Li[90] studied the quasi-static indentation of sand-wich panels. It was found that both nose shape andfoam core density had a large influence on the in-dentation response of the sandwich panels in termsof absorbed energy, the indentation at failure anddamage area. It was shown that the difference inindentation resistances between sandwich panel andits corresponding core material depended on thecore density. It can also be observed that the dam-


aged area showed some preferential orientation. Forindenters, the damaged area had a rhomboidalshape accompanied by fiber breakage which wascommonly observed for woven laminate faces [91].Lu and co-workers [92] conducted experimental andfinite element studies on aluminum foam sandwichpanels subjected to both quasi-static and impactloadings. Quasi-static tests were carried out onsandwich panels with CYMAT foam cores using ahemispherical indenter. Ruan et al [93] carried outexperimental studies about the mechanical re-sponse and energy absorption of aluminum foamsandwich panels subjected to quasi-static indenta-tion loads. It was shown that three deformationmodes were observed in the sandwich panels: Glo-bal bending, localized indentation with global bend-ing and localized indentation. Localized deforma-tion and failure under the indenter were observed inthe top face-sheet of sandwich panels in all tests.Deformation of foam core occurred before the fail-ure of the bottom face-sheets.

4. NONDESTRUCTIVE ANDDESTRUCTIVE TECHNIQUES FORCOMPOSITE SANDWICHEDSTRUCTURES

The non-destructive methods involve detection,measurements of the size and location of damagestate based on optical microscopy, X-rays, ultra-sonic, acoustic emission, laser optics, interferom-etry/shearography, thermal instruments, etc. Therehave been several excellent, comprehensive reviews[94,95] that describe a wider range of measurementtechniques for destructive and nondestructive evalu-ation (NDE) of composite materials. The followingcombination of composite materials common de-fect types. Composite defect types generally include:cracks, resin cracking, breaking, bonding defects,voids, delamination, inclusions, excess glue, un-glued, layer thick or thin, fiber breakage and curl-ing, poor glue, thickness deviations, wear, scratches,resin accumulation ply wrinkles, pits, bumps, plottumors. Which cracks, fracture, voids, delamina-tion and other general aviation composite compo-nents for the main defects. The nondestructive in-spection (NDI) of composites is a crucial compo-nent in the service life cycle of critical structures onairplanes, space vehicles, and boats used in trans-portation [96]. Various nondestructive testing (NDT)techniques are adequate for the characterization ofdefects like pores, delamination or debonding withinthe adhesive bond [97]. Two recently developed tech-nologies, the acoustography and the ultrasound

camera (acoustocam), may hold the potential forproviding large area ultrasonic images in real timeor near real time without the need for performing aC-scan. The acoustography employed a stress sen-sitive liquid crystal material that converts the ultra-sonic field intensity containing flaw indications intoan optical gray scale image [98]. Infrared thermog-raphy is a nondestructive testing and evaluation(NDT&E) technique allowing fast inspection of largesurfaces. There are two approaches to infrared ther-mography: (1) passive, in which the features of in-terest are naturally at a higher or lower temperaturethan the background (e.g. surveillance, medical andbiological applications); and (2) active, which requiresan external energy source to produce a thermalcontrast between the feature of interest and thebackground [99]. Many advanced NDT&E tech-niques such as RT real-time imaging, TOFD ultra-sonic test, ultrasonic phase array, ultrasonic guidedwave test, pulsed eddy current test, magnetic fluxleakage test, metal magnetic memory test, acous-tic emission test, infrared/thermal test is being stud-ied, developed and applied [100]. Experimental in-vestigation on porosity of carbon fiber-reinforcedcomposite using ultrasonic attenuation coefficient[101]. By used guided waves inspection method forde-bond defects in aluminum skin-honeycomb coresandwich structure so guided waves based on re-sults show that the detection of skin - honeycombcore sandwich structure de-bond is possible [102].Aircraft manufacturers, maintenance service provid-ers, and airline operators have recently started touse ultrasonic phased-array technology to ensurethe quality of their composite parts during mainte-nance and manufacturing [103]. Using a capacitiveimaging technique as nondestructive techniques forthe inspection of composite materials, then the proof-of-concept results indicated that the capacitive im-aging technique could be used to detect cracks anddelamination in the glass fiber composite, defectsin the aluminum core through the glass fiber faceas well as surface features on the carbon fiber speci-mens [104]. Imaging of damage in sandwich com-posite structures using a scanning laser sourcetechnique. The SLS technique has several signifi-cant advantages over conventional methods, includ-ing: (i) non-contact in situ measurements, (ii) re-mote placement of laser equipment using fiber op-tics, (iii) ability to inspect surfaces with complexgeometry, (iv) high spatial resolution, and (v) sensi-tivity high enough to detect fiber-breakage in a singleply. Example applications to image artificial andimpact-induced defects in composite structures aredemonstrated [105]. By using thermographic inves-


tigation of sandwich structure made of compositematerial by V. Dattoma el al. [106]. The A

0 Lamb

wave propagation in sandwich structure has beenstudied at low-freque]cies 10–50 kHz). At least 10%of the amplitude of the excited signal was moni-tored after 1 m of propagation distance, which showsthat the technique is applicable to the inspection ofrelatively long sandwich structures. Changes in theresponse of the propagated pulses have been usedto detect and locate impact damage. The techniquecould be used to inspect the damage that is lo-cated in any position, though the thickness even ifonly one side is accessible for testing [29]. Ultra-sonic C-Scan and shearography NDI techniques,evaluation of impact defects identification, investi-gation of Roman et al. [107]. Table 1 below summa-rizes results obtained by non-destructive and de-structive techniques [108].

5. FAILURE CRITERIA METHODS

Wang et al. [7] used Hashin and Yeh failure criteriato predict and evaluate the impact damage. Maxi-mum stress and quadratic stress failure criteria wereemployed in three failure modes [41]. The dominantfailure mechanisms taking place in composite lami-nates when subjected to impact loading are a verycomplex combination of energy absorption mecha-nisms such as delamination predominantly causedby mode II shear, matrix cracking caused by trans-verse shear, and trans laminar fracture in terms offiber fracture and kinking [75]. Hashin criteria wereused to predict the failure of the face sheets by R.Mohmmed et al. [38]. The Chang-Chang failure cri-teria [109] and DYNA3D are widely used for the pre-

Fig. 4. Energy profile diagrams, data from 115.

diction of impact damage in composites [110-113].Damage evolution in composite sandwich panelsunder quasi-static impact is investigated by using aprogressive failure analysis methodology. Severalfailure criteria, e.g. Hashi]’s a]d Besa]t’s criteria,are used for different failure mechanisms such asfiber breakage, matrix or core cracking, and interfa-cial delamination in the impacted face sheet [21].

6. ANALYSIS METHODS OF IMPACTDAMAGE

An alternative method is an energy profiling method(EPM) which was used by M. Aktas et al. [38], basedon variation of the excessive energy (E

e) versus im-

pact energy (Ei), is presented to determine penetra-

tion threshold (Pn). A quadratic equation was shownto provide a best fit to the experimental points, andthe coefficient of the quadratic term was shown toreflect the increase of the impact resistance withlaminate thickness [114]. An energy profiling method,showing the relationship between impact energy andabsorbed energy, as shown in Fig. 4 was used to-gether with load-deflection curves to determine thepenetration and perforation thresholds of hybrid com-posites [115]. The energy profiling method (EPM) isa diagram that shows the relationship between im-pact energy and corresponding absorbed energy[116]. A number of analytical approaches have beenproposed for the prediction of CAI strength [117-120].A numerical model has been developed and imple-mented in the commercial explicit finite elementcode, LSDYNA, to predict the impact behavior offabric panels. The model is shown to be effective incapturing the impact response of two types of Kevlar



129 plain weave fabric panels considered in this study[121]. In recent years, the majority of research intothe impact analysis of sandwich structures has fo-cused on Nomex honeycomb core structures withcarbon fiber face sheets [122]. This is because ac-curate damage prediction of these structures is dif-ficult to achieve due to the complex damage mecha-nisms of the face sheet and core materials. Also,due to the increasing application of these materi-als, there is a need to accurately predict the impactperformance to reduce the required amount of im-pact testing. This can then reduce design cycletimes and certification costs. Two separated con-stitutive models are formulated at the meso-scaleusing a rigorous thermodynamic framework: one forthe description of the debonding between the pliesof the laminate (i.e. Delamination) [123], and an-other for the description of the damage mechanismsthat can occur in each ply (i.e. Intralaminar damagemecha]isms: matrix cracki]g, fiber– matrix i]ter-face debonding, and fiber breakage) [124-127]. Someresearchers have chosen to use existing, commer-cially available, FE codes. When modelling panelimpact, researchers have variously used 3D con-tinuum solid [73,128-130].

Fig. 5. FE model of carbon fiber composite lami-nates with rigid impactor.

Fig. 6. FE model of a [03/90

3]s laminated plate.

7. THE FINITE ELEMENT (FE) OF THELOW-VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE

The finite element (FE) software, ABAQUS/Explicitis employed to simulate low-velocity impact char-acteristics and predict the residual tensile strengthof carbon fiber composites laminates. These numeri-cal investigations create a user-defined materialsubroutine (VUMAT) to enhance the damage simu-lation [15]. The composite laminate is modeled asa rectangular plate, and clamped on the circumfer-ential edge to simulate the clamped condition inthe test machine, as shown in Fig. 5. M. Q. Nguyenet al. [131] they used three commercial explicit FEanalysis packages program software such as LS-Dyna, MSC.Dytran, and Pam-Shock, to determinetheir capabilities in predicting barely visible impactdamage (BVID) in composite structures. The ex-plicit finite element (FE) software codes of LS-Dyna(Version 950e), MSC. Dytran (Version 2000) andPam-Shock (Version 2000) are commercial toolsemployed within various engineering industries. TheFE computer program FE77 has been used to modelsome impact tests where significant damage doesnot become dominant, so that the overall materialbehavior can be treated as linear elastic with rea-sonable accuracy. The modeling results of impactresponse obtained by using FE77 was comparedwith that obtained by using DYNA3D with a reason-ably good agreement [16].

Finite element analyses were carried out byAymerich et al. [132]. With the parallel explicit solverof the commercial code Abaqus 6.5, and a userdefined subroutine (VUMAT) was developed forimplementation of the cohesive behavior of interfaceelements. In his model two rows of vertical cohe-sive elements, sharing the nodes of adjacent solidelements, were also placed on the symmetry planeof the laminates (i.e. On the boundary of the quartermodel) parallel to the 00 directions for [0

3/90

3]s

samples (as visible in Fig. 6) and to the 900 direc-tions for [90

3/0

3]s laminates.


Fig. 7. Comparison of impact damage between experimental and FEM simulation of foam sandwich com-posite with cross-ply face sheet.

Numerical model has been created with the fi-nite element commercial code ANSYS/LS DYNAto simulate impact response of composite laminate[40]. Therefore more often simulation codes areapplied by industry to optimize the performance ofthe composite material response during in serviceload. Most common commercial simulation codesused to predict impact properties are LS-DYNA,ABAQUS, PAM-CRASH, 3DIMPACT, etc. [15,133-136]. General purpose finite element code LS-DYNAis one of the most frequently used commercial codesin crash test simulations by the automotive indus-try, as well as in aerospace, metal forming, mate-rial processing, sport, biomedical and other indus-tries [133,135-137].

R. Mohmmed et al. [38]. In his validity of FEM isshown in Fig. 7. That the existence of a good agree-ment between the experimental and FEM results.The finite element (FE) software Ansys coupled withthe explicit FE software code LS-Dyna (Version 970)is commercial tools employed within various engi-neering industries. Both the aerospace and auto-motive industries have accepted simulation as partof the design process to minimize design costs andto create more efficient structures [138].

8. COMPARISON BETWEENEXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICALRESULTS

The simulation projects need to evaluated and besure about the simulation for the modeling resultsto be agreement with experimental results espe-

cially for impact damage modes, can evaluate andvalidation model of composite by several variablesare selected to validate the numerical models, peakload, maximum deflection for all laminates, load his-tory for our specimen , Peak loads, time at failureand the trend of the curves (force-time , displace-ment- time) obtained in the numerical simulationsagree with the experimental results for all thesamples that according to suitable condition to ex-periments [26].

In Fig. 8, C. Santiuste et al. [91] shown com-parison between experimental and numerical loadhistory for UN1 test (UN1 means unidirectional struc-ture) they used two criteria failure to validate theirmodel; these were: Hou and Hashin criteria. As a

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and nu-merical load history for UN1 test.


result, good agreement has been found betweenexperimental and numerical results.

Liu et al. [116] they studied impact perforationresistance of laminated and assembled compositeplates. Fig. 9 shown force-deflection curves of com-posite plates, the slope of the ascending section ofeach force-deflection curve was termed the impactbending stiffness due to its representation of thestiffness of composite laminates under impact-in-duced bending in the beginning of impact process.All the force-deflection curves seemed to ascendsimilarly, indicating similar impact bending stiffness.They then reached individual maximum levels. Ac-cording to Fig. 9, the maximum forces increasedas the levels of impact energy increased. When theimpact energy was high enough, the maximumforces seemed to have a similar value. This valuewas termed the peak force of the composite lami-nates under the specific central impact. In each sub-perforation impact, the force-deflection curve rises,reached a maximum level and returned back to theorigin. It formed a close curve representing the

Fig. 9. Force-deflection curves of composite plates.

Fig. 10. Typical load–deflectio] curves of [0/90/0/90]s.

impactor’s impacti]g o]to the composite lami]ateand rebounding from the composite laminate. Thearea enveloped by the closed curve was the absorbedenergy of the composite laminate under the spe-cific impact. Apparently, as the impact energy in-creased, the enveloped area increased, so did theabsorbed energy. If the impact energy continued toincrease, perforation then took place. Once perfo-ration occurred, the force-deflection curve would nolonger be a closed curve. The area bounded by theopen force-deflection curve and the deflection axiswas then the energy absorbed by the perforatedcomposite laminate. It was also interesting to pointout that the impact events which had sufficientlyhigh impact energy to reach the peak force seemedto share partial descending sections together. As aresult, regardless of the rebounding sections, all theimpact events seemed to form a master force-de-flection curve.

Aktas et al. [45] the impact response of unidi-rectional glass/epoxy laminates has been investi-gated by considering energy profile diagrams and






associated load–deflectio] curves Fig. 10. Absorbedenergy in an impact event can be calculated fromload–deflectio] curves. Characteristic of load–de-flection curves also includes some useful tips onassessing the damage process of composite struc-tures. Therefore, several load–deflectio] curves ofsamples, in this study, for varied impact energiesare given in Fig. 10.

Two types of the curves can be observed inFig. 10, closed curve and open curve since 10.4 Jto 52.5 J the impactor does]’t pe]etrate the samplesand rebounding back due to stiffness of compositeand have good resistance to impact damage, but incase 65J observed the curve from closed curvechanged to open curve that means increase theimpact energy led to the impactor penetrated thesamples. Table 2 explains last methods techniquesthat were used to characterize the impact damagein composite materials.

9. CONCLUSION

In this contribution, models using numerical, math-ematical and experimental investigation of compos-ite structures subjected to quasi-static and impactloads were reviewed. This review paper has beencarried out as part of a research on characteristicsof the impact damage modes on the properties ofthe composite materials. The impact responses areclassified according to the various key parameters,and different methodologies are listed for differentclasses of impact. The characteristics of each classof impact responses were also classified and dis-cussed. Different kinds of impact response couldbe solved using different methods. The term dam-age resistance refers to the amount of impact dam-age which is induced in a composite system. Clearly,the vast majority of impacts on a composite platewill be in the transverse direction, but due to thelack of through-thickness reinforcement, transversedamage resistance is particularly poor. Interlaminarstresses-shear and tension-are often the stressesthat cause first failure due to the correspondinglylow interlaminar strengths. Damaged areas can beinvestigated visually or by using optical or electronmicroscopy, ultrasonic C-scanning, and acousticimaging. Impact damage in composite plates is acombination of major failure modes: delamination,matrix cracking, and fiber breakage. The first twotypes of failure are dependent on the properties ofthe resin matrix, whereas fiber breakage is moreresponsive to the fiber specifications and charac-teristics and is usually caused by higher energyimpacts. Many types of the materials which have

been used in many studies were found to be fo-cused on carbon fiber with epoxy to fabricate thecomposite, glass with polyester and graphite withepoxy that means the type of the reinforcementshas big effect to impact resistance of compositematerials. Delamination causes catastrophic failureof composite materials in compression by causinginstability in the structure through kink band forma-tion. Furthermore studies need to detect and pre-dict the delamination in composite structures tocontrol the strength and stiffness of the compos-ites. The two main programs, software which usedto simulate low-velocity impact damage is:ABAQUS/Explicit and LS-Dyna. These two programshave always been used as an analytical tool.

REFERENCES

[1] N. Godin, S. Huguet, R. Gaertner andL. Salmon// NDT and E Int 37 (2004) 253.

[2] Y. D. Huang, L. Froyen and M. Wevers //J nondestruct Eval 20 (2001) 113.

[3] Mengchun Pan,Yunze He, Guiyun Tian,Dixiang Chen and Feilu Luo // NDT and E Int52 (2012) 28.

[4] Re]aldas Raišutis, Ryma]tas Kažys, EgidijusŽukauskas, Liudas Mažeika a]d Alfo]sasVladišauskas // NDT and E Int 43 (2010) 416.

[5] E.W. Andrews and N.A. Moussa // Int JImpact Eng 36 (2009) 418.

[6] Tae Seong Lim, Chang Sup Lee and Dai GilLee // J. Compos. Mater 38 (2004) 1639.

[7] S.V. Raj and L.J. Ghosh // Mater. Sci. Eng.,A 474 (2008) 88.

[8] Dan Zenkert and Magnus Burman// Int.J. Fatigue 33 (2011) 217.

[9] S. Abrate, Impact on composite structures(Cambridge university press, 2005).

[10] Serge Abrate // Appl Mec Rev 44 (1991) 155.[11] G. A. Bibo and P. J. Hogg and // J. Mater. Sci

31 (1996) 1115.[12] W.J. Cantwell and J. Morton// Compos 22

(1991) 347.[13] J. M. Hodgkinson, Mechanical testing of

advanced fibre composites, (WoodheadPublishing, 2000).

[14] M.O.W. Richardson and M.J. Wisheart //Composites Part A 27 (1996) 1123.

[15] Shi-Xun Wang, Lin-Zhi Wu and Li Ma //Mater. Des 31 (2010) 118.

[16] G.A.O. Davies, D. Hitchings and G. Zhou //Composites Part A 27 (1996) 1147.

[17] M. de Freitas and L. Reis // Compos. Struct42 (1998) 365.


[18] M. de Freitas, A. Silva and L. Reis //Composites Part B 31 (2000) 199.

[19] S.A. Hitchen and R.M.J. Kemp // Compos 26(1995) 207.

[20] E.R. Fotsing, A. Ross and Edu Ruiz // NDTand E Int 62 (2014) 29.

[21] X.L. Fan, T.J. Wang and Q. Sun // ProcediaEng 10 (2011) 530.

[22] T. Lendze, R.Wojtyra, L.Guillaumat, Ch.Biateau a]d K. Imielińska // Adv. Mater. Sci6 (2006) 26.

[23] J. Peters, V. Kommareddy, Z. Liu, D. Fei andD. Hsu In: AIP Conference Proceedings(2003), p. 973.

[24] D.J. Bull, A.E. Scott, S.M. Spearing andI. Sinclair // Composites Part A 58 (2014) 47.

[25] Jang-Kyo Kim and Man-Lung Sham//Compos. Sci. Technol 60 (2000) 745.

[26] Ramadan Mohmmed, Fa Zhang, BaozhongSun and Bohong Gu // J. Compos. Mater 48(2014) 1173.

[27] Serge Abrate// App Mec Rev 50 (1997) 69.[28] Todd A. Anderson// Composites Part B 36

(2005) 135.[29] K. Diamanti, C. Soutis and J.M. Hodgkinson

// Compos. Sci. Technol 65 (2005) 2059.[30] Paolo Feraboli, In: Fourty seventh AIAA/

ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures,structural dynamics, and MaterialsConference (2006), 1.

[31] Paolo Feraboli and Keith T. Kedward //Compos. Sci. Technol 66 (2006) 1336.

[32] Y. C. Shiah, Liang Tseng, Jui Che Hsu andJin H. Huang // J. Compos. Mater 27 (1993)1238.

[33] Soheil Dariushi and Mojtaba Sadighi //Compos. Struct 108 (2014) 779.

[34] Charles Breen, Felicity Guild and MartynPavier // Composites Part A 36 (2005) 205.

[35] G.A.O. Davies, D. Hitchings, T. Besant,A. Clarke and C. Morgan // Compos. Struct63 (2004) 1.

[36] Fredrik Edgren, Leif E. Asp and Peter H. Bull// J. Compos. Mater 38 (2004) 495.

[37] V.J. Hawyes, P.T. Curtis and C. Soutis //Composites Part A 32 (2001) 1263.

[38] Ramadan Mohmmed, Fa Zhang, BaozhongSun and Bohong Gu // Mater. Des 47 (2013)189.

[39] U.K. Vaidya, M.V. Hosur, D. Earl and S.Jeelani // Composites Part A 31 (2000) 761.

[40] Sanita Zike, Kaspars Kalnins, OlgertsOzolins and Maris Knite // Mater. Sci 17(2011) 384.

[41] R.K. Luo, E.R. Green and C.J. Morrison //Composites Part B 32 (2001) 513.

[42] Serge Abrate, Impact on compositestructures (Cambridge University Press,1998).

[43] Patrick M. Schubel, Jyi-Jiin Luo and IsaacM. Daniel // Composites Part A 38 (2007)1051.

[44] Tien-Wei Shyr and Yu-Hao Pan // Compos.Struct 62 (2003) 193.

[45] Mehmet Aktaá, Cesim Atas, Büle]t Muratİçte] a]d Ramaza] Karakuzu// Compos.Struct 87 (2009) 307.

[46] S. Sanchez-Saez, E. Barbero, R. Zaera andC. Navarro // Compos. Sci. Technol 65 (2005)1911.

[47] P. Rahmé, C. Bouvet, S. Rivalla]t, V. Fascioand G. Valembois // Compos. Sci. Technol72 (2012) 182.

[48] Hao Yan, Caglar Oskay, Arun Krishnan andLuoyu Roy Xu // Compos. Sci. Technol 70(2010) 2128.

[49] V.P.W. Shim and L.M. Yang // Int. J.MechSci 47 (2005) 647.

[50] G. Belingardi, G. Chiandussi, E. Gobetto andA. Scattina // Int. J. Automot Techn 11(2010) 831.

[51] Giovanni Belingardi, Alessandro Scattina andEnrico Gobetto, In : 21st InternationalTechnical Conference on the EnhancedSafety of Vehicles (ESV (2009), p. 09.

[52] Yukitane Kimoto and Hiroshi Kiyama // FRPpanel for automobile, US Patent No.8,276,975 (2011).

[53] Shogo Matsushima and Hiroshi Kiyama //Bonnet for automobile, US Patent No.7,497,507 (2009).

[54] J. Mai Nursherida, Sahari B. Barkawi, A.A.Nuraini, Aidy Ali, A.A. Faieza, Tuan HafandiTuan Ismail, Azim Azizi, M. Salleh Salwani,M.S. Nabilah, S.S. Aini, M. Shahril and M.H.Norhidayah // Appl. Mech . Mater 165 (2012)270.

[55] Ryusuke Shida, Kiyoshi Uzawa, IsamuOhsawa, Akiyasu Morita and Jun Takahashi,In: 10th Japan International SAMPESymposium & Exhibition (JISSE-10)N (Tokyo, 2007), p. 1.

[56] K. Singha // J. Safety Eng 1 (2012) 7.[57] Tso–Lia]g Lia]g, Cho–Chu]g Shih, Chie]–Jo]g Nguye] a]d Ma]h–Tru]g Te]g // Int.J. Vehicle Des 63 (2013) 185.

[58] Michal Vasicek, In: Fisita World AutomotiveCoPgress –ProceediPgs (2010), p. 3870.


[59] Gui Fan Zhao, Tso Liang Teng and Dong Cui// Adv. Mater. Res 156 (2011) 303.

[60] W.J. Cantwell and J. Morton // Compos 22(1991) 347.

[61] Adnan Fazal and Kevin S. Fancey //Composites Part B 44 (2013) 472.

[62] Rana Foroutan, James Nemes, HosseinGhiasi and Pascal Hubert // Compos. Struct106 (2013) 264.

[63] Tim Huber, Simo] Bickerto], Jörg Müssig,Shusheng Pang and Mark P. Staiger //Compos. Sci. Technol 88 (2013) 92.

[64] Dian-sen Li, Nan Jiang, Chuang-qi Zhao, LeiJiang and Yi Tan // Cryogenics 62 (2014) 37.

[65] Jean Igor Margem, Marina Rangel Margem,Frederico Margem, Vinicius Gomes andSergio Monteiro, In : TMS 2014 143rd AnnualMeeting & Exhibition, Annual MeetingSupplemental Proceedings (John Wiley& Sons, 2014), p. 425.

[66] Naoya Tsuchikura, Michael C. Faudree andYoshitake Nishi // Mater. Trans 54 (2013)371.

[67] R. Anbazhagan and Dr. G. P. Rajamani // Int.J. App. Environ. Sci 8 (2013) 1429.

[68] Kannan, T. Gobi, Wu, Chang Mou, Chengand Kuo Bing // Polym. Compos 34 (2013)1912.

[69] C.Z. Liao, H.M. Wong, K.W. Yeung and S.C.Tjong // Int. J. Nanomed 9 (2014) 1299.

[70] Jean Igor Margem, Frederico MuylaertMargem, Mari]a Ra]gel Margem, Vi]íciusAlves and Sergio N. Gomes, In : TMS 2014143rd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, AnnualMeeting Supplemental Proceedings (JohnWiley & Sons, 2014), p. 417.

[71] Vasanth Chakravarthy Shunmugasamy,Harish Anantharaman, Dinesh Pinisetty andNikhil Gupta // J. Compos. Mater 47 (2013)169.

[72] S. Thomaidis, A. Kakaboura, W.D. Muellerand S. Zinelis // Dent. Mater 29 (2013) 132.

[73] Züleyha Asla], Ramaza] Karakuzu a]dBuket Okutan // Compos. Struct 59 (2003)119.

[74] Ramin Hosseinzadeh, Mahmood MehrdadShokrieh and Larry Lessard // Compos. Sci.Technol 66 (2006) 61.

[75] Jang-Kyo Kim, D.B. MacKay and Yiu-WingMai // Compos 24 (1993) 485.

[76] Ercan Sevkat, Benjamin Liaw and FeridunDelale // Mater.Des 52 (2013) 67.

[77] M. W. Wardle and Edward W. Tokarsky //J Compos Tech Res 5 (1983) 1.

[78] J.D. Winkel and D.F. Adams // Compos 16(1985) 268.

[79] G. Belingardi, M.P. Cavatorta and R. Duella //Compos. Struct 61 (2003) 13.

[80] J.W. Gillespie Jr., L.A. Carlsson and A.J.Smiley // Compos. Sci. Technol 28 (1987) 1.

[81] S. Takeda, Y. Aoki, T. Ishikawa, N. Takedaand H. Kikukawa // Compos. Struct 79(2007) 133.

[82] Ji Yeong Lee, Dal-Woo Jung and Nak-SamChoi // J. Compos. Mater 46 (2012) 1755.

[83] Md. Akil Hazizan and W.J. Cantwell //Composites Part B 33 (2002) 193.

[84] Kapil Mohan, Tick-Hon Yip, IdapalapatiSridhar and H. P. Seow // J. Mater. Sci 42(2007) 3714.

[85] V. Rizov, A. Shipsha and D. Zenkert //Compos. Struct 69 (2005) 95.

[86] G. Zhou, M. Hill, J. Loughlan andN. Hookham // J. Sandw. Struct. Mater8 (2006) 55.

[87] E.A. Flores-Johnson, Q.M. Li, and R.A.W.Mines // J. Cell. Plast 44 (2008) 415.

[88] E.A. Flores-Johnson and Q.M. Li // Int.J.Solids. Struct 47 (2010) 1987.

[89] N. Baral, D.D.R. Cartié, I.K. Partridge,C. Baley and P. Davies // Composites PartB 41 (2010) 117.

[90] E.A. Flores-Johnson and Q.M. Li //Composites Part B 42 (2011) 1212.

[91] U. Icardi and L. Ferrero // Compos. Struct 89(2009) 35.

[92] G. Lu, J. Shen, W. Hou, D. Ruan and L.S.Ong // Int. J. Mech Sci 50 (2008) 932.

[93] Dong Ruan, Guoxing Lu and Yat Choy Wong// Compos. Struct 92 (2010) 2039.

[94] S.L. Gao and Jang Kyo Kim // Key Eng.Mater 141 (1997) 35.

[95] J. Summerscales, Non-destructive testing offibre-reinforced plastics composites (KluwerAcademic Pub, 1990)

[96] Keith B. Armstrong and Richard T. Barrett,Care and repair of advanced composites(Society of Automotive Engineers, 1998).

[97] Bastien Ehrhart, Bernd Valeske, Charles-Edouard Muller and Clemens Bockenheimer,In: Proceedings of Int. Symposium on NDT inAerospace (Hamburg, Germany, 2010), p.22.

[98] Jaswinder S. Sandhu; Honghui Wang; MilindM. Sonpatki and Witold J. Popek, In: NDEfor Health Monitoring and Diagnostics(International Society for Optics andPhotonics, 2003), p. 99.


[99] C. Ibarra-Castanedo, E. Grinzato,S. Marinetti, P. Bison, M. Genest,M. Grenier, J. Piau, A. Bendada andX. Maldague, In: 17th World Conference onNondestructive Testing (2008), p. 1.

[100] S. Gong-Tian // Nondestruct Test 11 (2008)006.

[101] L. Lin , M. Luo , H. T. Tian , X. M. Li andG. P. Guo, In: Proceedings WorldConference on Nondestructive Testing(Shanghai, China, 2008), p. 28.

[102] Fangcheng He, Zhenggan Zhou andZhanying Feng, In: 17th World Conferenceon Nondestructive Testing (Shanghai,China, 2008).

[103] Jason Habermehl and Andre Lamarre, In:17th World Conference on NondestructiveTesting (Shanghai, China, 2008).

[104] X. Yin and D.A. Hutchins // CompositesPart B 43 (2012) 1282.

[105] Pavel A. Fomitchov, Alexey K. Kromin,Sridhar Krishnaswamy and JanD. Achenbach // Composites Part B 35(2004) 557.

[106] V. Dattoma, R. Marcuccio, C. Pappalettereand G.M. Smith // NDT and E Int 34 (2001)515.

[107] Roma] Ràžek, Radek Loho]ka a]d JosefJiro]č // NDT and E Int 39 (2006) 132.

[108] S. R. Reid and G Zhou, Impact behaviour offibre-reinforced composite materials andstructures (CRC Press, 2000).

[109] Fu-Kuo Chang and Kuo-Yen Chang //J. Compos. Mater 21 (1987) 834.

[110] J.O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA3D theoreticalmanual (Livermore Software TechnologyCorporation, 1993).

[111] O. Majeed, M.J. Worswick, P.V. Straznickyand C. Poon // Can. Aeronaut. Space. J 40(1994) 99.

[112] Y. Murray and L. Schwer // ASME 107(1990) 21.

[113] B. Pradhan and S. Kumar // J. Reinf. Plast.Compos 19 (2000) 322.

[114] W.A. de Morais, S.N.Monteiro and J.R.M.d’Almeida // Compos. Struct 70 (2005) 223.

[115] Meti] Sayer, Numa] B. Bektaş a]d O]urSayman // Compos. Struct 92 (2010) 1256.

[116] Dahsin Liu, Basavaraju B. Raju and XinglaiDang // Int J Impact Eng 24 (2000) 733.

[117] Herzl Chai, Charles D. Babcock andWolfgang G. Knauss // Int. J.Solids. Struct17 (1981) 1069.

[118] O.A. Khondker, K.H. Leong, I. Herszbergand H. Hamada // Composites Part A 36(2005) 638.

[119] C. Soutis and P.T. Curtis // Compos. Sci.Technol 56 (1996) 677.

[120] Y. Xiong, C. Poon, P.V. Straznicky andH. Vietinghoff // Compos. Struct 30 (1995)357.

[121] A. Shahkarami and R. Vaziri // Int J ImpactEng 34 (2007) 104.

[122] D.P.W. Horrigan and R.R Aitken, at:ww.lusas.com.

[123] E. Go]zález, P. Maimí, A. Turo],P. Camanho and J. Renart // Computers,Materials & Continua (CMC) 9 (2009) 51.

[124] P. Maimí, P.P. Cama]ho, J.A. Mayugo a]dC.G. Dávila// Mech. Mater 39 (2007) 897.

[125] P. Maimí, P.P. Cama]ho, J. Mayugo a]dC. Dávila // Mech. Mater 39 (2007) 909.

[126] P. Maimí, P.P. Cama]ho, J.-A. Mayugo a]dC.G. Davila, A thermodynamicallyconsistent damage model for advancedcomposites (National Aeronautics andSpace Administration, Langley ResearchCenter Hampton, VA, 2006).

[127] Pere Maimí Vert, ModelizacióP coPstitutiva ycomputacional del daño y la fractura demateriales compuestos (Universitat deGiro]a, Departame]t d’E]gi]yeria mecànicai de la co]strucció i]dustrial, 2007).

[128] E. R. Green, C. J. Morrison and R. K. Luo //J. Compos. Mater 34 (2000) 502.

[129] S. Gui]ard, O. Allix, D. Guédra-Degeorgesand A. Vinet // Compos. Sci. Technol 62(2002) 585.

[130] J.P. Hou, N. Petrinic, C. Ruiz and S.R.Hallett // Compos. Sci. Technol 60 (2000)273.

[131] Minh Q. Nguyen, David J. Elder, JavidBayandor, Rodney S. Thomson and MurrayL.Scott // J. Compos. Mater 39 (2005) 375.

[132] F. Aymerich, F. Dore and P. Priolo //Compos. Sci. Technol 69 (2009) 1699.

[133] S. Heimbs, S. Heller, P. Middendorf, F.Häh]el a]d J. Weiße // Int J Impact Eng 36(2009) 1182.

[134] Ramazan Karakuzu, Emre Erbil andMehmet Aktas// Composites Part B 41(2010) 388.

[135] C.S. Lopes, P.P. Cama]ho, Z. Gürdal,P. Maimí a]d E.V. Go]zález // Compos.Sci. Technol 69 (2009) 937.


[136] Volnei Tita, Jonas de Carvalho and DirkVandepitte // Compos. Struct 83 (2008) 413.

[137] J.O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA theory manual(Livermore Software TechnologyCorporation, 2006).

[138] M.Q. Nguyen, S.S. Jacombs, R.S.Thomson, D. Hachenberg and M.L. Scott //Compos. Struct 67 (2005) 217.

Documents

THE LOW-VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE RESISTANCE · PDF fileThe low-velocity impact damage resistance of the composite structures - a review 129 Fig. 1. Photograph of fabricated composite