Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of

Composite Laminated Plates Subjected to

Low-Velocity Impact

YA-JUNG LEE* AND CHIEN-HUA HUANGy

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

ABSTRACT: A steel impactor was used in drop tests to impact composite laminated
plates constructed using carbon-epoxy prepregs. The impact force and strain
histories were recorded as well. Damage incurred from a low-velocity impact much
closely resembled that from static crushing. This investigation creates a user-defined
material subroutine (UMAT) of the FEM software ABAQUS, using our method of
stiffness progressive modification, such that extreme failure is accurately simulated
until the plates are thoroughly crushed. Using the results from the static crush
simulation and the aspect of energy conservation, the dynamic impact force given
with different impactor masses and initial velocities can be rapidly predicted while
making significant savings in computing resources.

KEY WORDS: ultimate strength, progressive failure, low-velocity impact,

composite laminates.

INTRODUCTION

HE LIGHTWEIGHT OF carbon fiber composites has led to their being

T widely employed in advanced vehicles. Since carbon fibers are more
brittle than metals, they absorb less energy during impact. Numerous
studies have measured impact responses, including those by Sun et al. [1–3],
Ramkumar and Chen [4] and Vaziri [5]. Impact induced fracture (IIF) has
also been widely discussed, including experimental approaches [6,7],
experiments including theoretical analysis [8,9] and observations of failure
processes [10]. Finally, FEM fracture investigations have been performed in
[11–13].

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

y
E-mail: chomolungma@giga.net.tw

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 22, No. 12/2003 1059
0731-6844/03/12 1059–23 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/073168403027285
ß 2003 Sage Publications
1060 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

To simulate first-ply or post failure behavior, failure criteria must be

determined to check damage. Failure criteria for unidirectional composites
proposed by Hashin [14] and Yeh and Kim [15] were widely employed and
demonstrated to be an effective failure model [16–19].
Davies and Zhang [20] dealt with carbon fiber laminated composites
impacted by a single mass. Their investigation carefully estimated the extent
of internal damage, and also accurately simulated the global response and
impact force. Meanwhile, Belingardi et al. [21] simulated the fragmentation
of composite plates under impact and the post failure behavior by detaching
the failed elements. Finally, [20–22] used DYNA3D explicit finite element
code, with stress-based failure criteria involved, to simulate failure process
by setting the stiffness of damaged elements to zero.
Solid elements cause more accurate stresses across plate thickness than do
shell elements, thus benefiting delamination judgments. Furthermore, doubt
exists about entirely dissolving the damaged elements. Stress-based failure
criteria are suitable for checking first-ply failures, but if the damaged elements
continue to exhibit residual stiffness, stress-based failure criteria become
inadequate for further checking owing to the stress disorder. However,
seldom-used strain-based failure criteria, with the continuous character of
strain, are suitable for the strategy of progressive stiffness degradation.
Dynamic analyses are generally more computationally expensive than
static ones. For low velocity impacts, it may be possible to obtain key
dynamic information from static analyses. Provided we get one static crush
result with sufficient accuracy, then several dynamic results with different
impact parameters (impactor mass and initial impact velocity) can also be
obtained.

IMPACT EXPERIMENTS

Flat plates were stacked using unidirectional carbon-epoxy prepregs. The

carbon fiber was Toho ETA 12000, and the matrix was ACD 8810 epoxy.
Two stacking sequences were employed, [90/0]4s and [45/45]4s, both
involving a total of 16 plies, termed the cross ply and angle ply, respectively.
A vacuum bagging, with sealant tape around its perimeter, covered the
prepreg layer-up lying on the steel plate. The air in the bagging was drawn
out by a vacuum pump, and the curing process was then executed in the
autoclave, under 5 atm of pressure and with the temperature controlled at
81.5 C for 30 min, followed by 131.1 C for 90 min.
The cured plates were cut into specimens with dimensions of 16 cm7 cm,
and with an average thickness of 0.228 cm. The fixture apparatus was
designed to provide simple support on the two shorter edges with the two
longer edges being free.
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1061

Table 1. Material properties and laminate strength.

Manufacturer Present
Symbol Value Value Properties/Strength
11 11
E11 1.174  10 1.202  10 Young’s modulus in the fiber direction (Pa)
E22 7.870  109 8.724  109 Young’s modulus in the matrix direction (Pa)
XT 2.037  109 2.060  109 Tension strength in the fiber direction (Pa)
YT 6.116  107 4.150  107 Tension strength in the matrix direction (Pa)
G12 4.556  109 Not tested In-plane shear modulus (Pa)

1.56  103 1.56  103 Density (kg/m3)

Table 2. Impact parameter configurations.

Impactor

Initial Mass
Target Stacking Arrangement Velocity (m/s) (kg)

Cross-ply [90/0]4s or angle-ply [45/45]4s 1.4 or 13.43 3.2 or 12.23

Material tests were conducted first, using the 810 test machine of MTS
Systems Corporation. Testing of the unidirectional laminated specimens
revealed that the stiffness E11 , E22 and extension strength XT , YT matched
the data provided by the manufacturer of the prepreg materials. Table 1 lists
the laminate properties.
Drop tests were then conducted in the GRC-8250 Dynatup impact testing
machine of the General Research Corporation. Adjusting the free drop
height obtained two initial impact velocities (1.4 m/s and 3.43 m/s). The
impactor mass was 3.2 kg or 12.23 kg. Table 2 lists the impact parameters,
and reveals a total of eight combinations.
A hemispherical steel impactor (7.5 mm in radius) was used. Figure 1
illustrates the arrangement of data acquisition. Impact force was measured
by a force transducer (model no. 200B5) made by PCB Piezotronics Inc.,
and four channels of strain were recorded using strain gages, bridge boxes
and signal conditioners made by Kyowa Electronic Instruments Company.
The strain gages were attached to the locations of specimens as displayed in
Figure 2, and the data were then collected using a data acquisition card
(model no. PCI-MIO-16E-1) made by National Instruments, controlled by
LabView V5.01 software and with a maximum sampling rate of 1.25 MHz.
Figures 3–10 display eight results of different impact conditions. The
force–time and strain–time plots in Figures 3 and 4 display that the force
and strain curves are sinusoid-like, small perturbations of the force curves
being the cause of stress waves. Comparing Figures 3 and 4 reveals that,
under identical impact conditions, the cross-ply plate remains stiffer than
1062 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 1. Arrangement of data acquisition.

Figure 2. Location of strain gages.

the angle-ply plate: larger in force peak and smaller in deformation and
impact duration. Comparing Figures 4 and 6 reveals that a heavier impactor
increases force peak and duration, and fractures increase when the force
drops slightly near the peak. Observation reveals minor cracks around the
plate center with a heavier impactor; no damage is detectable with the naked
eye when the impactor is the lighter one.
A higher impact velocity induced severe damage. Figures 7 and 9 show that
several strain curves rise to the limits allowed for on the data acquisition card
because of broken strain gages. The impact force also shook severely at the
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1063

Figure 3. Impact results: angle-ply, 1.4 m/s, 3.2 kg.

breaking time of the gages. Specimens in the cross-ply cases (Figures 8 and 10)
were cut into two pieces, but the angle-ply cases (Figures 7 and 9) only
exhibited a few small cracks near the impact point, due to their lower bending
stiffness and endurance of greater deformation. After eliminating the effects
of stress wave and noise, the impact force peaks are about 1250 N for the
cross-ply and 800 N for the angle-ply plates. Since the impact duration is
about 7 to 16 times the first-mode nature periods of the plates computed later,
the behavior in these impact cases was suspected to be related to static
crushing of the plates. Static crush tests were then conducted.

STATIC CRUSH EXPERIMENTS

The specimen was held using the same fixture apparatus as in the impact
tests, placed on the lower crosshead of an MTS 810 testing machine. The
1064 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 4. Impact results: cross-ply, 1.4 m/s, 3.2 kg.

impactor was 7.5 mm in radius, just as in the previous tests, but differed in
its end design in that it fitted to the upper crosshead, which contacted the
center of the plate. The reaction force from forcing the impactor to move
downwards was recorded, and successive and fragmental cracking sounds
were heard during the crushing.
Eventually, the specimen was broken, making an enormous cracking
sound. According to Figure 11, the force–displacement diagram (F–S curve)
reveals that the force drops significantly at the point of ultimate failure. This
observation revealed that the mode of ultimate failure was identical with
that of the case of severe failure in impact tests. The area under the F–S
curve represents the energy absorbed by the plate, and the next key task is to
simulate the F–S curves.
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1065

Figure 5. Impact results: angle-ply, 1.4 m/s, 12.23 kg.

SIMULATION OF STATIC F–S CURVES

ABAQUS, an FEM software designed by Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen

Inc., is used to perform numerical simulation. The plate model is formed
using the C3D20R solid elements (20-node quadratic brick with reduced
integration). Meanwhile, the meshes become increasingly fine from the
periphery to the center because of the consideration of the contact between
the plate and impactor (Figure 12). Multi-point constraints must be
provided for the transition zone of the mesh refinement. A total of 1664
elements exist, and the thickness direction contains four elements. To
simulate the 16-layer plate, four material layers are stacked up into one solid
element. The material properties are set to be consistent with Table 1 and
the boundary conditions are as in the tests herein. Finally, the steel impactor
is assumed to be a rigid body.
1066 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 6. Impact results: cross-ply, 1.4 m/s, 12.23 kg.

This framework allows easy simulation of static crush without con-

sidering damage. In fact, progressive failures appear even before the
plate has been thoroughly crushed. Suitable failure criteria should be
chosen for damage simulation. Hashing failure criteria and Yeh delamina-
tion failure criteria were selected herein for judging whether failure occurs
at a material point (integration point). The criteria for Hashing failure
are:
Tensile fiber mode 11 > 0

2
2
2
11 12 13
þ þ ¼1 ð1Þ
XT S12 S13

Compressive fiber mode 11 < 0

j11 j ¼ XC ð2Þ
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1067

Figure 7. Impact results: angle-ply, 3.43 m/s, 3.2 kg.

Tensile matrix mode 22 þ 33 > 0



2
2
22 þ 33 2 1  2  12 13
þ 2
23  22 33 þ þ ¼1 ð3Þ
YT S23 S12 S13

Compressive matrix mode 22 þ 33 < 0


"
 #
 22 þ  33 2  22 þ  33 YC 2
þ 1
2S12 YC 2S12
ð4Þ

2
2
1 12 13
þ 2 ð 223   22  33 Þ þ þ ¼1
S 23 S12 S13
1068 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 8. Impact results: cross-ply, 3.43 m/s, 3.2 kg.

where XT , XC , YT , and YC denote, respectively, the tension and

compression strength along and perpendicular to the fiber direction, while
Sij represents the shear strength in the ij-plane.
The Yeh delamination failure criteria are:
Tensile delamination mode 33 > 0

2
2
2
33 13 23
þ þ ¼1 ð5Þ
ZT S13 S23

Shear delamination mode 33 > 0

Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1069

Figure 9. Impact results: angle-ply, 3.43 m/s, 12.23 kg.

2
2
13 23
þ ¼1 ð6Þ
S13 S23

where ZT is the tension strength in the thickness direction of the laminate.

The former criteria (1)–(4) provide the judgments on in-plane failure
modes referred to as fiber and matrix failures, while the latter criteria (5),(6)
provide the judgments on out-of-plane failure mode referred to as
delamination. The fiber, matrix, and delamination failures are termed
the 1-, 2-, and 3-direction failures, respectively. Solid elements but not
layered shell elements are employed herein to obtain more precise stresses in
the thickness (3-) direction for estimating delamination failure.
The stiffness degradation method is used to describe the failure process.
When the criteria of this method detect failure at a local material point, the
relative stresses and stiffness coefficients are reduced. For example, upon
1070 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 10. Impact results: cross-ply, 3.43 m/s, 12.23 kg.

the occurrence of fiber failure, degrade 1-direction properties and stresses

(E11 , G12 , G13 , 12 , 21 , 13 , 31 , 11 , 12 , and 13 ).
This study suggests that the stresses and stiffness coefficients are not
decreased too rapidly upon reaching the failure thresholds. These properties
and stresses should be decreased further with increased plate deformation.
However, after the stiffness coefficients are first degraded at a local point,
the stresses could become chaotic and unable to rise sufficiently to cause
further failures at the next procedure increment. Strains are more
continuous and smoother than stresses and would make a more suitable
basis for judging failure. Consequently, this study proposes that strain
variables could replace the stress variables in the Hashing failure criteria and
Ye delamination failure criteria. The sizes of the strains increase with the
deformation, creating the possibility for further failure.
Substitution using just 1-dimension relations (7) can obtain the strain-
based criteria (8)–(13).
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1071

Figure 11. Experimental F–S curves for cross-ply and angle-ply plates.

Figure 12. The FEM model for static crush simulation.

11 ¼ E11 "11 22 ¼ E22 "22 33 ¼ E33 "33 12 ¼ G12 12 13 ¼ G13 13
23 ¼ G23 23
XT ¼ E11 XT" XC ¼ E11 XC" YT ¼ E22 YT" YC ¼ E22 YC" ZT ¼ E33 ZT"
" " "
S12 ¼ G12 S12 S13 ¼ G13 S13 S23 ¼ G23 S23 ð7Þ
where XT" , XC" , YT" , and YC" represent, respectively, the tension and
compression strain strengths along and perpendicular to the fiber direction,
1072 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

ZT" denotes the tension strain strength in the laminate thickness direction,
and Sij" represents the shear strain strengths in the ij-plane.
The modified Hashing failure criteria are as follows.
Tensile fiber mode "11 > 0

2
2
2
"11 "12 "13
þ " þ " ¼ f1 ð8Þ
XT" S12 S13

Compressive fiber mode "11 < 0

j"11 j
¼ f1 ð9Þ
XC"

Tensile matrix mode "22 þ "33 > 0

 !

2
2
"22 þ "33 2 1 2 E22 E33 "12 "13
þ "2
"23  "22 "33 þ þ " ¼ f2 ð10Þ
YT" S23 G 2
23 S "
12 S 13

Compressive matrix mode "22 þ "33 < 0

2
"
2 #
E22 "22 þ E33 "33 "22 þ "33 E22 YC"
" þ 1
2G12
S12 YC" "
2G12
S12
ð11Þ


2
2
1 2 E22 E33 "12 "13
þ "2 "23  "22 "33 þ " þ " ¼ f2
S23 G23 S12 S13

Meanwhile, the modified Yeh delamination failure criteria are:

Tensile delamination mode "33 > 0

2
2
2
"33 "13 "23
þ " þ " ¼ f3 ð12Þ
ZT" S13 S23

Shear delamination mode "33 < 0

2
2
"13 "23
" þ " ¼ f3 ð13Þ
S13 S23

The failure factors ( f1 , f2 and f3 ) represent the levels of failure (i.e. the levels
of deformation). To describe progressive failures, we propose setting the
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1073

Figure 13. Suggested modification factor.

relation between failure factors and modification factors (MFi ) as in (14), as

shown in Figure 13.

1
MFi ¼ , i ¼ 1, 2, 3 when fi  1 ð14Þ
fi

The above relation is reciprocal. For example, when a failure factor equals
2.0, the relative stiffness coefficients and stresses can be downgraded to
50%. According to the trials conducted herein, (14) is a suitable setting for
this point contact problem.
The strategy described above is expressed as a user-defined material
subroutine, called UMAT in ABAQUS, using Fortran codes. Adding this
failure mechanics to the previous simulation of static crush obtains
satisfactory results. Figure 14 displays the simulations with and without
the consideration of damage, and compares them to the experimental data.
Notably, the maximum forces in both cases are almost equal to that of
the more severely damaged cases in the dynamic impact tests (1250 N for
cross-ply and 800 N for angle-ply plates).

DYNAMIC SIMULATION BY QUASI-STATIC METHOD

The natural frequencies and mode shapes are obtained via the frequency
extraction procedure in ABAQUS. The lowest natural frequency of angle-
ply plates is 199.29 Hz, equal to the period of 0.00501 s. Meanwhile, the tests
herein found the impact duration to range from 0.018 to 0.082 s, or around
1074 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 14. F–S curve simulation. (a) cross-ply; (b) angle-ply.

3.6 to 16.4 times that of the lowest natural period. Cross-ply plates behave
so, as shown in Table 3. A quasi-static process is believed to be able to
perform this dynamic simulation.
Less energy is lost on vibration in a low-velocity impact than in a high-
velocity impact. Ignoring energy loss from friction, then taking the impactor
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1075

Table 3. Comparison of impact durations and natural periods.

Mode-1 Natural Period, s (II) Impact Duration, s (II) (II)/(I)

Cross-ply 0.00278 0.025–0.062 9.0–22.3

Angle-ply 0.00501 0.018–0.082 3.6–16.4

as a control volume obtains Equation (15), from the perspective on energy

conservation.
Z
1 2

m v i  v 2 ðtÞ ¼ FdS ð15Þ

2

The velocity array was calculated from (15). The time array can then be
computed based on the velocity and displacement arrays by (16).

S=v ¼
t ð16Þ

The complete dynamic histories of time, velocity, displacement and force

have now been obtained. It is worth mentioning that an F–S curve must
be obtained first, through experiment or numerical simulation. Obtaining an
F–S curve in which damage is considered is preferable, because it helps in
simulating dynamic damage cases.
Within the above procedures, determination of the unloading path in
F–S curves is necessary. After the impactor velocity decreases from its
initial condition to zero, it will rebound by the plate stiffness, if damage
occurs, then the residual stiffness will decline during the rebound. Miki et al.
[23] recommended that the unloading path should return to the origin of the
path, as illustrated in Figure 15. The circled points indicate some integral
terminals of different impact cases given an impact velocity of zero. The area
under the F–S curve before the terminal is equal to the initial kinetic energy
of the impactor. i.e.,
Z St
1 2
mv ¼ FdS ð17Þ
2 i 0

After reaching the terminal point, the impactor begins to rebound and the
velocity becomes negative, after which the integral path of FdS in (15)
follows a straight line to the origin of the F–S plot.
Figures 16–23 display the results of the above strategy. The diamond lines
denote simulated velocity, while the circled lines represent simulated force.
1076 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 15. Integration path of Equation (14).

Figure 16. Quasi-static simulation: angle-ply, 1.4 m/s, 3.2 kg.

Although the simulated forces are smooth and exhibit no dynamic

vibrations, the maximum values closely approximate the tests herein.

CONCLUSIONS

To describe the progressive failure process of a plate subjected to

concentrated contact load, we recommend setting the modification factors
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1077

Figure 17. Quasi-static simulation: cross-ply, 1.4 m/s, 3.2 kg.

Figure 18. Quasi-static simulation: angle-ply, 1.4 m/s, 12.23 kg.

in the stiffness degradation method at the reciprocal of the failure

factors. Transforming the stress-based criteria into strain-based criteria is
feasible, and this allows the assessment of extremely large deformations.
The strain-based criteria help to simulate the process from first-ply to
ultimate failure.
1078 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 19. Quasi-static simulation: cross-ply, 1.4 m/s, 12.23 kg.

Figure 20. Quasi-static simulation: angle-ply, 3.43 m/s, 3.2 kg.

Under a low-velocity impact, the impact failure modes are identical to

those for conditions of static crush. The area under the damaged static
F–S curve represents the elastic energy stored in the plate. If impact energy
is not lost to friction and vibration, the integration of F to S reveals the
energy change of the impactor. The novel strategy easily predicts the
maximum impact force, but it is invariably difficult to find a precise solution
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1079

Figure 21. Quasi-static simulation: cross-ply, 3.43 m/s, 3.2 kg.

Figure 22. Quasi-static simulation: angle-ply, 3.43 m/s, 12.23 kg.

of the dynamic problem that considers damage. The novel scheme eliminates
the need for dynamic analysis and saves considerable computational
resources. The scheme thus obtains the most critical impact properties,
despite not including the effects of stress waves and vibrations.
1080 Y.-J. LEE AND C.-H. HUANG

Figure 23. Quasi-static simulation: cross-ply, 3.43 m/s, 12.23 kg.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the
Republic of China for financially supporting this research under Contract
No. NSC 88-2623-D-002-011.

REFERENCES

1. Sun, C.T. and Whitney, J.M. (1976). Dynamic Response of Laminated Composite Plates
Under Initial Stress, AIAA Journal, 14(2): 268–270.
2. Sankar, B.V. and Sun, C.T. (1985). Low-Velocity Impact Response of Laminated Beams
Subjected to Initial Stress, AIAA Journal, 23(12): 1962–1969.
3. Chen, J.K. and Sun, C.T. (1985). Dynamic Large Deflection Response of Composite
Laminates Subjected to Impact, Composite Structures, 4: 59–73.
4. Ramkumar, R.L. and Chen, P.C. (1983). Low-Velocity Impact Response of Laminated
Plates, AIAA Journal, 21(10): 1448–1452.
5. Vaziri, R., Quan, X. and Olson, M.D. (1996). Impact Analysis of Laminated Composite
Plates and Shells by Super Finite Elements, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
18(7): 765–782.
6. Gaprino, G., Crivelli, I. and Dillio, A. (1984). Composite Materials Response Under
Low-Velocity Impact, Composite Structures, 2: 261–271.
7. Cantwell, W.J. and Morton, J. (1985). Detection of Impact Damage in CFRP Laminates,
Composite Structures, 3: 241–257.
8. Jones, R., Baker, A.A. and Callinan, R.J. (1984). Residual Strength of Impact-Damaged
Composites, Composite Structures (Technical note), 2: 371–372.
9. Joshi, S.P. and Sun, C.T. (1985). Impact Induced Fracture in a Laminated Composites,
Journal of Composite Materials, 19: 51–66.
Ultimate Strength and Failure Process of Composite Laminated Plates 1081

10. Kelkar, A.D. (1985). Analyses of Quasi-Isotropic Composite Plates Under Quasi-Static
Point Loads Simulating Low-Velocity Impact Phenomena. Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue
University.
11. Sun, C.T. and Liou, W.J. (1989). Investigation of Laminated Composite Plates Under
Impact Dynamic Loading Using a Three-Dimensional Hybrid Stress Finite Element
Method, Computers and Structures, 33(3): 879–884.
12. Chang, F.K. and Kutlu, Z. (1989). Strength and Responses of Cylindrical Composite Shells
Subjected to Out-of-Plane Loadings, Journal of Composite Materials, 23: 11–21.
13. Reddy, Y.S. and Reddy, J.N. (1993). Three-Dimensional Finite Element Progressive
Failure Analysis of Composite Laminates Under Axial Extension, Journal of Composite
Technology and Research, 15(2): 73–87.
14. Hashin, Z. (1980). Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 47: 329–334.
15. Yeh, H.Y. and Kim, C.H. (1994). The Yeh–Stratton Criterion for Composite Materials,
Journal of Composite Materials, 28: 926–939.
16. Chang, F.K. and Chang, K.Y. (1987). A Progressive Damage Model for Laminated
Composites Containing Stress Concentrations, Journal of Composite Materials, 21:
834–855.
17. Ochoa, O.O. and Engblom, J.J. (1987). Analysis of Progressive Failure in Composites,
Composites Science and Technology, 28: 87–102.
18. Prusty, B.G., Ray, C. and Satsangi, S.K. (2001). First Ply Failure Analysis of Stiffened
Panels – a Finite Element Approach, Composite Structures, 51: 73–81.
19. Palazotto, A.N., Herup, E.J. and Gummadi, L.N.B. (2001). Finite Element Analysis of
Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Sandwich Plates, Composite Structures, 49: 209–227.
20. Davies, G.A.O. and Zhang, X. (1995). Impact Damage Prediction in Carbon Composite
Structures, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 16(1): 149–170.
21. Belingardi, G., Gugliotta, A. and Vadori, R. (1998). Numerical Simulation of
Fragmentation of Composite Material Plates Due to Impact, International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 21(5): 335–347.
22. Iannucci, L., Dechaene, R., Willows, M. and Degrieck, J. (2001). A Failure Model for the
Analysis of Thin Woven Glass Composite Structures Under Impact Loadings, Computers
and Structures, 79: 785–799.
23. Miki, M., Fukuda, T., Motogi, S. and Houjiyou, M. (1997). Composite Materials. Kyoritsu
Publishing Co., Inc.