This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 10:12

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Projectile impact on sandwich panels

R Velmurugan , M Ganesh Babu & N K Gupta
a
Composites Technology Center, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036,
India
b
Composites Technology Center, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036,
India
c
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India
Published online: 08 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: R Velmurugan , M Ganesh Babu & N K Gupta (2006) Projectile impact on sandwich panels,
International Journal of Crashworthiness, 11:2, 153-164, DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Projectile impact on sandwich panels
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385
a a b
R Velmurugan , M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
a
Composites Technology Center, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
b
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India

Abstract: In this paper, the response of sandwich panels (Glass/Epoxy/PU Foam) to projectile impact
in the velocity range of 30–100 m/s was studied. Three sets of sandwich plates (WRM/Epoxy/Foam,
CSM/Epoxy/Foam, and WRM/CSM/Epoxy/Foam) were used. A piston-type gas gun setup was
used to accelerate a cylindro-conical mild steel projectile of mass 558.6 g. From the experimental
results, the ballistic limit, residual velocity, and the energy absorption were found. The ballistic limit
decreased as the trend moved from WRM to CSM. Debonding was observed in pure WRM/Foam
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

laminates, whereas this was not the case for the other two sets of panels. Plugging occurred when
the projectile struck CSM/Foam sandwich panels, which was not observed in the other two sets.
A mathematical model was proposed to predict the ballistic limit, residual velocity, and the energy
absorption based on the energy-balance principle. The experimental results were compared with the
proposed model, which showed good agreement.

Key words: Ballistic limit, chopped strand mat, woven roving mat, polyurethane foam, sandwich panels,
energy absorption and mathematical modeling.

NOTATION PU Polyurethane
Rp Radius of the projectile
CSM Chopped strand mat V Initial velocity of the projectile
E Young’s modulus Vr Residual velocity of the projectile
El Energy lost by the projectile during impact Vo Ballistic limit
Etot Total energy absorbed during impact WRM Woven roving mat
Edef Energy associated with global plate deflection wo Central plate deflection
Edeb Debonding energy σr Radial stress
Efric Frictional energy ν Poisson’s ratio
Emem Energy absorbed due to membrane stretching σy Yield strength of the composite
Ed Energy density of the composite specimen εr Radial strain
Ff Frictional force
GIfoam Mode I fracture toughness of Glass/Epoxy and
Foam
GIIfoam Mode II fracture toughness of Glass/Epoxy and INTRODUCTION
Foam
GII Mode II fracture toughness of Glass/Epoxy
An extensive use of sandwich elements is increasingly tak-
h Thickness of the sandwich panel ing place in transport, aerospace, marine, and industrial
ht Thickness of the top face sheet applications due to their light weight and strength, which
hb Thickness of the bottom face sheet makes them economical. Sandwich panels are capable of
Lp Length of the projectile offering substantial shielding and good energy absorption
M Mass of the projectile characteristics. The behavior of sandwich structures sub-
jected to an impact loading has been the focus of many
studies, since the impact resistance is one of the major
Corresponding Author:
characteristics of any sandwich panel [1, 2].
R Velmurugan The sandwich structure may undergo projectile impact,
Composites Technology Center for instance, impact by a bird or runway debris, result-
Indian Institute of Technology Madras ing in damage to the structure in the form of face sheet
Chennai 600036, India indentation, core crushing, or perforation. Ballistic limit
Tel: +91-44-22574017
Email: rvel@iitm.ac.in
is a commonly used term to describe a plate’s impact by
projectiles. Several experimental studies have been carried

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd 0385 153 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2 pp. 153–164
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
out to characterize the impact damage initiation in sand-
wich panels in the recent past, suggesting that the mode of
failure depends on boundary conditions, projectile nose,
and the material properties of both face sheet and the core
[3, 4]. Research has been carried out to predict the ballis-
tic limit of a sandwich panel, but the problem with this
type of structure is the complicated interaction of the face
sheet and core, which makes the modeling difficult. Gold-
smith et al. [5] experimentally studied the perforation of
different types of honeycomb cores, metallic/plastic cov-
ers, and sandwich combinations in the wide range of the
striking velocities. The concept of ballistic limit in relation
to composites and sandwiches was discussed and the be-
havior of post-perforation speeds with initial velocities was
examined.
A mathematical model for the ballistic impact and pene-
tration in sandwich panels for intermediate and high-range
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
incident velocity impact by projectiles has been developed
by Skvortsov et al. [6], which has taken into consideration
elastic and kinematic response of a panel during impact.
During impact, matrix cracking, core crushing, debond-
ing, delamination, and fiber failure occurs and energy is
absorbed in all these processes.
Reddy et al. [7] conventionally designated the absorp-
tion (penetration) energy to be divided into two parts:
Eabs = Edam + Epan . Here, Edam , the damage energy, is as-
sociated with the sandwich damage/fracture and the other
part, Epan , the elastic response, is related to the global defor-
mation and kinematics of the panel. An empirical formula
that predicts the perforation energies of FRP laminates
and sandwich panels consisting of laminate skins and foam
cores loaded quasi-statically and dynamically at both low
and high velocities was developed. Results of the experi-
ments were in good agreement with the model estimations
for the ballistic limits and residual velocities.
Nettles and Lance [8] modeled the low-velocity impact
response of a honeycomb sandwich structure with car-
bon fiber/epoxy facings using a simple spring-mass model.
They showed that agreement between predictions and ex-
perimental data was very good at energy level that was
required to initiate significant damage within the struc-
ture.
Abrate [9] described an energy-balance model in which
the incident energy of the projectile was equated to the
energy stored in bending, shear, and contact effects. The
model yielded the maximum force generated during the
impact event, taking into account both material and geo-
metrical parameters. No experimental data was presented
for evaluation of the accuracy of the model. The author ap-
plied an energy-balance model to predict the low-velocity
impact response of a wide range of foam-based sandwich
beams and showed that this approach could yield an ac-
curate prediction of the maximum impact force at low-
impact energies. He also showed that an energy-balance
model could be used to investigate the effect of varying key
material properties such as the shear modulus of the core
on the impact response of a sandwich structure.
IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
Much work has been focused on low-velocity impact
on sandwich panels by projectiles. Projectile impact on
sandwich structures in the velocity range of 30–100 m/s
has not been addressed. The aim of the present work is to
study the response of sandwich structures with different
face sheets to projectile impact in the velocity range of
30–60 m/s and to apply a simple energy-balance model
to predict the impact response of a sandwich structure,
including the ballistic limit.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Specimen preparation
Three sets (WRM/Epoxy, CSM/Epoxy, and WRM/
CSM/Epoxy) of composite panels consisting of two plies
were prepared by hand lay-up technique. Proper care was
taken during manufacturing to ensure uniform thickness. A
weight fraction of 50% (approximately 32% volume frac-
tion) was maintained for all the laminates. The laminates
were cured at room temperature and left in the mold for 2
days for complete curing. Sandwich panels were prepared
by applying the foam (which was prepared by mixing the
base resin and the foaming agent in a 1:1 ratio) in between
the two plates, the surface of which was already prepared.
Spacers of required thickness were placed on all the four
sides of the mold. The mold was closed and placed in a
compression molding machine. Pressure of 10 bar was ap-
plied on the mold to ensure even thickness. The thickness
of the core material was kept as minimum as possible. It
eventually acted as a bonding agent between the two face
sheets. The laminated sandwich plates were cured at room
temperature and left in the mold for 3 days for complete
curing. The properties of the sandwich panels are given in
Table 1.
The panels were cut to a size of 290 mm × 290 mm
by a band saw cutter and the edges were trimmed. Sample
specimens for static tests were cut from the same laminate
so as to avoid any variation in mechanical properties.
Impact test
Impact tests at varying velocities were performed on the
sandwich panels using a piston-type gas gun setup. The
gun consisted of a charging chamber, which had an inlet
for charging, an outlet for releasing at one end, resting on
two steel rails, and a provision to fit a 3.5 m-long barrel at its
other end. A 2.5-m nozzle made of FRP was attached to the
other end of the barrel into which the projectile was placed.
A stopper was attached to the FRP nozzle to prevent the
projectile from getting into the steel barrel. A mild steel
projectile of mass 558.6 g was used in the experiment. The
details of the projectile are given in the Table 2.
The specimen, which was prepared earlier, was
mounted on a fixture and clamped at the two opposite
sides. The fixture, along with the target, was placed per-
pendicular to the direction of travel of the projectile,
at a distance fairly close to the end of the nozzle. The
154 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Table 1 Properties of different composite laminates
Material properties
Young’s modulus, E (GPa)
Average panel thickness, h (mm)
Poisson’s ratio, ν
Interlaminar shear strength (MPa)
Tensile strength, σy (MPa)
Fracture toughness, GIIc (kJ/m3 )
Density (g/cc)
Table 2 Projectile characteristics
Projectile characteristics
Length of the projectile, Lp 100 mm
Shank length, Ls 56 mm
Nose length, Ln 44 mm
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
Projectile radius, Rp 19.6 mm
Mass, M 556.8 g
Cone angle 60◦
projectile was placed inside the nozzle and was accelerated
by opening the release valve electrically, after charging the
charging chamber of the gas gun setup with compressed air
up to the required pressure. There was a linear variation
between the projectile velocity and the charging pressure.
Initial velocity of the projectile was determined using a
laser–photodiode setup consisting of a pair of lasers and
photodiodes. The two lasers were mounted on a fixture
and were separated by a small known distance. The laser
fixture was placed between the nozzle and the target. When
the projectile crossed the first laser beam, it triggered the
digital counter and the counter was stopped when the pro-
jectile blocked the second. From the counter reading and
from the distance between the two laser beams, the initial
velocity of the projectile was calculated.
A simple technique was developed in the present inves-
tigation for the measurement of residual velocity. Because
the path of the projectile was unpredictable after penetra-
tion, the measuring device must be able to cover a certain
area and the debris should not falsely trigger it. As a result,
two papers of 500 mm × 500 mm were used. A continuous
strip of conducting aluminum foil was pasted on the paper
in a zigzag fashion. The gap between the strips could be
varied depending on the size of the projectile. The two
ends of the foil were connected to a battery source, which
in turn was connected to an electronic counter to form a
closed circuit. These papers were placed behind the target
and separated by a known distance. Once the projectile
penetrated the target, it pierced the paper and opened the
circuit thereby triggering the counter. During medium-
velocity impact, the possibility of the formation of debris
cloud was less and hence this setup could produce a reliable
result. From the counter, the time taken by the projectile to
pierce the papers was noted. Sandbags were placed behind
the fixture to capture the projectile. It should be noted that


C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385
Projectile impact on sandwich panels
WRM WRM/CSM CSM
36.2 34.6 30
4.1 4.15 4.2
0.3 0.28 0.28
14.44 14.1 13.2
145 127 106
2.8 2.25 1.98
1.9 1.9 1.9
the velocity obtained from the counter could be the exact
residual velocity, provided the trajectory of the projectile
was normal to the paper after penetrating the target. How-
ever, the projectile tends to deviate from its normal path
and can make a maximum angle of θ max with the normal.
Hence, an error term has to be included to account for the
deviation in the path of the projectile after penetration.
The initial, final velocities and the corresponding kinetic
energies of the projectile were calculated from the counter
value and thus the energy absorption. After performing
each impact test, the surface and internal damages in the
target were thoroughly analyzed. The delamination area
was also visualized. This was repeated for all the speci-
mens. The ballistic limit was determined experimentally
by conducting the impact tests at different initial veloci-
ties. The velocity at which the projectile got stuck into the
target was taken to be the ballistic limit.
Quasi-static test
Quasi-static tests were performed on the samples that were
cut from the panels. Tensile, flexural, and interlaminar
shear strengths were determined using a universal testing
machine (UTM). Tensile test was carried out as per ASTM
D 3039 standard and Flexural test according to ASTM
D 790. Izod impact test was performed on the sample
using Izod impact testing machine as per ASTM D 256.
Standard ASTM D 2344 was adopted to perform short
beam test to find out the shear strength using INSTRON
UTM. Each test was conducted on five samples and their
average value was taken for analysis.
Analytical modeling
An analytical model is proposed to find out the ballistic
limit of the sandwich panel. The model is based on the
energy absorption principle. In developing the model, the
following assumptions are made.
1. The thickness of the foam is very minimal as if acting
as a bonding agent between the two face sheets, which
implies that the sandwich, as such, can be considered as
a single plate.
2. The failure mechanism of composites is uniform
throughout its thickness.
155 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta

The kinetic energy (KE) of a moving projectile of mass contribute to the energy absorbed due to elastic response
M, with a velocity Vi , is given by of the target [7].
KE = 12 MVi2 [1] E elastic = E def + E mem [9]
After striking the target, the residual velocity of the where ‘Edef ’ is the energy due to global defection of the
projectile becomes ‘Vr ’. sandwich panel and ‘Emem ’ is the energy due to membrane
Final KE = 12 MVr2 [2] stretching.
In the present case, the core thickness is very small,
The energy lost ‘El ’ during impact is given by acting as a bonding agent between the face sheets and so
the panel is considered as a single plate. The plate under-
E l = 12 M(Vi2 − Vr2 ) [3]
goes deflection during projectile impact, which is global in
At ballistic limit, the residual velocity is almost zero and nature. Gupta et al. [10] have shown that the radial stretch-
hence the energy lost, which is equal to the total energy ing of the plate absorbs a portion of the projectile energy
absorbed ‘Etot ’ by the target, will be equal to the initial during medium-velocity impact for aluminum targets. At
kinetic energy of the projectile, moderately low speeds, the target undergoes a consider-
able amount of deflection before perforation and, hence,
E l = 12 MVo2 = E tot [4] the elastic deformation is considered in our analysis.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

where Vo is the limiting velocity or ballistic limit, which Strain energy can be written as
is the velocity at which the projectile gets stuck into the   
target and experimentally it can be taken as the average of W= σr dεr + σθ dεθ dv [10]
three velocities just above ballistic limit and three below v

the ballistic limit. where σ r , σ θ are the radial and circumferential stresses
The energy absorbed by the sandwich panel can be di- and the corresponding strains are εr and εθ . Here, the
vided into two parts as suggested by Reddy et al. [7], as circumferential strain is assumed to be zero [11] and hence
energy due to elastic response ‘Eelastic ’ and energy due to   
damage ‘Edam ’. The elastic energy is the energy absorbed in W= σr dεr dv [11]
global plate deflection and membrane stretching, whereas v
the energy due to damage is a combination of energy due Applying Mises condition
to debonding, delamination, core crushing, fiber failure,
perforation, and friction. σr2 + σr σθ + σθ2 = (σr + αεr )2 [12]
Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the sandwich
panel at ballistic limit is and ignoring the work-hardening ‘α’, we get

2π h
E tot = E elastic + E dam [5] W= σy εrr dr [13]
(1 − ν + ν 2 )1/2 0
During the medium- or low-velocity impact, the deflec-
tion is not localized, instead it is global since the response where σ y is the initial yield stress, h is the plate thickness
time of the target is high (see [10]). and ν is the Poisson’s ratio.
In the present study, the foam thickness is kept minimal For large deflections, the radial strain can be approxi-
and therefore the energy absorbed in core crushing is very mately written as [11]
small. Hence, this term is ignored. At ballistic limit, this  
1 dw 2
total energy absorbed is equal to the energy lost by the εr = [14]
projectile and hence 2 dr

E l = E tot [6]    
2π h 1 dw 2
W= σy r dr [15]
E tot = 12 MVo2 [7] (1 − ν + ν 2 )1/2 2 dr
Ballistic limit It has been empirically found that permanent deforma-

tion profile of the plate subject to projectile impact is given
2E tot
Vo = [8] by [11]
M
In order to calculate the total energy absorbed during w(r ) = wo e −r [16]
impact, the contribution of individual energies has to be 
evaluated. πh
W= σy wo2 e −2r r dr [17]
(1 − ν + ν 2 )1/2
Energy absorbed by the elastic response of the target
The energy due to deflection and energy due to membrane The lower limit was taken to be zero and the upper limit
stretching are the two most prominent energy terms that as the radius of the plate R. After integration, the energy

IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2 156 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd

absorbed during plate deflection is found to be
e −2R (1 + 2R)
E def = π hσy wo2  [18]
4 (1 − ν + ν 2 )
From the above expression, it is possible to find out the
energy absorbed during global plate deflection.
During the process of impact the panels undergo de-
flection; following this, the bottom face sheet undergoes
membrane stretching, causing dishing in the distal side.
A portion of energy goes into the target for stretching the
bottom face sheet. The energy absorbed during membrane
stretching is given by [5]
πr p σ h b (2r p + 2π h b )
E mem = [19]
4
The total energy absorbed due to elastic response of the
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
target is given as
π hσy wo2 (e −2R (1 + 2R)) πr p σ h b (r p + π h b )
E elastic =  +
4 (1 − ν + ν 2 ) 2 of the bottom face sheet during impact tends to get it sepa-
[20]
Energy associated with damage ‘Edam ’
The energy that was spent in damaging the sandwich panels
was evaluated by summing up the energy terms associated
with damage. These include energy absorbed in delami-
nation, debonding, failure of the yarns, and energy lost in
friction.
Energy absorbed in delamination Rigid projectile impact on
composite panel normally results in delamination between
the layers [12]. In sandwich composites, delamination is
observed on both the top and bottom face sheets. Even
though the incident energy is mostly absorbed by core
crushing, a portion of this energy is spent on delaminating
the layers. In the present case, the core thickness is very
small and so the possibility of core crushing will be ignored
and the energy spent in delamination will be considered.
The energy absorbed during delamination is given by [12]
E del = Adel · GIIc [21]
Here, Adel , the area of the delaminated zone, assumed cir-
cular for ease of calculation, can be written as
Adel = π Rdel
2
[22]
where Rdel is the radius of the delaminated zone, which can
be given in terms of the delamination load and interlaminar
shear strength of the Glass/Epoxy,
Pd
Rdel = [23]
2π h(ILSS)
Davis and Zang [13] used a simple mode II fracture
analysis to describe the critical load for the onset of a sin-
gle circular delamination in an isotropic material. Because
CSM is used in the composite, it is quasi-isotropic and
hence this equation is taken into consideration to calculate


C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385
Projectile impact on sandwich panels
the delamination load:
8π 2 h 3 E · GIIc
Pd2 = [24]
9(1 − ν 2 )
Here E is the Young’s modulus obtained from uniaxial
tension test and ν is the Poisson’s ratio.
Therefore, the energy absorbed during delamination is
given by
2π Eh(GIIc )2
E del = [25]
9(1 − ν 2 )(ILSS)2
where GIIc is the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness
and ILSS is the interlaminar shear strength.
Energy due to debonding When the projectile hits the target,
vibrations are setup, which are dissipated as shock waves
along the surface of the plate. These shock waves can sep-
arate the face sheet from the foam, resulting in debonding
of the face sheet from the foam. Moreover, the stretching
rated from the core. The energy associated with debonding
of the core from the face sheet is calculated by finding out
the bond shear strength of the foam.
The debonding energy is given by
E deb = Adeb (GIfoam + GIIfoam ) [26]
where GIfoam and GIIfoam are the mode I and mode II frac-
ture toughness of Foam and Glass/Epoxy, respectively.
During debonding, initially mode I is responsible for open-
ing the crack between the foam and face sheet followed by
mode II for further debonding.
Energy absorbed in tensile fracture of the fibers During the
impact, the fibers under the point of impact undergo tensile
failure. There is also failure of the yarns perpendicular to
the crack length. This tensile failure of the fibers absorbs a
portion of the incident energy.
If the energy density at the point of tensile fracture of
the composite laminate per unit volume is Ed (which can be
approximately taken to be the area under the stress–strain
curve during tensile test), then the total energy absorbed
in tensile fracture ‘Efrac ’ is given by [12]
E frac = E d · V [27]
V being the volume of the composite strained to its ten-
sile failure. It has been experimentally found that, during
impact, only the fibers under the point of impact undergo
tensile failure. Area of the composite, which has strained
to tensile failure during impact by the projectile, is slightly
greater than the area of the projectile. The volume is treated
to be equal to the volume of the composite with area equal
to the cross-sectional area of the projectile and the thickness
equal to the thickness of the composite,
E frac = E d · π R2 (h t + h b ) [28]
157 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

(a)

(b)

Figure 1 WRM sandwich panel struck by projectile below ballistic limit: (a) top face sheet; (b) bottom face sheet.

Frictional energy At high-velocity impact, the friction be- The damage energy is given by
tween the target and the projectile is very little. But with
low- and medium-velocity impact, a considerable amount 2π Eh(GIIc )2
E dam = + (Adeb GI + GII)
of energy is absorbed in overcoming the friction between 9(1 − ν 2 )(ILSS)2
the target and the projectile. Moreover, when the mass and + (E d · π R2 (h t + h b )) + (Ff · Lp ) [30]
size of the projectile becomes large, the friction between the
projectile and the target dissipates more energy and hence The total energy is thus given by
this cannot be neglected. Energy associated with friction is
given by E tot = E elastic + E dam [31]
and the expression for ballistic limit is
E fric = Ff · Lp [29]


2E tot
where Ff is the frictional force that can be evaluated from Vo = [32]
the static test and Lp is the length of the striker or the M
projectile. The measured frictional force is approximately The energy absorbed at any initial velocity can be deter-
500 N for WRM/CSM/Foam laminate. mined by calculating the residual velocity of the projectile.

IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2 158 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 Projectile impact on sandwich panels
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

(a)

(b)

Figure 2 WRM/Foam sandwich panel struck at velocity above the ballistic limit: (a) top face sheet; (b) bottom face sheet.

The residual velocity can be determined from the ballistic the projectile rebounded causing damage in the form of
limit as debonding and cracks.
Figure 1(a) shows the formation of cracks on the rear
1
2
MVi2 = 12 MVo + 12 MVr2 [33] side of a WRM/Foam sandwich panel, which is struck by
the projectile below the ballistic limit. These cracks are
and, therefore, perpendicular, running along the transverse and longitu-
 dinal directions. The crack length in the longitudinal di-
Vr = Vi2 − Vo2 [34] rection is more than the crack length in the transverse di-
rection due to the boundary condition, i.e., clamped along
the transverse direction. The top surface did not show
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION any cracks in the transverse or longitudinal direction, but
showed cracks in the form of concentric rings around the
Cracks, petals, and plugging point of impact as shown in Figure 1(b). Above the ballistic
All the three sets of sandwich panels were tested with limit, the cracks are not clearly visible and only the failure
a cylindro-conical projectile. Below the ballistic limit, of fibers on both the top and bottom face sheet occurred.

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385 159 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
Figure 3 CSM/Foam sandwich panel struck at velocity above the ballistic limit: (a) top face sheet; (b) bottom face sheet.
This suggests that above the ballistic limit the contact time
is less resulting in local damage and hence less deflection,
which is responsible for the formation of cracks. Figure 2
indicates that petal formation and plugging is absent for a
WRM/Foam laminate.
Formation of petals in a CSM/Foam laminate is shown
in Figure 3. Failure of the fibers has occurred at the
point of impact and at the point where petal rotation
takes place. The petals formed during impact in CSM
laminates are triangular in shape. From the figure, it is
also seen that some portion of the material has been re-
moved due to plugging. The portion of material that is
removed from the specimen does not show any failure
between the plies, but shows separation of the two skin
IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
(a)
(b)
materials from the core. Plugging is not seen in the other
two sets.
The WRM/CSM/Foam panels exhibit the same kind
of failure that is exhibited by the WRM/Foam sandwich
panels shown in Figure 4. These panels do not show petals
and cracks above the ballistic limit, and they follow the same
trend that is seen in WRM laminates. At high velocity, the
damage is localized, which is not the case at low-initial
velocity. Petal formation is hindered due to the presence
of WRM in these sandwich panels.
Debonding and delamination
Debonding has occurred in WRM/Foam sandwich pan-
els. The adhesion between CSM/Foam is more when
160 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
Figure 4 WRM/CSM/Foam sandwich panel struck at velocity above the ballistic limit: (a) top face sheet; (b) bottom face sheet.
compared to WRM/Foam, which can be justified by con-
ducting the bonding strength test. Due to inadequate adhe-
sion between the WRM/Foam, they tend to separate easily
during projectile impact. Figure 5 justifies that when the
thickness of foam is kept very minimum, separation of the
two face sheet occurs very easily, i.e., there is less adhesion
between the face sheets.
Figures 1–5 show that the geometry of the perfora-
tion exactly matches the shape of the projectile irrespec-
tive of the size. But the area of delamination depends on
both the projectile characteristics and the nature of the
target. The delamination area for a WRM/CSM/Foam
sandwich laminate is more when compared with the other
two sets.


C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385
Projectile impact on sandwich panels
(a)
(b)
The extent of delamination is almost equal on both the
face sheets after perforation. In most of the cases observed,
the delaminated zone is more or less circular in shape. In the
case of WRM/Foam and WRM/CSM/Foam sandwich
panels, the delaminated area is very little.
Ballistic limit
The ballistic limits for all the panels are evaluated from
the experiment. For WRM/Foam panel, the ballistic limit
is approximately 37 m/s, whereas this limit is approxi-
mately 34 m/s for CSM/WRM/Foam panel and 29 m/s
for CSM laminates. At low velocities, the perforation of
161 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

Figure 5 WRM/Foam laminate showing complete debonding as the foam thickness reduces.

60 500
450
Energy absorbed (Joules)

50 400
350
Final velocity (m/s)

40 300
250
30 4WF 200
4CWF 4WF
4CF 150 4WCF
100 4CF
20
50
10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Initial velocity (m/s)
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 Figure 7 Energy absorbed by the three different sandwich
Initial velocity (m/s) panels.
Figure 6 Plot of initial versus residual velocities for the three
different sandwich panels. these two are combined, an increase in delamination area is
observed.

the target does not take place but causes debonding and
delamination.
Figure 6 shows the plot between the initial velocity and
the residual velocity for the sandwich panels. From the
figure, it is clear that an increase in initial velocity results
in the increase of residual velocity. It is observed that the
residual velocity remains zero up to a certain value of the
initial velocity and then increases with the initial velocity.
The velocity at which the residual velocity just shoots up
may be treated as the ballistic limit.
The decrease in ballistic limit from 37 m/s to 33 m/s
for a WRM/Foam panel when CSM is introduced in
between WRM is due to insufficient interfacial bonding
between the two different types of plies and poor shear
strength. When pure WRM or pure CSM is used, there
is not much delamination in between the plies, but when
Energy absorption
Figure 7 shows the energy absorption with the change
in initial velocity of the projectile. The incident energy
is absorbed completely by the target before reaching the
ballistic limit. After reaching the ballistic limit, there is a
small increase in energy absorption. But with high-initial
velocity, there is decrease in the energy absorption. At ve-
locities slightly above the ballistic limit, there is enough
time for the target to undergo deflection. But at high ve-
locities, the response time for the target is less and so
the deflection of the target is less in comparison with the
earlier case. The failure mode also varies, resulting in the
decrease in the energy absorption. Furthermore, there is
an increase in residual velocity with increase in the initial
velocity and hence there is reduction in energy absorption
after reaching a certain limit. This is observed in all the

IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2 162 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 Projectile impact on sandwich panels

120 Table 3 Comparison of experimental and theoretical

ballistic limits
Material type Experimental (m/s) Theoretical (m/s)
100

WRM 37 34
WRM/CSM 32 30
80 CSM 29 28

CSM/Foam
Stress

60 WRM/CSM/Foam
Table 5 shows the comparison between the theoretical and
WRM/Foam
experimental values of energy absorption by the targets at
different initial velocities of the projectile. From the table,
40
it is seen that the theoretically absorbed energy is less than
the experimental value due to variation in the failure mode
at high velocities.
20

Mathematical model
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014

0 From the energy-balance principle, a mathematical model

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 0.0018
Strain
Figure 8 Stress–strain curve for the sandwich panels.
laminates. WRM/Foam sandwich panels absorb more en-
ergy when compared to CSM/Foam or WRM/CSM/
Foam panels, because there is good adhesion between
WRM and epoxy and also due to the superior property
of these laminates. An increase in energy absorption is
noticed up to a certain velocity and it decreases from
thereon. The target can absorb only a portion of the energy
due to the impact of the projectile. Figure 8 shows the
stress–strain curve for the three different sandwich panels.
is developed to find the ballistic limit of the laminates
and also the residual velocity. All the energy terms in-
volved during the impact process are considered with the
assumption that the foam acts as a bonding agent between
the face sheets, and equated to the initial kinetic energy
of the projectile to find out the ballistic limit. Table 3
shows the experimental and theoretical results of ballis-
tic limit values. For WRM/Foam panel, the experimen-
tally determined ballistic limit is approximately 37 m/s.
The predicted ballistic limit is found to be approximately
34 m/s. It shows good agreement with the experimental
values. Table 4 compares the experimental and theoreti-
cal residual velocities for different laminates at different
initial velocities of the projectile. The theoretical residual

Table 4 Comparison of experimental and theoretical residual velocities

Residual velocity (m/s)
WRM/Foam WRM/CSM/Foam CSM/Foam
Pressure (psi) Initial velocity (m/s) Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
60 36 0 0 19 20 22 23
80 42 13 22 24 29 28 31
100 48 26 34 29 37 36 39
120 56 38 45 43 47 45 48
140 62 47 51 51 54 56 57

Table 5 Comparison of experimental and theoretical energy absorption

Energy absorbed (J)
WRM/Foam WRM/CSM/Foam CSM/Foam
Initial velocity (m/s) Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
36 380 360 291 249 239 213
42 447 356 306 257 249 223
48 453 319 310 260 241 218
56 469 309 313 258 257 231
62 457 346 310 258 250 228

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385 163 IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
 R Velmurugan, M Ganesh Babu and N K Gupta
velocities compare well with the corresponding experimen-
tally measured velocities.
CONCLUSION
Projectile impact tests on WRM/Foam/Epoxy, WRM/
CSM/Foam/Epoxy, and CSM/Foam/Epoxy sandwich
panels, whose foam thickness is less than a millimeter, were
performed using a mild steel cylindro-conical projectiles.
The ballistic limit and energy absorption is obtained for all
the three sets of panels experimentally. Due to the presence
of thin foam, the energy absorbed by the foam is negligible
and also does not improve the stiffness of the panel. It is
also found that the introduction of CSM does not improve
the ballistic limit of WRM/Epoxy, but has a higher ballis-
tic limit value when compared to CSM/Epoxy laminates.
The ballistic limit is predicted by analytical model and
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 10:12 21 December 2014
the results show good agreement with the experimental
values.
REFERENCES
1. D Zenkert (Ed.), The Handbook of Sandwich Construction,
London, EMAS Publishing, 1997.
2. F J Plantema, Sandwich Construction, New York, John Wiley &
Sons, 1996.
3. A M Roach, N Jones and K E Evans, ‘The penetration energy
of sandwich panel elements under static and dynamic loading.
Part I’, Composite Struct, 1998 42 119–134.
IJCrash 2006 Vol. 11 No. 2
4. A N Palazotto, L N B Gummadi, U K Vaidya and E J Herup,
‘Low velocity impact damage characteristics of Z-fiber
sandwich panels – an experimental study’, Composite
Structures, 1999 43 275–288.
5. W Goldsmith, G-T Wang, K Li and D Crane, ‘Perforation of
cellular sandwich plates’, Int J Impact Eng, 1997 19 (5–6)
361–379.
6. V Skvortsov, J Kepler and E Bozhevolnaya, ‘Energy partition
for ballistic penetration of sandwich panels’, Int J Impact Eng
28 697–716.
7. T Y Reddy, H M Wen, S R Reid and P D Soden, ‘Penetration
and perforation of composite sandwich panels by
hemispherical and conical projectiles’, J Pressure Vessel
Technol, 1998 120 186–194.
8. A T Nettles and D G Lance, ‘Enhancement of impact damage
tolerance of composite laminates’, Composite Eng, 1993 3
383–394.
9. S Abrate, ‘Localized impact on sandwich structures with
laminated facings’, Appl Mech Rev, 1997 50 70–82.
10. N K Gupta, R Ansari and S K Gupta, ‘Normal impact of ogive
nosed projectiles on thin plates’, Int J Impact Eng, 2001 25 (7)
641–660.
11. C A Calder and W Goldsmith, ‘Plastic deformation and
perforation of thin plates resulting from projectile impact’, Int
J Solids Struct, 1971 7 863–881.
12. M S Hoo Fatt, C Lin, D M Revilock Jr, D A Hopkins,
‘Ballistic impact of glare fiber metal laminates’, Composite
Struct, 2003 61 73–88.
13. G A O Davis and X Zang, ‘Impact damage prediction in
carbon composite structures’, Int J Impact Eng, 1995 16 (1)
149–170.
164 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0385

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd