International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Failure criterion for laminated glass under impact loading and its application in
finite element simulation
T. Pyttel a, *, H. Liebertz b, J. Cai c
a
University of Applied Science Giessen-Friedberg, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Str. 13, 61169 Friedberg, Germany
b
Volkswagen AG, 38436 Wolfsburg, Germany
c
ESI GmbH, Mergenthaleralle 15-21, 65760 Eschborn, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A failure criterion for laminated glass in case of impact is presented. The main idea of this criterion is that
Received 29 April 2010 a critical energy threshold must be reached over a finite region before failure can occur. Afterwards crack
Received in revised form initiation and growth is based on a local Rankine (maximum stress) criterion. The criterion was implemented
26 October 2010
in an explicit finite element solver. Different strategies for modeling laminated glass are also discussed.
Accepted 28 October 2010
Available online 10 November 2010
To calibrate the criterion and evaluate its accuracy, a wide range of experiments with plane and curved
specimens of laminated glass were done. For all experiments finite element simulations were performed.
The comparison between measured and simulated results shows that the criterion works very well.
Keywords:
Glass
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Windshield
Finite-element-model
Failure
Non-local criterion

1. Introduction
Impact against safety glass is of interest for example to civil
engineers and car makers. The motivation for the work presented in
this paper results from pedestrian protection in accidents involving
a car. One scenario is that the pedestrian impacts the windshield
with his head. In order to save the life of the pedestrian the
acceleration of the head should not exceed a certain value. In
addition it is important that the head does not touch any part inside
the car (for example the steering wheel).
Today the development process for cars is based on numerical
simulations. For simulations regarding pedestrian protection
explicit finite element solvers are used. The correct calculation of
impactor acceleration and deformation of the glass is still a chal-
lenge. A simulation model must be able to predict the initial failure
of the glass and the crack propagation.
Several experimental and numerical studies have been carried
out in the past to investigate the behaviour of laminated glass
under dynamic loading conditions. One group of researchers dealt
with laminated glass [1e3] and another group with pure glass [4].
Several modeling techniques for laminated glass are used. In Ref. [2]
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thomas.pyttel@m.fh-friedberg.de (T. Pyttel).
a modeling technique with two coincident layers of shells was used,
one for glass and one for PVB. Results with solid elements for glass
and PVB have also been published [3]. Models based on shell
elements are easier to use - especially when the modelled wind-
shield is part of an entire car model. However, the two-dimensional
stress state is a disadvantage for treating damage and failure. Local
approaches for the simulation of damage and failure in laminated
glass are presented in Ref. [2,3]. In Ref. [4] the failure of glass rods is
investigated. Here a nonlocal approach was introduced with an
a characteristic length for the pure glass of about 1 mm. In Ref. [5]
for the failure of laminated glass five phases were introduced.
The first phase is an elastic deformation for both glass plies. The
second phase is the breaking of the first glass ply.
In order to simulate the duration of the first phase we used
a nonlocal approach in this study. Our characteristic length is much
higher than in Ref. [4]. The reason is that our model describes the
compound glass-PVB-glass. In Ref. [2] curved parts (real wind-
shields) and in Ref. [1] plane parts (real car side glazing) were
tested and simulated. We also used experiments with windshields
but in addition we designed a test setup for plane parts in order to
eliminate the influence of the curvature and to study the influence
of the boundary conditions.
The initial failure of the glass depends on the velocity of the
impactor and the curvature of the glass. This is shown by the
experiments presented in this paper. After initial failure the cracks

0734-743X/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.10.035
 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263
Fig. 1. Assembly of safety glass for windshields (values for thickness in mm).
grow with a velocity of about 2000 m/s [6]. A failure criterion must
be able to describe these two effects. The safety glass studied in this
paper consists of three layers shown in Fig. 1. There are two outer
layers of glass with different thickness and one inner layer of
polyvinyl butyral (PVB). The 2.10 mm glass layer lies on the car
outer surface. The glass used for the test in this study was annealed.
The idea for the failure model presented in this paper is based on
experimental observations. Obviously the safety glass does not fail
in any case immediately after impact. In many cases for a certain
time after impact elastic deformations occur without any failure. In
order to model the observed behaviour it was assumed that a crit-
ical energy value must be exceeded in a finite region before the
safety glass fails. This is what we call ”Nonlocal failure criterion”.
The criterion was implemented in the commercial finite
element solver PAM-CRASH [7]. The simulations were done with
the explicit solution strategy, which is described in detail in Ref. [8].
In order to compare the capabilities of the failure model
experiments were performed. These experiments were done with
plane and curved safety glass specimens. The impactor weight and
velocity varied from “light and slow” to “heavy and fast”.
Based on these experiments the parameters for the criterion
were found.
Furthermore material properties for the constituents of safety
glass are needed.
2. Experimental determination of failure
2.1. Experimental setup
Two series of tests were done. In the first, curved safety glass
specimens were tested and in the second, plane ones. The tests
with the plane parts were designed to provide information on the
principal failure mechanism and effects during impact against
laminated glass. In order to study the influence of curvature real
windshields were used.
The impactor used for all tests was an head-impactor of the
family of pedestrian protection models [9]. This impactor is available
Fig. 2. Experimental setup for plane parts (left bounded, right free).
253
Fig. 3. Boundary condition and sensor positions for displacement measurement
(R ¼ 500 mm, Distance between sensors: a ¼ 50 mm).
in three different weights (3.5 kg, 4.8 kg and 6.3 kg). A three-axis
accelerometer was mounted inside the head impactor. This accel-
erometer is used for all the acceleration measurements of this study.
Fig. 2 shows the experimental setup for plane parts. On the left
side a quadratic part is glued to a circular frame. The frame was
designed to be as stiff as possible. The acceleration inside the
impactor and the deformation of the glass during impact were
measured. For this purpose a set of ten laser extensometers shown
in Fig. 3 was used.
For the test shown on the right side of Fig. 2 the plane part was
hanging freely on two cables. The advantage of this configuration is
the stress-free boundary condition.
For all these cases the position of impact was the center of the part.
Table 1 gives an overview of the tests performed with plane parts.
The test number consists of three groups: first impactor speed,
second impactor weight and third information regarding boundary
conditions. For example 05_3_b means 5.0 m/s, 3.5 kg, bounded.
Tests against real windshields are standard tests done by car
makers in order to protect pedestrians or passengers in case of an
accident. A failure model for safety glass must be able to describe
the different phenomena for different loadcases. The challenge is to
cover the range from impacting the windshield outside the car,
inside and at different positions. Fig. 4 shows the setup for the two
tests performed.
Table 2 gives an overview of the tests performed with curved parts.
254 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263
Table 1
Loadcases for the impact tests with plane parts.
Bounded
5.0 m/s 10.0 m/s 12.0 m/s
3.5 kg 05_3_b 10_3_b 12_3_b
4.8 kg 05_4_b 10_4_b 12_4_b
6.3 kg 05_6_b 10_6_b 12_6_b
2.2. Selected results and discussion
The high speed video of the tests gives the information
regarding the time between first impact and global failure of the
glass. These results are collected in Table 3 for the impacts against
the real windshield. Here the difference between impact from
outside and from inside is exceptionally obvious.
In case of the plane parts, deformation was measured in addi-
tion to acceleration. Typical results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Exact measurement of deformation during impact is very
important for the development of a failure model. The simulation
results of a successful failure model should not only match the
measured acceleration, but also the measured deformation.
The impact velocities were chosen to cover the range from ”no
failure” to ”totally damaged”. The test with the highest impactor
mass and the highest impactor speed nearly penetrates the safety
glass and for the test with the lowest impactor mass and the lowest
impactor speed no crack was observed.
For the tests with the real windshields just the acceleration was
measured. Fig. 7 shows the result for position 1 and 2.
Obviously due to curvature the behaviours of case 10_4_pos1
and 10_4_pos2 are totally different. If the impactor comes from
outside the car the first response of the windshield is purely elastic.
At 5.0 ms the glass fails. From 7 to 15 ms there is a free movement of
the impactor. Finally the PVB supports the impactor with some
influence from the broken glass.
If the impactor comes from inside the car the glass fails much
earlier - at 1.2 ms. Compared with 10_4_pos1 the first maximum of
the impactor acceleration is then lower, the second maximum is
higher and there is no free movement.
3. Nonlocal failure criteria
3.1. General description
Glass fails without any localisation perpendicular to the mean
loading direction. This is the motivation for the application of the
Rankine (maximum stress) criterion
Fig. 4. Experimental setup for curved parts (real windshields).
Table 2
Loadcases for the impact tests with curved parts.
Free Pos.1 Pos. 2
10.0 m/s 10.0 m/s 10.0 m/s
4.8 kg 10_4_pos1 10_4_pos2
10_4_f
Table 3
Time in ms between first impact and failure for curved parts.
Pos.1 Pos. 2
10.0 m/s 10.0 m/s
4.8 kg 5.0 1.2
sfail ¼ maxðjs1 j; js2 jÞ (1)
shown in Fig. 8. (Note that there is no failure when all stresses are
compressive).
Based on double ring tests the critical stress sc can be evaluated.
The double ring test is like a four-point-bending test, but with
circular loading surfaces in place of linear ones. This test was per-
formed without any PVB under quasi-static conditions. In Ref. [2] the
four-point-bending test was used. The results are similar to ours.
The first idea is to use this criterion within an explicit finite
element solver as a local criterion. This means that for each inte-
gration point the criterion is checked for each time step (Local
criteria are used for example in Ref. [2]).
But important experimental phenomena cannot be described
with such a procedure. An example is the impact against the
windshield from outside the car (10_4_pos1). Directly after the
impactor has touched the glass the calculated stresses of the finite
elements in the contact zone are much higher than the critical
value sc. Based on the Rankine criterion these elements would fail
immediately and following this the crack pattern will grow by
moving from element to element. In our simulation this crack grow
takes about 10 ms until the crack pattern has reached the boundary.
The reality looks different: Until 5.0 ms no failure can be observed
and than, within an interval of less than 1 ms, the windshield fails
completely.
In order to describe the compound glass-PVB-glass the Rankine
criterion was enhanced by a nonlocal approach. The basic idea is
that a critical energy value (Ec) must be reached over a finite region
before the glass can fail, independent of the calculated stress. The
finite region is a circle of radius (Rc) on the first element to reach the
critical the point of first failure stress sc. Fig. 9 shows the general
idea of this approach.
 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263 255

Fig. 5. Acceleration of the impactor (left) and deformation of the center (right) for test 10_4_b.

Fig. 6. Deformation for each sensor point for test 10_4_b (left at 5.0 ms and right at 20.0 ms).

The strain energy inside the finite region Rc (red circle in Fig. 9)
is calculated for each time step i and for each element e. For the E > Ec (4)
calculation of the time increment for one element an orthotropic damage/failure criterion is activated for each
ZZ element of the whole windshield in order to model crack propa-
DEie ¼ s : d3_ dV e Dti (2) gation. An orthotropic damage tensor acts uniformly over the shell
thickness and affects the undamaged stresses sij by
is used. In this equation s is the stress tensor, 3_ the strain rate tensor 2 3
and Dti the duration of the time step. The total strain energy for one ð1  d1 Þs11 ð1  dm Þs12 ð1  dm Þs13
element after n time steps follows then by s~ij ¼ 4 ð1  dm Þs12 ð1  d2 Þs22 ð1  dm Þs23 5 (5)
ð1  dm Þs13 ð1  dm Þs23 0
iX
¼n
Ee ðtn Þ ¼ DEie (3) s~ij are the damaged stresses in a coordinate system of principal axes
i¼0 calculated based on stresses at the time the failure criterion is
activated. This coordinate system is fixed with respect to the glass
The summation of Ee ðtn Þ over all shell elements inside the finite
material, when the first damage occurs. d1 is the damage value in
region Rc delivers the strain energy E inside the finite region Rc at
the direction of the first principal axes, d2 is the damage value in the
time tn. If
direction of the second principal axes (in the coordinate system

Fig. 7. Acceleration for test 10_4_pos1 (left) and 10_4_pos2 (right).

256 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263

Table 4
Parameter of the G’Sell model.

k w h m
9.0 MPa 4.0 1.5 1.5

introduced above) and dm is the maximum of d1 and d2. The damage

values d1 and d2 are increased linearly over 100 time steps after
initial damage from 0 to 1. Initial damage means for d1 that the first
principal stress is greater than sc of the Rankine criterion and for d2
that stress in 2-direction is greater than sc. Elements are finally
eliminated when

d1 ¼ d2 ¼ 1 (6)
Fig. 8. Rankine failure criterion.
is reached.
In order to avoid numerical instabilities an element based
damping was introduced. The damping stress sd is calculated as

k
sd ¼ E : 3_ : (7)
pf0
where E is the elasticity tensor, f0 is the elemental frequency and for
the factor k the value 0:05 was used.
Due to the nonlocal approach it is possible to model the first
phase - the pure elastic deformation without any failure. The
duration of this phase is determined by the two parameters Ec and
Rc. During this phase the elastic stresses of some elements may
exceed sc in both principal directions. At the end of this phase
ðE > Ec Þ for these elements damage d1 and d2 starts to growth and
Fig. 9. General idea of the nonlocal approach.
after 100 s (time step of 1 s assumed) these elements will be

Fig. 10. Principal idea of the failure model.

Model A Model B Model C

Shell Shell Shell

Solid
Solid Membrane

Tied connection Tied connection

Fig. 11. Three possibilities of modeling safety glass.

 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263 257

Fig. 12. Determination of EC and RC values based on curved parts.

eliminated. That means within 100 s a crack pattern over a finite
region of glass will develop.
If we assume that this finite region is a circle with a radius
ofr ¼ 200 mm (what is a good mean value with respect to the
experiments we have done) the same region would fail in reality based
on a constant physical crack propagation speed of v ¼ 2 km=s
beginning from the center of the circle (200 mm ¼ 2 km=s$100 ms).
3.2. Determination of parameters
In order to find the critical energy Ec and the critical radius Rc, at
least two tests are necessary. For the first test the glass should fail
immediately after impact and for the second as late as possible. The
idea is that the failure time (tf ) should be different between these
two tests. tf can be evaluated for each test by using the a high speed
video. In this study impacts from inside and outside of a car
windshield were used.
Fig. 10 shows principal curves “energy over time” for two
impacts with three different radii (Rm, Rn and Ro). These curves are
calculated from a finite-element model of the test cases, but
without any failure criteria. Thus the calculation of many energy
curves starting with a small radius up to a large radius is possible.
The key for the determination of Ec and Rc are the failure time for
each test tf1 and tf2 determined by the high speed video. Only for

Fig. 13. Cross section of the FE-model of head and windshield (green-aluminium skull, blue and brown-vinyl skin). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
258 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263

Fig. 14. 3.5 kg, 5.0 m/s (Testnumber: 05_3_b) acceleration of the impactor (left) and deformation normal to the undeformed specimen at the center (left).

the radius Rn (solid line in Fig. 10) one energy value E can be found
which is the same at tf1 and tf2. This value E will be used as critical
value Ec and the radius Rn will be used as Rc. In the simulation the
laminated glass will fail for both tests at the right time only with
this pair of parameters.
3.3. Implementation of the failure criteria in a finite element solver
The implementation was done in the commercial finite element
solver PAM-CRASH [7].
During simulation the center of the nonlocal energy region must
be determined. Once this point is known all elements within the
radius Rc are assigned to the energy calculation. The sum of the
internal strain energies for these elements gives the current value E.
Until E< Ec no failure is possible, even when the critical failure
stress sc has been exceeded. As soon as E reaches the critical value
Ec the Rankine criterion is activated.
Due to the fact that at this time the stress of many elements of
the part is greater than sc the cracks will develop immediately.
Further crack growth is of course possible.
4. FE-model for laminated glass
4.1. Finite element discretisation
In the first impacting phase the behaviour of the glass is
important for the response of the structure. After the glass has
failed the PVB will carry the load. This is the reason why both

Fig. 15. 3.5 kg, 5.0 m/s (Testnumber: 05_3_b) deformation normal to the undeformed specimen (upper left at 2.0 ms, upper right at 5.0 ms, lower left at 10.0 ms, lower right at
20.0 m/s).
 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263 259

Fig. 16. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Testnumber: 10_3_b) acceleration of the impactor (left) and deformation normal to the undeformed specimen at the center (left).

materials must be modelled separately. For a discretisation with
finite elements we tested three modeling techniques (shown in
Fig. 11).
Model A consists of shell elements for the glass and solid
elements for the PVB. The connection between the nodes of the
solids and the shells is described with tied elements. These tied
elements are like small beams with a penalty based stiffness. The
tied elements will be automatically eliminated as soon as all con-
nected shell elements (glass) are failed. There is no certain failure
criterion for the tieds. The distance between the nodes of the shell
elements and the nodes of the solids amounts to half the thickness
of the glass layers.
Model B works without the tied connection. For the mesh of
solid elements the nodes of the shells are used. The disadvantage is
that the thickness of the PVB is greater in the model than in reality
and the material characters have to be compensated.
The simplest approach consists of two layers of shells for the
external glass and one membrane layer for the PVB in between
(model C). As in model A the connection between the nodes of the
shell and the membrane elements is described with tied elements.

Fig. 17. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Testnumber: 12_4_b) deformation normal to the undeformed specimen (upper left at 2.0 ms, upper right at 5.0 ms, lower left at 10.0 ms, lower right at
20.0 m/s).
260 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263

Fig. 18. 6.3 kg, 12.0 m/s (Testnumber: 12_6_b) acceleration of the impactor (left) and deformation normal to the undeformed specimen at the center (left).

Our focus was to make the model as simple as possible. So we The material description of the PVB is based on a nonlinear
preferred model C. This modeling technique was used for all the viscoelastic model. The stressestrain relation for this model follows
simulations presented in this paper. Several tests with a solid based the G’Sell equation [10].
modeling (model A and model B) produced no advantage. !m
  h i 2 3_
s 3; 3_ ¼ k 1  ew3 eh3 (8)
4.2. Material properties and parameters for the failure criterion 3_ ref

The material model for the glass is isotropic and linearly elastic. The The properties for this model were determined from dynamic
properties used for Youngs modulus Eð70 GPaÞ, Poissons ratio vð0:22Þ tensile and bulge tests and are given in Table 4. The G’Sell model offers
and the failure stress sC ð0:06 GPaÞ derived from the literature [6]. the possibility to influence the stressestrainecurve in three regions:

Fig. 19. 6.3 kg, 12.0 m/s (Testnumber: 12_6_b) deformation normal to the undeformed specimen (upper left at 2.0 ms, upper right at 5.0 ms, lower left at 10.0 ms, lower right at
20.0 m/s).
 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263 261

Fig. 20. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Testnumber: 10_4_f) deformation (left) and acceleration of the impactor (right).

Fig. 21. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Testnumber: 10_4_b) crack geometry after impact - left experiment, right simulation.

e parameter k influences mainly the small strain region,
e parameter w influences mainly the medium strain region and
e parameter h influences mainly the large strain region.
The description of the strain rate dependency of the material is
based on the parameter m. The G’Sell model was successfully used
for the modeling of impacts with plastics [11].
The determination of the parameters of the nonlocal failure
criterion is based on the experiments for the curved parts. The
difference between the failure times (given in Table 3) for the impact
from outside the car and inside the car is sufficiently large (4.3 ms).
The failure times for the tests with the plane parts are all about
1.5 ms. Since the difference in failure time between two experiments
is important for parameter calibration, it was not possible to

Fig. 22. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Test: 10_4_pos1) acceleration of the impactor (right).
262 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263
Fig. 23. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Test: 10_4_pos2) acceleration of the impactor (right).
calculate Ec and Rc based on plane parts. Fig. 12 shows the calculated
energy curves for three different radii for the two loadcases with the
curved parts. The failure times are also marked with vertical lines.
For a radius RC ¼ 210 mm an energy value EC ¼ 22:3 kNmm is
found. These values are used for all the simulations in this study.
5. FE-simulation of impact tests and evaluation
5.1. FE-model of the impactor and contact to the windshield
The impactor consists of a hollow aluminium sphere covered with
an rubber skin. The modeling technique we used follows [12]. The
aluminium sphere and the rubber skin are modelled with solid
elements. For the sphere a linear elastic constitutive law and for the
rubber skin a viscoelastic law were used. The contact definition used
between the outer surface of the head-impactor and the windshield is
a symmetric point-to-surface penalty formulation [13]. Fig. 13 shows
the head and the windshield. The two outer layers of solids are the
rubber skin. For the windshield the model C shown in Fig. 11 is used.
5.2. Boundary conditions
There are three types of boundary conditions related to the
three test setups. First, the glass is fixed to a circular frame and the
frame is assumed rigid. Second, the glass is attached to the car body
(in the case of real windshields) and the car body is deformable.
Third, the glass is hanging freely on two cables. The last type of
boundary condition was chosen because it can easily be exactly
realised in the simulation. For a fixed boundary condition there is
always the question how stiff this boundary condition is in reality.
Without the nonlocal failure criterion simulation results depend
strongly on the stiffness of the boundary condition. With the
nonlocal criterion this influence is significantly reduced. Based on
this experience the attachments glass-frame and glass-car are both
realised with a penalty option. The stiffness of this numerical
connection is chosen to be as large as possible, but without influ-
encing the time step of the model.
5.3. Comparison between experiment and simulation for plane
parts
For the configurations where the plane parts are fixed at the
frame the comparison between test and simulation is done for the
acceleration of the impactor and the deformation of the safety glass.
Regarding the deformation the movement of the center point over
time is compared and in addition the shape of the deformed safety
glass for four different time points (2 ms, 5 ms, 10 ms and 20 ms).
Experimentally the shape was measured with laser extensiometers
at 10 points described in section 2.1. Thus the experiment is rep-
resented just by points in the diagrams. From the nine configura-
tions tested (see Table 1) only three are shown. The tests with
e lowest speed and lowest impactor weight (05_3_b)
e medium speed and medium impactor weight (10_4_b)
e highest speed and highest impactor weight (12_6_b) are
representative.
Figs.14,16 and 18 plot acceleration and deformation over time and
Figs. 15, 17 and 19 show the shape of the part during deformation.
In addition a comparison of the crack geometry for medium
impactor speed and medium impactor weight (10_4_b) is shown in
Fig. 21. Both, in simulation and experiment there are two main
areas. An inner area with radial and circumferential cracks and an
outer area with only a few radial cracks (Fig. 22).
No deformation was measured for the test with the free hanging
plane part. Thus there is just the comparison for the acceleration of
the impactor shown in Fig. 20.
5.4. Comparison between experiment and simulation for curved parts
For the impact against the windshields only the acceleration
was measured. This curve is compared with the result from the
simulation (Fig. 23).
Finally a comparison between simulations with and without
nonlocal failure criteria for test 10_4_pos1 was made. Fig. 24 shows
that a simulation without nonlocal criterion is not able to describe
Fig. 24. 4.8 kg, 10.0 m/s (Test: 10_4_pos1) comparison of acceleration of the impactor
with and without nonlocal failure criterion.
 T. Pyttel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011) 252e263
the behaviour during the first 5 ms. The glass fails immediately
after impact. Due to this the acceleration never reaches the level
what was measured.
6. Discussion and outlook
The experiments cover the range from no failure to total damage
and from convex to concave. For all these cases the simulation
model is able to calculate impactor accelerations and deformations
very well. The set of input parameters for the glass consists only of
five values:
e Young’s modulus of glass
e Poisson’s ration of glass
e Critical stress for failure of glass sc
e Critical energy for failure of glass Ec
e Critical radius for failure of glass Rc
In addition the viscoelastic parameters of PVB are needed.
The good agreement between experiment and simulation shown
in this paper is only possible due to the enhancement of the Rankine
criterion with the nonlocal approach described in section 3. The
characteristic length we used is very large compared to known values
for pure glass. This could be because that a compound structure with
a strongly strain rate dependent layer (PVB) is considered.
Further investigations are planned in order to develop cheap and
easy methods for the determination of the two parameters EC and RC.
263
References
[1] Herndorn G, Allen K, Roberts A, Phillips D, Batzer S. Automotive side glazing
failure due to simulated human interaction. Engineering Failure Analysis
2007;14:1701e10.
[2] Timmel M, Kolling S, Osterrrieder P, Bois PD. A finite element model for
impact simulation with laminated glass. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 2007;34(3):1465e78.
[3] Zhao S, Dharani L, Chai L, Barbat S. Analysis of damage in laminated auto-
mituve glazing subjected to simulated head impact. Engineering Failure
Analysis 2006;13:582e97.
[4] Repetto E, Radovitzky R, Ortiz M. Finite element simulation of dynamic frac-
ture and fragmentation of glass rods. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 2000;183:3e14.
[5] Larcher M. Simulation of laminated glass loaded by air blast waves, DYMAT
2009-9th International Conferences on the Mechanical and physical
behaviour of materials under dynamic loading. EDP Sciences 2009;2:
1553e9.
[6] Kerkhof F. Bruchvorgaenge in Glaesern. Verlag der deutschen glastechnischen
Gesellschaft; 1970.
[7] PAM-CRASH. 100e102 Avenue de Suffren. 75015 Paris - France: ESI-Group;
2010.
[8] Belytschko T, Liu WK, Moran B. Nonlinear finite elements for Continua and
Structures. Wiley; 2001.
[9] Laboratory Test Procedures for FMVSS 201U. Occupant protection in Interior
impact, upper Interior head impact protection. U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1998.
[10] G’Sell J. Rheology of polypropylene in the solid state. Journal of Materials and
Sciences 1995;30(3):701e11.
[11] Pyttel T, Weyer S. Crash simulation with glassy polymers e constitutive model
and application. Internal Journal of Crashworthiness 2003;8:433e42.
[12] Dharani L.R., Ji F.S., Dynamic analysis of normal impact of occupant head on
laminated glass, SAE Paper 933114.
[13] Belytschko T, Lin JI. A three-dimensional impact-penetration algorithm with
erosion. Internal Journal of Impact Engineering 1987;5:111e27.