Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

The assessment of novel materials and processes for the impact

tolerant design of stiffened composite aerospace structures
Emile Greenhalgh*, Matthew Hiley
Future Systems Technology, QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK
Received 18 June 2002; revised 16 September 2002; accepted 24 October 2002

Abstract
This paper reviews the most promising material concepts (tougher matrix systems, 2D and 3D woven materials, stitching and Z-pinning,
selective interlayers, protective surface layers and hybrid laminates) for improving the damage tolerance of aerospace stringer-stiffened
structures. Although all of these concepts can impart improvements, all also have disadvantages including reduced undamaged performance,
weight penalties and the need for requalification. Recommendations have been made as to which show the most promise for improving the
impact tolerance of current and future structures. For current structures, Z-pinning shows the most promise, although the cost associated with
this concept is currently high. For future structures, 3D woven materials show significant promise for impact tolerant design.
q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs); B. Damage tolerance; D. Mechanical testing; E. Prepreg

1. Introduction and background
Although polymer matrix composites (PMCs) are being
used in a wide range of applications, one of the critical
parameters is their tolerance to impact; the damage generated
is often hidden but can considerably reduce mechanical
performance. The wide spectrum of constituents and
architectures that can be utilised, has led to a large number
of new materials and processing concepts being developed to
reduce sensitivity to impact. These concepts have demon-
strated improved properties at the material level, but need to
be proved in a structural environment. Also, certification
requirements require expensive and time-consuming testing
to be conducted on new materials before they can be used in-
service [1]. Informed decisions need to be taken as to whether
the improvements demonstrated at a material level will
translate into cost-effective benefits at a component level.
The main aim of this review is to identify the most
promising material concepts for improving the impact
tolerance of PMC structures. It focuses on a common
structural element in aerospace components; stringer-
stiffened panels (Fig. 1). These structures are conventionally
made from carbon-fibre/epoxy composite in unidirectional
* Corresponding author. Fax: þ 44-1252-395077.
E-mail address: esgreenhalgh@qinetiq.com (E. Greenhalgh).
1359-835X/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 8 3 5 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 8 8 - 4
prepreg tape form. This review considers both the technical
and economic implications of each concept for improving
the impact tolerance with respect to this baseline fabrication
route. To conduct this assessment, the failure processes in
impact damaged stiffened structures are described and the
key parameters which control impact tolerance are outlined.
Material concepts from the literature are then considered
and recommendations are made as to which show promise
for significantly improving the impact tolerance of PMC
structures.
There is some confusion over the term impact tolerance
with respect to PMC structures [2]. There are two major
issues, which may be addressed separately. The first, impact
resistance deals with the ability to sustain a given impact
threat with the minimum amount of damage. The second,
impact damage tolerance, deals with the ability to sustain a
given level of damage with minimum effect on the structural
performance. If a structure is impact resistant it does not
follow that it will be impact damage tolerant; each of these
aspects is controlled by different parameters. Therefore, the
term ‘impact tolerance’ deals with the overall ability to
sustain a given impact with a minimum effect on the
structure and thus combines both impact resistance and
impact damage tolerance.
Understanding the processes by which the damage initiates
and forms during the impact process is key to assessing
152 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
Fig. 1. Typical example of a stringer-stiffened panel.
impact resistant concepts. On impact, the incident energy is
absorbed by a variety of mechanisms, [2–5] but to produce an
impact resistant component, the amount of energy absorbed
through damage should be minimised. Generally, the first
fracture event during an impact is the formation of matrix
cracks within the plies, caused by through-thickness shear
stresses generated by the out-of-plane impact forces. The
dominant failure mode during low velocity impact, that of
delamination, can be split into two aspects; initiation and
propagation. Delaminations are usually initiated by opening
forces at matrix cracks [5]. Delamination growth is mainly
driven by interlaminar shear stresses (mode II) induced by the
bending of the laminate during the impact event [5]. Finally,
fibre fracture can be a significant energy absorbing mechan-
ism, particularly at high velocities, and is generated by the
high through-thickness forces generated during impact [6].
Fibres can either fail in tension due to the membrane forces
generated during impact, or by shear-out during penetration
of the impactor. The relative proportions of the different
damage modes are controlled by a variety of material
parameters such as impactor conditions (shape, energy,
mass and velocity), material properties (matrix toughness,
fibre surface treatment, moisture content, fibre stiffness and
strength), stacking sequence and laminate geometry. In
addition, there are structural aspects (overall geometry,
local structural detail and dynamic response) which can
have a significant effect on the impact damage [5]. With
regard to stiffened structures, impacting in an inter-stiffener
bay will generate very different damage to impacts over a
stiffener. In the former, the compliance of the impact site will
promote large deflections leading to delamination. Impact
over the stiffener will lead to higher contact forces (fibre
damage), but more energy absorbed elastically through
displacing a larger volume of material. Impacting over the
edge of a stiffener will introduce local twisting and
preferential damage formation towards the bay [7].
Understanding the process by which damage grows (and
leads to ultimate failure) in stringer-stiffened panels is
important when assessing impact tolerance concepts [7 –9].
The general failure process, which can be extended to larger
structures [10] is shown in Fig. 2 and is described in the
following paragraphs.
Firstly, upon loading, there is local buckling of the
damaged region (Fig. 2a) and as the load is increased (Fig.
2b), there is also local bending of the delaminated plies and
the sub-laminate beneath these plies [2,5]. Initially this
deflects away from the delaminated interface, but as the load
increases this generally snaps-through towards the delami-
nated plies. This deformation induces mixed-mode delami-
nation forces at the boundary of the damage region and if
these exceed the local toughness, the delamination will
grow (Fig. 2c). For impact damage, which consists of
delaminations at many ply interfaces, significant delamina-
tion growth will occur at only a few interfaces; those in
which the one ply direction and the driving force are
coincident [5]. Initially, this delamination growth will be
stable and eventually, the delamination may reach structural
features, such as stringers (Fig. 2d). Upon reaching these
features, the added out-of-plane constraint imposed by the
substructure will inhibit further delamination growth.
However, if there is delamination close to the free surface
(i.e. under little influence of the structural detail), the
delamination will continue to extend laterally (Fig. 2e), at
preferential ply interfaces (usually 908) from the impact site
[7,10]. This narrow band of delamination will shed load
onto the material beneath, reducing the out-of-plane support
on these plies. Ultimately, this process will become
unstable; massive growth and subsequent local bending of
the delaminated plies and load-bearing layers beneath will
occur. When this situation develops, the excessive bending
(and compressive) stress on the load-bearing layers leads to
in-plane failure of these layers, and catastrophic structural
failure (Fig. 2e).
If the damage growth is arrested by the substructure prior
to unstable delamination growth, the failure sequence can be
different. The presence of opening forces at the delamination
 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
Fig. 2. General failure process for a damaged skin-stringer panel.
boundary will promote damage development beneath the
stringer. Eventually, global panel buckling will occur leading
to large out-of-plane deflections in the bays. The global
buckling will induce massive opening forces at the boundary
of the delamination, and beneath the substructure. This will
promote detachment of the stringers from the skin (Fig. 2f),
as described in detail elsewhere [11]. This will lead to larger
deflections of the skin, promoting larger opening forces, etc.
until finally failure will occur by excessive loading of the skin
(Fig. 2g), induced by the loss of support from the stringers.
2. Key material parameters
Through improvements in the critical material par-
ameters, significant increase in the impact tolerance of
skin-stringer panels can be achieved.
Mode I toughness (GIC). The key driving force for
delamination growth (damage tolerance) is mode I (peel)
loading which is induced by the local buckling of
153
the delaminated plies and sub-laminate. This damage
mode is particularly important during global buckling of
the bays of skin-stringer panels [12].
Mode II toughness (GIIC). Shear (GII) is the dominant
fracture mechanism during an impact event and skin/strin-
ger detachment and is induced by the out-of-plane bending
during impact. Similarly, impacting near or over a stringer
induces high interlaminar shear forces parallel to the
stringer, generating mode II dominated growth parallel to
the stringer. Finally, global panel buckling can induce
twisting at the stringer/skin interface, which also induces
mode II condition.
Bending (D11) and shear (G12) moduli. During the
impact event, the bending modulus of the laminate
influences the energy absorption process and area of the
material which responds to the impact event. Also, the
bending and shear moduli influence delamination initiation,
growth and failure in buckling. This includes both local
buckling of the delaminated plies, which induces damage
growth, and global panel buckling, which promotes
154 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
skin/stringer detachment and drives unstable delamination
growth. Increasing these moduli will increase the buckling
loads, thus inhibiting damage growth [5].
Compressive and flexural strength (sc and sf). Both the
ultimate failure of the panel and the formation of the impact
damage (fibre cracking) are controlled by a combination of
the compressive and flexural strength. These properties are
mainly controlled by the fibre micro-buckling, which is
influenced by a number of factors, such as fibre/matrix
interface strength, fibre waviness, matrix stiffness, fibre
stiffness and matrix toughness [13].
3. Impact tolerance through design
There is scope for improving the structural impact
tolerance purely through improved design and optimisation.
This is a preferable option since this does not incur the costs
and increased timescales associated with requalifying a new
material. In the context of skin-stringer panels, there are a
number of options that can be considered.
Panel geometry. Studies [5,14] have shown that impact
response, and the subsequent damage formation, is
dependent on the proportion of energy absorbed through
structural response (elastic) and damage. By changing the
geometry, the relative proportions of these parameters can
be changed. If the deflections and forces can be kept below
limiting values, the incident energy will be mainly absorbed
through structural response. Such an approach has already
been employed in the design of impact resistant skin-
stringer panels [14]. The stiffened panel geometry will also
have an effect on the impact damage tolerance; for a given
buckling design strain, having a large bay width is
preferable to a thin skin for impact damage tolerance [7].
Stringer geometry. The stringer geometry can signifi-
cantly affect the performance since its detachment from
the skin is a key mechanism in the failure process [11]. It
is preferable to use stringers with tapered feet or stiffener
doublers [15] (Fig. 3a and b, respectively) which reduce
the opening forces and inhibit damage growth. Another
approach (Fig. 3c) is embedded stringers [15] which
eliminates skin/stringer detachment by incorporating the
foot as an integral part of the skin. Although this concept
is difficult and time-consuming to manufacture, there is
scope to use it in conjunction with other toughening
methods [12,16].
Stacking sequence. The option to change the stacking
sequence has often been ignored. Many components are
designed using ‘quasi-isotropic’ lay-ups which do not fully
Fig. 3. Different stiffener designs.
exploit the potential of composites, treating their properties
as ‘black aluminium’. There is considerable scope for
improving impact tolerance by tailoring the lay-up to a
particular component. For example, putting angle plies (i.e.
not load-bearing) on the outer surface [17], using a stepped
stacking sequence [4] and eliminating blocked plies can
give improvements in performance. In addition to the
stacking sequence, the relative proportion of different
orientations of plies will have an effect on the impact
tolerance. In general, matrix-dominated stacking sequences
(‘soft’ laminates) [18,19] or high in-plane shear concepts
[20], which contain a high proportion of off-axis plies, are
more damage tolerant than fibre dominated stacking
sequences (‘hard’ laminates), which contain a high
proportion of load-bearing plies. Finally, delaminations
migrate through the layers until they reach preferential ply
interfaces; in which the driving force and upper ply
direction are coincident [7]. Clearly, by eliminating the
preferential interfaces (generally 908 plies), the damage
growth can be inhibited.
4. Novel material and processing concepts
The advantages and disadvantages of the different
concepts for improving the impact tolerance of composite
structures are summarised in Table 1. The following
paragraphs discuss these concepts in more detail.
Tougher matrix systems. The established approach to
improving impact tolerance has been to employ a tougher
resin system than those in use, although it has been
suggested that this route has been exhausted [21]. The
materials used in current aerospace applications have a
range of delamination toughnesses; up to 250 J m22 (GIC)
and 650 J m22 (GIIC) [2,5]. An example of the fracture
morphology of these materials is shown in Fig. 4a. They are
characterised by fairly brittle fracture with little plasticity.
Newer materials have significantly improved toughnesses,
often achieved through the incorporation of a second
toughened phase within the matrix or ply interface. This
second phase acts to absorb significant amount of energy
during fracture through mechanisms such as plastic flow,
crack blunting and void coalescence (Fig. 4b). Increasing
the resin toughness also increases the size of the process
zone at the crack tip, promoting toughening mechanisms
such as fibre bridging. Further improvements in toughness
can be achieved using thermoplastic rather than thermoset
matrices which absorb fracture energy through massive
plastic flow (Fig. 4c) [5]. Changing to a tougher resin system
 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of different concepts compared to baseline of unidirectional tape structures
Concept Advantages
Panel design Low costs and timescales
No need for material requalification
Tougher matrix Same architecture as baseline
Usually similar costs and timescales
No need for redesign
Usually same processing route
Plain woven Improved drape and manufacturability
More elastic response during impact
Usually same processing route
NCF Low cost and timescales
Environmental benefits
Improved manufacturability
Mixed-woven Undamaged properties as baseline
Similar processing route
Selective interlayers and hybrids Undamaged properties as baseline
Similar processing route
3D composites Reduced cost
Lends itself to design of substructure
Stitching Same processing route
Offers fail-safe design
Z-pinning Same processing route
Optimisation can limit drop in undamaged properties
Offers fail-safe design
Protective layers Similar processing route
Generally no need for requalification
has a number of advantages, most notably an increase in
delamination resistance. The composite architecture is the
same as that used in the original component and, in many
instances the fibre type can be kept the same, eliminating the
need for redesign. However, there are a number of
disadvantages with changing to a tougher resin system.
Firstly, other mechanical properties of tougher materials
tend to be reduced, particularly compression dominated
properties, which may suffer due to increased matrix
compliance. There is also evidence that tougher materials
Fig. 4. Delamination fracture of different matrix systems.
155
Disadvantages
Limited improvements imparted
Reduced fatigue and compression properties
Increased sensitivity to processing
Can require different processing routes
Can be higher cost
Some redesign and requalification needed
Poor undamaged properties
Weave needs to be balanced
Redesign and requalification needed
Reduced undamaged properties
Performance sensitive to processing
Some redesign and requalification needed
Weave needs to be balanced
Tape/fabric interface prone to delamination
May reduce compressive performance
Increased thickness may lead to redesign required
Adds parasitic weight and extra cost
Relatively immature concept
Can reduce undamaged properties
Requires redesign and requalification
Can reduce undamaged properties
Difficult to fabricate with stiffeners
High cost
Relatively immature concept
Increased thickness may lead to redesign required
Adds parasitic weight and extra cost
have a reduced fatigue performance [22]. Some of the newer
tougher materials have exhibited an increased susceptibility
to processing variables [23], which can introduce scatter in
the material properties. Finally, the materials, which exhibit
the best improvements in toughness (thermoplastics) have a
different processing route to conventional materials. This
can lead to problems when manufacturing stiffened
structures, where the methods for fabricating the substruc-
ture, and attaching it to the skin will need to be different to
that used in conventional materials.
156 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
Planar woven laminates. The fibrous nature of CFRP
composites has led to the exploitation of fabrication
methods originally developed for the textile industry; e.g.
the weaving of the tows of fibres together rather than using
unidirectional tape. A wide range of woven architectures
have been developed [17,21,24] and the construction and
percentage of fibres in each direction can control the
mechanical properties of the laminates. During impact, the
weave acts to contain the shear and delamination cracks
[24], significantly inhibiting the damage extent. In addition,
the compliant nature of woven laminates compared to
unidirectional tape means that much of the energy is
absorbed through structural response rather than damage
formation. Finally, the processing route (autoclaving) for
woven laminates can be the same as that used for
unidirectional tape. However, there are some disadvantages;
the most significant problem is that they have poorer
undamaged properties, such as compression stiffness and
strength. This is attributed to a high proportion of the fibres
not being aligned with the main loading direction. The
reduction in stiffness is an important drawback for skin-
stringer panels since it will reduce the buckling perform-
ance. Compression strength is also reduced by the local
crimping of the fibres (due to the weave), which promotes
micro-buckling. These reduced undamaged properties will
lead to a need to redesign the structure, which of course will
incur significantly increased costs and timescales. Finally,
in thin laminates, the direction of the woven plies needs to
be balanced to ensure that there are no residual stresses
inducing warping, etc. [17].
Unidirectional or non-crimp fabrics (NCF). The
reduction in undamaged mechanical properties incurred by
using woven laminates is dependent on the proportion of
fibres running in the loading direction. If this approaches
100%, the properties will be partially recovered. The fibres
of such fabrics are usually held together by a binding stitch,
often a different material (polyester or glass) to the main
fibre type. These types of material are usually described as
unidirectional or NCF [25]. The processing route for these
materials is different to the conventional autoclave route;
using resin infusion or resin transfer instead [26]. To speed
up the manufacturing process and improve impact damage
tolerance, the individual layers are often held together in
bundles by stitches; this is discussed later in this paper.
NCFs promise both reduced material and through-life costs,
and improved damage tolerance. In addition, they offer
considerable economic and environmental benefits (lower
storage costs, reduced exposure to resins, lower material
costs) over conventional prepreg materials [26]. However,
there are disadvantages in using these materials. There is
still a tendency for fibre crimping and waviness to be
introduced during manufacture, which leads to reductions in
compression performance. The change in the fabrication
route makes the cost of certification as a replacement for
conventional materials expensive and time-consuming.
Also, recent studies [26] have shown that the performance
of these materials are more sensitive to processing variables
than conventional prepregs.
Mixed-woven fabric laminates. Another route by which
the poor undamaged performance of woven laminates can
be improved is by using hybrid laminates; a combination of
woven and unidirectional tape plies [17]. The woven layers
impart improvements in the impact tolerance whilst the
unidirectional layers improve the stiffness and undamaged
strength. This approach uses the same processing route as
the conventional materials, which will ensure that high
certification costs are not incurred. This material concept
does have a number of disadvantages though. The tape and
fabric layers need to be laid-up in such a manner to ensure
that the stacking sequence is balanced which could lead to
the need to redesign to recover the required performance.
The interfaces between the woven and tape lamina are also
prone to delamination.
Selective interlayers and hybrids. One alternative
method for improving the impact tolerance is to insert
layers of a secondary material at critical locations in the
stacking sequence. This can take the form of toughened
particles on the ply surface, discrete toughened layers [27],
or as a hybrid with glass or Kevlar plies at critical locations.
Commercially available prepreg materials with toughened
interlayers include Hexcel’s M21 [12] and Toray’s F3900
[23] which contain particulates (usually thermoplastic) on
the surface of the plies. Although these have demonstrated
improved damage tolerance in materials, they have
increased scatter [12] and, in structures, poor local
distribution of the particulates can lead to only limited
improvements in strength [23]. Discrete toughened layers
can be inserted at orthogonal ply interfaces for impact
resistance, or at interfaces containing 908 plies for impact
damage tolerance. Alternatively, they can be bonded to the
surfaces after cure. A recent development has been to place
shape-memory alloy wires within the laminate [28]; these
absorb energy through super elastic deformation of the
wires. They have demonstrated very good impact resistance
although there are still issues, which need to be resolved
such as long-term degradation of properties.
Selective layers and hybrids have demonstrated improve-
ments in both impact resistance and impact damage
tolerance [27 – 29], although it is difficult to isolate the
improvements due to toughening from those due to
the increase in thickness through the use of interlayers.
The processing route is the same as that in conventional
materials but the introduction of softened layers may reduce
the out-of-plane support on the load-bearing plies, promot-
ing micro-buckling and compression failure. The need to
increase thickness to achieve the same membrane stiffness
as the original component is also a problem, possibly
requiring redesign. Finally, introduction of toughened layers
will need to be balanced within the stacking sequence.
Three dimensional architecture. The development of
woven concepts from the textile industry has led to the
development of three-dimensional materials. Clearly, having
 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
reinforcement in three directions will improve the resistance
to delamination, but may promote other failure modes. The
improvements in properties achieved using 3D architecture
are very dependent on factors such as weave pitch and tow
sizes [21,30]. As with NCF laminates, these fabrics are
produced as fibre preforms and the matrix is introduced later
by resin infusion. These types of architecture lend them-
selves well to substructure such as stringers, although the
mechanical properties are quite dependent on the detailed
architecture [21]. The relatively homogeneous nature of
these materials and the greater thicknesses generally used
also mean that balancing the layers is not so important.
However, as with the planar woven constructions, the
improvements in impact damage tolerance also lead to a
reduction in the undamaged performance. The through-
thickness fibres can also act as initiation sites for cracking,
and thus the threat level at which damage starts to develop is
not improved. Also, it is more difficult to infuse the resin into
3D composites than conventional 2D laminates, which can
lead to defect formation in large components. More
experimental work needs to be conducted on these materials,
in particular development and modification of the standard
test methods to allow their full characterisation. It is through
development of these standard test methods that these
materials will reach a level of maturity, where they can be
used in-service.
Stitching. A technique which has been used to good
effect is stitching in composite laminates [30 – 36]. The
stitching material is usually Kevlarq or glass fibres since
these have the flexibility required for the high curvatures
although, recently, stitching with partly pyrolised carbon-
fibres has also been developed [25]. The stitches are
introduced prior to curing by mechanically driving the fibres
into the laminates. Stitching greatly improves both the
impact resistance and impact damage tolerance of laminates
manufactured from tape [32,37] with the through-thickness
reinforcement reducing delamination forces and defor-
mations at the damage boundaries. The detailed mechan-
isms by which the stitches improve interfacial strength are
complicated [38] but involve processes such as deformation
and failure of the stitching fibres, ploughing through the
laminate, and delocalisation of the crack-tip forces.
Consequently, the stitches inhibit delamination formation
during the impact event and inhibit delamination growth
during compressive loading. In structures, stitching can be
used to good effect to improve critical sites such as the
interface between the stringer foot and skin. Generally,
stitching does not require a change in the fabrication
process, just an additional step, so it should be able to
transfer to current components fairly easily. Finally, an
important advantage is the ‘fail-safe’ aspect stitching
imparts; inhibiting, or even arresting the delamination
growth. However, stitching can lead to a reduction in
undamaged performance, particularly in-plane [38]; the
introduction of the stitches damages the load-bearing fibres,
reducing tensile strength. Furthermore, the tension in
157
the stitching fibres induces ‘quilting’ in the parent fibres
which promotes micro-buckling during compressive load-
ing. Stitching does not reduce the threat level at which
impact damage starts to form, since the stitches can act as
initiation sites for cracking. The stitches also introduce fibre
waviness to the load-bearing plies, promoting micro-
buckling and compressive failure. The current preferred
fabrication route [23] is to manufacture the stiffeners
separately and then secondary bond them to the skin.
Stitching would require the stringers to be co-cured to the
skin which leads to difficulties particularly for I-section
stiffeners [7]. Finally, there are concerns about the durability
of stitched laminates.
Z-pinning. An alternative process to stitching is Z-
pinning, where reinforcing pins are inserted using an
ultrasonic gun, which drives the pins into the laminate.
Small diameter composite pins (less than 0.5 mm in
diameter with an a real density of typically 2%) are
introduced into the laminate prior to cure [28]. Unlike
stitching, where the fibres are mechanically driven into the
parent laminate, the Z-pinning process locally softens the
resin, allowing the parent fibres to displace to accommodate
the pins. It is also preferable to use composite pins (precured
CFRP) rather than metal pins since the latter are heavier,
induce local thermal cracking and are difficult to adhere to
the parent laminate. The literature describing the use of Z-
pins is sparse; most of the work has been conducted on flat
plates, although there has been some work to evaluate them
in stiffened elements [12,16] and fuselage structures [28].
The following only covers using Z-pins in conventional
unidirectional tape materials. There is certainly scope for
using them in woven laminates, but there has been only
limited research in this area.
Z-pins impart massive improvements in mode I and II
toughnesses; increase of an order of magnitude have been
reported [28,39]. The loading mechanisms around the pins
are complicated (Fig. 5); processes such as deformation,
splitting and fracture of the pins, pin pullout and ploughing
all add to the work of fracture required to extend a
delamination. The pins also delocalise the loading at the
crack tip, by transferring the forces into adjacent plies [12,
28]. Z-pins have demonstrated improvements in impact
resistance and damage tolerance, principally by inhibiting
delamination growth [28], although there is some evidence
that they do not increase the threat level at which damage
starts to form [7]. These improvements in toughness have
mainly been demonstrated on coupons, but limited work on
structural elements [12,16] has demonstrated that Z-pins can
greatly improve the stringer pull-off and debonding
strength; Z-pins gave considerably greater improvements
in mechanical properties than was observed through using a
tougher resin system. Also, unlike tougher resins, using Z-
pins in structures does not increase the scatter in the results,
which has clear benefits with regards qualification [12].
Although the Z-pins confer improved interlaminar
properties, the effect on Z-pins on in plane properties is
158 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
Fig. 5. Electron micrograph of Z-pins on the fracture surface from a stiffened element [12].
far from clear. Work done on unidirectional coupons [40]
has demonstrated reductions in the undamaged properties.
However, more recent studies conducted on quasi-
isotropic laminates have shown that the properties of
laminates can be both improved or degraded depending
on the loading condition and Z-pinning arrangement [28].
In plain compression, tests have shown some reduction in
strength whilst notched and impacted laminates have
demonstrated an improvement, particularly when small
diameter pins are used. Fractographic studies [28]
showed there are two competing failure mechanisms;
fibre micro-buckling promoted by distortion of the
reinforcing fibres during pin insertion (Fig. 5b), and
improved delamination resistance. The size and distri-
bution of the pins appears to be critical in controlling
which of these mechanisms dominates. Z-pinning signifi-
cantly reduces the tensile strength of plain laminates, due
to fibre fracture caused by pin insertion [12], although
the effect is less pronounced in notched laminates, where
delamination growth is involved in the failure process.
Current understanding of the relationship between Z-pin
distribution/diameter and mechanical properties is limited
and models to predict their effect on the in-plane
properties are still in their infancy. This could make
certification of such Z-pinned structures more expensive
due to a reliance on ‘make and test’.
For skin-stringer panels, introducing Z-pins requires an
extra step in the fabrication process and will need to be used
selectively since the pin costs are very high. As with
stitching, if the Z-pins are used at the skin/stiffener
interface, secondary bonding is problematic and co-curing
is required leading to difficulties in controlling the stiffener
shape [7]. There are also concerns as to the durability of Z-
pinned structures [28], and how to inspect and repair them.
Finally, an important aspect is the ‘fail-safe’ properties,
which the Z-pins impart. As with stitching, the pins inhibit,
or even arrest delamination, which is very beneficial for
designing highly impact tolerant structures.
Protective layers. A completely different approach to
improve impact tolerance has been used for protective
layers on the surface of the laminates. This can take many
forms such as compliant (high strain resistant) layers of
glass fibre, polyethylene [41,42] or Kevlar [20] plies.
Alternatively, softened or toughened layers such as
adhesives or resin filled with toughening particles [43] can
be used. A more recent development has been hollow glass
fibres [6,28] that can be tailored to fracture at critical levels
of impact threat. The principle is to give an alternative route
for energy absorption. Although significant improvements
have been observed, it is often difficult to isolate these from
geometric effects; the protective layers lead to thicker
laminates, which consequently have a higher bending
stiffness. The protective layers do not directly affect the
other mechanical properties of the laminate, so redesign of
the laminates for requalification may not be required.
Protective layers do not generally require a change in the
processing route, just an extra step, so again this should not
greatly effect requalification. Although protective layers do
not reduce the absolute properties of the laminates, they are
parasitic and will reduce the specific stiffness and strengths;
this may be critical in aerospace structures, where reducing
weight is vital. In addition, if they are attached to the
laminate after manufacture, the interface may act as a
preferential site for damage and consequently moisture
ingress. Finally there is the question over the long-term use
of such layers; once damaged they no longer impart impact
tolerance to the component.
5. Discussion
Impact is considered to be one of the critical threats for
PMCs in aerospace applications. The impact tolerance is
controlled by a number of material (such as impact
conditions, material properties, lay-up and geometry) and
structural (such as structural geometry, proximity to
 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
the substructure and boundary conditions) parameters.
When determining the criticality of an impact threat (impact
resistance) or impact damage (impact damage tolerance), all
these factors must be considered. For improving impact
tolerance, increasing the delamination toughness of a
material is an important factor, but properties such as
compressive stiffness and strength are also critical, particu-
larly in primary structures. Many of the concepts described
in this paper demonstrated not only improvements in the
delamination toughness, but also exhibited a degradation in
the undamaged performance. This combination could have
an overall detrimental effect on the impact tolerance of a
composite structure.
Improving the impact tolerance of a structure by
changing the material can be an expensive and time
consuming process; often requiring qualification of the
new material [1]. An alternative cheaper approach is to keep
the material the same as the original component and to
improve the impact tolerance purely through redesign; this
should always be considered before changing material.
However, if the improvements imparted by these design
options are limited, changing the material should be
pursued. A further aspect is that of the location on the
component to use the concept. This is particularly pertinent
to expensive concepts such as Z-pins, or those that incur a
significant weight penalty, such as protective layers. For
some material concepts, such as 3D fabrics, it may be
difficult to use the material selectively, and the entire
component may need to be fabricated from the new
material. The choice of the location of the new material
will be driven by a number of factors such as cost, weight
penalty, manufacturing issues, property degradation,
inspection and repair. Finally, the use of different combi-
nations of damage tolerant concepts should be considered,
although may not always be beneficial to the structure [12].
Also, introducing more than one material concept will incur
further costs and timescales for qualification, as well as
having implications for repair.
The two aspects of impact tolerance (impact resistance
and impact damage tolerance) are considered in turn.
Impact resistance. This property does not require any
load-carrying capability, so mechanical properties such as
strength will be of relatively little importance. As well as
impact resistance, the main requirements for an impact
resistant structure will be low cost, low weight and ease of
fabrication. For impact threats in excess of the threshold
threat for damage formation, the component will need to be
easy to inspect and repair. Based on these requirements, the
best material concepts for impact resistance are planar
woven and NCF materials. These are relatively cheap and
not time consuming to manufacture. Tougher matrix
systems will also impart some increase in impact resistance
but these can be expensive. Concepts such as selective
interlayers, hybrids and protective layers can improve
impact resistance, but may be expensive and will add
parasitic weight to the component. Stitching and Z-pinning
159
can be expensive, time consuming and may not improve
impact resistance significantly. Finally, three-dimensional
fabrics will improve impact resistance but are relatively
immature since the test methods to characterise these types
of material are not well developed yet.
Impact damage tolerance. This is a property in which the
load-carrying capability of the structure is critical, so
mechanical properties such as stiffness and strength are of
paramount importance. In particular, the capacity to carry
compressive load, and tolerate high out-of-plane forces
(induced through panel buckling) are important. As well as
damage tolerance, the main requirement for an impact
damage tolerant structure will be low weight and high
undamaged mechanical performance, with cost and ease of
fabrication of secondary importance. Z-pinning and stitch-
ing show the most promise as an impact damage tolerant
concept for skin-stringer panels. If the pin size and
distribution are optimised, it can demonstrate the least
reduction in undamaged compressive properties, and
exhibits considerable reductions in damage growth under
load. The only disadvantages are the high cost and some
fabrication issues. Woven fabrics and stitched laminates
exhibit too large a reduction in undamaged properties
although these can be recovered to a limited extent by using
mixed-woven laminates. Selective interlayers and protec-
tive surface layers can impart significant damage tolerance,
although they can have a high weight penalty. For future
structures, 3D woven materials show a lot of promise for
impact damage tolerant design although the qualification of
such components may be expensive.
To compare the concepts, it is important to consider how
they will be used; either as a replacement in structures
already in-service, or for future structures.
In-service structures. The high cost of inspection and
repair has led to the current demand for structures to be
impact resistant, particularly secondary components in civil
aerospace structures [1]. Increasing impact resistance will
allow an increase in the time between inspections and less
need for repair or replacement. One of the important factors,
which limit using new materials, is the increased cost and
timescales they incur for qualification. For impact resistant
structures, which are not required to carry any significant
load, this may not be such an important issue. However, for
damage tolerance, the reduction in undamaged properties,
which many of the concepts exhibit, will make using them
problematic. This would suggest that the most efficient
method of improving impact tolerance might be to redesign
the component rather than changing material. The best
impact tolerant option for replacing materials in current
structures is probably to use tougher resin systems or (non-
load carrying) protective surface layers, although the latter
could incur significant weight penalties. By optimisation to
minimise reductions in undamaged properties, selective use
of Z-pins would be a very attractive option although for
primary structures the requalification and material costs
associated with using this concept may be an issue. Woven
160 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
materials and stitching incur too high a reduction in
undamaged properties and qualification costs to be attrac-
tive, whilst the test methods used to characterise 3D
materials are not yet mature enough to enable these
composites to be used in-service.
Future structures. For future structures there is scope for
allowing for a reduction in undamaged properties in the
design process. In addition, qualification costs will not be
overly prohibitive since such this would need to be done
anyway. The main drivers for using new materials in future
structures will be cost, weight, ease of fabrication, impact
tolerance and inspection/repairability. Recent work [30,31]
showed that 3D architecture in combination with stitching is
one of the most promising concepts. Similarly, Z-pinning in
combination with mixed-woven laminates could be used to
produce efficient and highly impact tolerant structures. In
comparison, the long-term gains of tougher resin systems,
are limited [12,21,44]. Concepts such as protective layers
and interlayers could be used on highly critical sites, but may
not be cost or weight effective enough for widespread use.
6. Conclusions
A range of new materials and processes have been
considered to improve the impact tolerance of stringer-
stiffened composite structures. The factors, which contrib-
ute to impact performance, have been discussed and the
critical material parameters that contribute to impact
tolerance of skin-stringer structures identified. New
materials and processes, which could be used for improving
composite toughness, have been described and their
suitability for use in impact tolerant skin-stringer panel
design discussed. The material concepts reviewed were
toughened resin systems, 2D and 3D woven architecture,
stitching, Z-pinning, interlayers, hybrids and protective
materials.
1. Impact tolerance can be considered as a combination of
two aspects; impact resistance which deals with the
ability to sustain a given impact threat with the minimum
amount of damage. The second, impact damage
tolerance deals with the ability to sustain a given level
of damage with minimum effect on the performance.
2. The impact tolerance of skin-stringer panels can be
improved without changing the material type by tailoring
panel geometry, stacking-sequence and stringer geome-
try. These factors can impart significant improvements
and should be fully explored before turning to changes in
the material type.
3. All the concepts reviewed could impart improvements in
the impact tolerance in structures. However, all have
disadvantages, most commonly reductions in the unda-
maged performance and weight penalties. Most would
require requalification or redesign of the component to
replace current materials.
4. The cost and weight penalties that many of these material
concepts incur means that the siting of the impact
tolerant material on the component is critical. Some new
materials could be used in combination, although this
could incur high costs and increased timescales due to
qualification requirements.
5. For impact resistant applications, the best material
concepts are planar woven and NCF materials since
they are relatively cheap and offer ease of fabrication. For
impact damage tolerance applications, Z-pinning offers
the most promise if configurations can be used which
minimise the reduction in undamaged performance.
6. For replacement of current in-service structures, the best
impact tolerant options are using improved toughness
resins, Z-pinning or protective layers at critical sites. The
other options would introduce too high a cost due to the
redesign of the component, which would be required.
7. For future structures, materials such as 3D, NCF and 2D
woven in combination with stitching or Z-pins are
attractive options, although these areas are currently not
mature enough to be used.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the
DTI Aeronautics Research Programme (CARAD). The
authors would also like to acknowledge the help and advice
of Andy Foreman and Andrew Clarke from QinetiQ.
References
[1] Ireman T. EDAVCOS-efficient design and verification of composite
structures final report. BRPR-CT98-0611, BE97-4359; 2001.
[2] Olsson R, Asp L, Nilsson S, Sjogren A. A review of some key
developments in the analysis of the effects of impact upon composite
structures. ASTM STP 1383. Composite structures: theory and
practice, Seattle, Washington, USA; 2000. p. 12–28.
[3] Richardson M, Wisheart M. Review of low-velocity impact properties
of composite materials. Composites, Part A 1996;27:1123–31.
[4] Hull D, Shi Y. Damage mechanism characterisation in composite
damage tolerance investigations. Compos Struct 1993;23:99–120.
[5] Greenhalgh E. Characterisation of mixed-mode delamination growth
in carbon fibre composites. PhD Thesis. Imperial College; 1998.
[6] Foreman A, Curtis P. Optimising damage tolerance in carbon fibre
composites. DERA/SMC/SM3/CR970187/1.0; 1997.
[7] Greenhalgh E, Singh S, Hughes D, Roberts D. Impact damage
resistance and tolerance of stringer-stiffened composite structures.
Plast, Rubber Compos 1999;28(5).
[8] Wiggeneraad J, Zhang X, Davies G. Impact damage predictions and
failure analysis of heavily loaded, blade stiffened composite wing
panels. NLR-TP-98139, Holland; 1998.
[9] Greenhalgh E, Singh S, Nilsson K-F. Mechanisms and modelling of
delamination growth and failure of carbon-fibre reinforced skin-
stringer panels. ASTM STP 1383. Composite structures: theory and
practice, Seattle, Washington, USA; 2000. p. 49–71.
[10] Greenhalgh E, Millson B, Thompson R, Sayers P. Testing and failure
analysis of a CFRP wingbox containing a 150J impact. 12th
 E. Greenhalgh, M. Hiley / Composites: Part A 34 (2003) 151–161
International Conference on Composite Materials, Paris, France;
1999.
[11] Loader C, Greenhalgh E. Failure analysis of stringer-stiffened wing
panels. DERA/MSS/MSMA2/TR002080 (DERA.T3.TR.6); 2000.
[12] Greenhalgh E, Lewis A, Bowen R. Evaluation of toughening concepts
at structural features. QINETIQ/FST/SMC/TR013828; 2002.
[13] Soutis C, Curtis P. Prediction of the post-impact compressive strength
of CFRP laminated composites. DRA/SMC/TR951012; 1995.
[14] Wiggenraad J, Greenhalgh E, Olsson R. Design and analysis of
stiffened composite panels for damage resistance and tolerance. Fifth
World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Vienna, Austria; 2002.
[15] Wiggenraad J, Ubels L. Damage tolerance of a composite I-stiffened
wing panel made of IM7/F3900-2 carbon-epoxy material. NLR-CR-
98384; 1998.
[16] Harper T, Greenhalgh E. The effect of Z-pin configuration on skin/
stiffener performance. QINETIQ/FST/SMC/CR013826; 2001.
[17] Bishop S. A review of the strength and failure of high performance
woven carbon-fibre reinforced plastics. RAE Tech Report 86036;
1986.
[18] Liu D. Delamination resistance in stitched and unstitched composite
plates subjected to impact loading. J Reinforced Plast Compos 1990;9:
59–69.
[19] Fuoss E, Straznicky P, Poon C. Effects of stacking sequence on the
impact resistance in composite laminates. Part 1. Parametric study.
Compos Struct 1998;41:67–77.
[20] Puhui C, Junshi L, Zhen S, Xu Y. Design of impact damage tolerant
composite laminates. 11th International Conference on Composite
Materials, Gold Coast, Australia, vol. 1.; 1997. p. 748– 56.
[21] Bibo G, Hogg P. The role of reinforcement architecture on impact
damage mechanisms and post-impact compression behaviour. J Mater
Sci 1996;31:1115–37.
[22] Davies A. Fatigue life prediction of composite materials, DERA/
MSS/MSMA2/TR990683; 1999.
[23] Greenhalgh E, Meeks C. Evaluation of IM7/F3900 skin-stringer
panels designed for damage tolerance. DERA technical report,
DERA/MSS/MSMA2/TR002085; 2002.
[24] Siow Y, Shim V. An experimental study of low velocity impact damage
in woven fiber composites. J Compos Mater 1998;32(12):1178–202.
[25] Greenhalgh E, Avila-Dominguez. FALCOM—failure, performance
and processing prediction for enhanced design with non-crimp fabric
composites. Technical Annex, GRD1-2001-40184; 2001.
[26] Shyr T, Ouyang C, Pan Y. Impact damage and residual strength of
multi-axial warp knitted glass fabric reinforced polyester laminate.
12th International Conference on Composite Materials, Paris; 1999.
[27] Duarte A, Herszberg I, Paton R. Impact resistance and tolerance of
interleaved RTM laminates. 12th International Conference on
Composite Materials, Paris, France; 1999.
[28] Hiley M, Foreman A, Meeks G. The development of novel composite
materials for improved performance. DERA/MSS/MSMA2/
CR990928; 1999.
161
[29] Hojo M, Matsuda S, Ochiai S, Murakami A, Akimoto H. The role of
interleaf/base lamina interphase in toughening mechanism of inter-
leaf-toughened CFRP. 12th International Conference on Composite
Materials, Paris, France; 1999.
[30] Dow M, Dexter H. Development of stitched, braided and woven
composite structures in the ACT Program and at Langley research
centre, NASA TP-97-206234; 1997.
[31] Jegley D, Bush H. Structural test documentation and results for the
McDonnell Douglas all-composite wing stub box, NASA Tech Memo
110204; 1997.
[32] Larsson F. Damage tolerance of a stitched carbon/epoxy laminate.
Composites, Part A 1997;28:923–34.
[33] Sawyer JW. Effect of stitching on the strength of bonded composite
single lap joints. J AIAA 1985;23:1744– 8.
[34] Tada Y, Ishikawa T. Experimental evaluation of the effects of
stitching on CFRP laminate specimens with various shapes and
loadings. Key Engng Mater 1989;37:305– 16.
[35] Lee C, Liu D. Tensile strength of stitching joint in woven glass
fabrics. J Engng Mater Technol 1990;112:125–30.
[36] Tong L, Jain LK, Leong K, Herszberg I. Failure of transverse stitching
on the fracture loads of RTM single lap joints. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58:221 –7.
[37] Qi B, Bannister M, Herszberg I, Baker A. The residual compression
strength of stitched and unstitched plain weave carbon/epoxy
laminates after impact and hygrothermal cycling. 11th International
Conference on Composite Materials, Gold Coast, Australia, vol. 5.;
1997. p. 149–58.
[38] Cox B. Mechanisms and models for delamination in the presence of
through-thickness reinforcement. 12th International Conference on
Composite Materials, Paris; 1999.
[39] Cartie D, Partridge I. Z-pinned composite laminates: improvements in
delamination resistance. Fifth deformation and fracture of composites,
London: IMechE; 1999.
[40] Steeves C, Fleck N. Z-pinned composite laminates: knockdown in
compressive strength. Fifth deformation and fracture of composites,
London: IMechE; 1999.
[41] Nettles A, Lance D. On the enhancement of impact damage tolerance
of composite laminates. Compos Engng 1993;3(5):383–94.
[42] Johnson A, Kempe G, Simon J. Design of composite wing access
cover under impact loads. 12th International Conference on
Composite Materials, Paris, France; 1999.
[43] Hart W, Ubels L. Impact energy absorbing surface layers for
protection of composite aircraft structures. NLR-TP-98002, Holland;
1998.
[44] Ambur D, Starnes J. Effect of curvature on the impact damage
characteristics and residual strength of composite plates. 39th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, AIAA 98-1881, Long Beach California;
April 20–23, 1998.