Acm01 2004

Adv. Composite Mater., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.
261– 280 (2004)

Ó VSP 2004.
Also available online - www.vsppub.com
Impact and compression after impact characteristics of

plain weave fabric composites: effect of plate thickness
N. K. NAIK ¤ , M. N. JOGLEKAR, H. ARYA, S. V. BORADE

and K. N. RAMAKRISHNA
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai 400 076, India
Received 26 March 2002; accepted 7 May 2003
Abstract—Impact and compression after impact characteristics of a typical plain weave fabric
E-glass/epoxy composite have been studied for plates with different thicknesses and the same incident
impact energy. Impact studies have been carried out on an instrumented drop weight impact test
apparatus. Post-impact compressive strength has been obtained using NASA 1142 test xture.
Compressive strength of an unnotched specimen has been obtained using Lockheed test xture with
modi ed specimen geometry. Power ts for peak contact force and maximum plate displacement
have been given as a function of plate thickness. It is observed that the impact damage area has quasi-
lemniscate shape. Further, damage mechanism has been studied during the post-impact compressive
testing. The residual compressive strength as a function of a plate thickness has been obtained.
Keywords: Plain weave fabric composite; plate thickness; low velocity impact; compression after
impact; residual compressive strength.
1. INTRODUCTION
It has long been recognized that laminated composites are sensitive to out-of-plane
impact loading. The damage can be induced even at very low impact energy.
The absence of through-the-thickness reinforcement and relatively low intralaminar
strength are mainly responsible for the reduced impact resistance to the transverse
impact loading. Even smaller out-of-plane impact loads at low velocities can
result in damage that is hardly detectable to visual inspection, causing considerable
strength losses, especially in compression.
Possible damage modes in laminated composites subjected to low velocity impact
are: lamina splitting/matrix cracking, delamination, bre breakage and bre pull-
out. The impact parameters such as impactor mass, incident impact velocity and
¤
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nknaik@aero.iitb.ac.in
262 N. K. Naik et al.
impactor size and shape, and plate parameters such as plate dimensions, material
used, reinforcement architecture and plate boundary conditions govern impact
damage initiation and propagation. For the effective use of composite materials, the
impact resistance and damage tolerance characteristics should be fully understood.
There are many review articles [1 –5] covering different aspects of impact behaviour
and post-impact behaviour of composites.
One of the important parameters governing the impact behaviour and post-impact
behaviour is the thickness of the composite plate. Even though there are some
studies on these aspects [6 – 13], further studies are necessary for more complete
understanding.
Miller et al. [6] conducted instrumented drop weight impact testing on fabric
and unidirectional (UD) laminated polymer matrix composites using T 300 carbon
reinforcements. They found that thickness was a strong variable in composite plate
impact performance. With different tests, they concluded that peak contact force
values are a linear function of composite plate thickness in all the cases. Winkel and
Adams [7] conducted instrumented drop weight impact testing of crosss-ply (CP)
laminates made of UD layers and fabric composites. They used AS4 graphite/epoxy
and Kevlar 49/epoxy material systems. Based on their study, they concluded that
a linear relation between peak contact force and composite plate thickness can be
assumed. Their studies were conducted on specimens with thicknesses in the range
of 1.85–3.00 mm and the total energy in the range of 13.33–81.77 J. They looked
into the applicability of the linear peak contact force to composite plate thickness
relation for E-glass/epoxy and concluded that the relation might hold here also.
Caprino et al. [9] carried out low velocity impact tests on carbon fabric/epoxy
laminates of different thicknesses. From the experimental results, they observed that
the maximum contact force and related energy and penetration energy follow the
trend increasing to the power of approximately 1.5 with increasing plate thickness.
But the incident impact energy was not kept constant in their studies. Sutherland
and Soares [10, 11] carried out impact tests on woven roving/polyester laminates
of different thicknesses. Since they carried out studies on laminates with different
thicknesses at different incident impact energy levels, no speci c conclusions could
be drawn on plate thickness effect.
In our earlier studies [12], using nite element analysis, a segmented linear
relationship was observed between the peak contact force and the composite plate
thickness during low velocity impact. Kim and Kang [13] carried out analytical
and experimental transverse impact studies on plain weave glass/epoxy composite
plates having various thicknesses. They observed that the absorbed impact energy
has a non-linear relationship with the thickness. The energy reaches a maximum
value at a speci c thickness. As the thickness increased, absorbed impact energy by
the de ection decreased whereas that by local indentation increased.
All the above studies dealt with the impact behaviour of composites. Post-
impact behaviour of composites as a function of plate thickness is not well studied.
The purpose of the present studies is to look into impact and compression after
Impact and compression after impact behaviour 263
impact behaviour of plain weave fabric E-glass/epoxy laminates. Firstly, impact

behaviour has been studied using instrumented drop weight impact test apparatus in
the thickness range of 4 to 8 mm with a constant incident impact energy of 24.03 J.
Then, damage patterns have been studied. Further, compression after impact (CAI)
tests have been carried out according to NASA 1142 standard [14].
2. IMPACT TESTING
An instrumented drop weight impact test apparatus was used in this study to
conduct impact tests. Impact parameters such as deceleration/acceleration and
contact force were measured during impact testing. The parameters were recorded
using a piezo-electric accelerometer and bonded strain gauge load cell tted on
the impactor. The instrument outputs were recorded using a data acquisition card
PCL 208 on a computer. The signals were ampli ed to match the entire range
of the data acquisition card. Contact force and deceleration/acceleration were
measured directly from the inputs of load cell and accelerometer, respectively. Data
obtained from the accelerometer were used to compute the contact force, velocity,
displacement and energy. The velocity and displacement were derived from
deceleration data using incremental integration. The velocity and displacement
values were also compared with the independently obtained experimental results.
The energy graph was plotted using the derived contact force and displacement
values.
The contact force was obtained using the expression
F .t/ D Ma.t/; (1)
where M is the mass of the impactor; a.t/ is the recorded accelerometer data. The
impactor velocity was computed as
Z
V .t / D V0 ¡ a.t/ dt; (2)
where V0 is the incident impact velocity.

On further integration, the displacement of the impactor was computed as,
Z
±.t/ D V .t / dt: (3)
The energy exchanged at time ‘t’, due to work done by contact force during the
loading and unloading was computed as,
Z
E.t/ D F .t /1.t / dt; (4)
where 1.t/ D d±.t/=dt

Impact testing was conducted on the specimens clamped on all the four sides. The
unsupported area of the specimens during impact loading was 127 mm £ 127 mm.
3. COMPRESSION AFTER IMPACT TESTING
Post-impact compression testing on impacted specimens was carried out using

compression after impact (CAI) test xture fabricated according to NASA 1142
standard [14]. Specimens were cut to have a width of 125 mm, which was
nearly equal to unsupported width during impact testing. This was wide enough
to accommodate maximum damage area and to allow the load path to bypass it.
The specimens were clamped along the top and bottom edges during CAI tests.
Anti-buckling guides were used to provide simple support along the lateral edges to
prevent overall buckling of the specimen. The side supports were snug t so that
transverse deformation due to Poisson’s effect was not constrained. A gap of 6 mm
between the supports and the end plate was provided to allow for the compression
of the specimen. The CAI testing was carried out by loading the specimen on
a universal testing machine with a maximum capacity of 200 kN. The loading axis
was carefully aligned with the laminate axis. The rate of loading was maintained as
0.5 mm/min.
3.1. Compression testing

Compressive behaviour of the plain weave fabric E-glass/epoxy laminate was
experimentally determined. A Lockheed test xture with a modi ed specimen
geometry was used for the experimental studies. The lower end of the specimen
was tapered to avoid end crushing during loading. The loading was along the warp
direction and the loading rate was 0.5 mm/min.
4. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Studies have been carried out on a typical orthogonal plain weave fabric E-glass/
epoxy composite. This material system is abbreviated as GLE-12. The fabric layer
thickness was 0.26 mm. Nominal plate thicknesses considered for the study were:
8.0 mm, 6.4 mm, 5.0 mm and 4.4 mm. Epoxy resin (LY556) with hardener (HY951)
was used for the matrix. Laminates were cured for 24 hours at room temperature.
Nominal bre volume fraction for all the laminates was 44%.
Laminates of dimensions 330 mm £ 330 mm were fabricated using matched die
moulding technique. Specimens of dimensions 150 mm £ 150 mm were prepared
from the laminates. Required quality of the laminates/specimens was ascertained
through C-scans. All the experiments were carried out at room temperature. At
least four identical specimens were tested for each thickness case.
The impact studies were carried out at constant incident impact energy, EII D
24:03 J. Impactor mass was M D 4:71 kg and incident impact velocity was
V0 D 3:19 m/s. The specimens were clamped on all the four sides with the
central unsupported area equal to 127 mm £ 127 mm. The specimen dimensions,
clamping conditions and the impact parameters were worked out considering a
typical practical application. Visual inspection of the impacted specimens was

carried out by observing damage patterns on the upper and lower sides of the
specimens. Also, damage patterns were viewed by placing the specimens against
a strong source of light. As E-glass/epoxy specimens are translucent, the damage
pattern could easily be observed.
5. DATA ANALYSIS
To study the impact resistance behaviour of composites, deceleration/acceleration
and contact force histories were recorded using the accelerometer and load cell,
respectively. The deceleration data .a/ obtained from the accelerometer, curve
t deceleration (a–cf), contact force .F / derived from the deceleration data and
contact force (F –lc) obtained from the load cell are presented in Figs 1–4. Contact
force .F /, plate velocity .V /, plate displacement .±/ and energy .E/ versus time
histories were derived using recorded deceleration/acceleration .a/ data. These are
presented in Figs 5–8.
The duration of impact .tf / indicated the time duration after which there was no
contact between the plate and the impactor. At the end of the impact event, the
impact force was zero. The maximum deceleration .am /, peak contact force .Fm /,
zero velocity .V D 0/, maximum plate displacement .±m / and maximum plate
energy .Em / occur simultaneously.
Figure 1. Variation of deceleration/acceleration and contact force w.r.t. time for woven fabric
composite, (O)S , GLE-12, clamped, h D 8:0 mm, V0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
Figure 5. Variation of contact force, velocity, displacement, and energy w.r.t. time for woven fabric
Table 1.
Characteristic impact parameters
Specimen Peak Maximum Duration Maximum Maximum Time to

thickness, contact displacement, of impact, plate deceleration, reach Fm ,
h (mm) force, ±m (mm) tf (m-s) energy, am (m/s2 ) tfm (m-s)
Fm (kN) E m (J)
8.0 9.1 3.9 4.4 21.1 1913 1.9
(0.2, ¡0:2) (0.1, ¡0:1) (0.2, ¡0:1) (0.3, ¡0:2) (41, ¡43) (0.1, ¡0:1)
6.4 8.0 4.5 5.1 21.3 1699 2.2
(1.3, ¡1:1) (0.6, ¡0:8) (0.3, ¡0:6) (0.0, ¡0:0) (245, ¡199) (0.2, ¡0:4)
5.0 5.9 6.7 6.3 21.1 1269 2.9
(0.7, ¡0:5) (0.4, ¡0:2) (0.3, ¡0:3) (0.4, ¡0:3) (115, ¡79) (0.2, ¡0:1)
4.4 5.6 6.7 7.8 21.1 1222 3.6
(0.2, ¡0:3) (1.5, ¡1:9) (0.2, ¡0:1) (0.1, ¡0:2) (47, ¡37) (0.1, ¡0:1)
Plate dimensions: 127 mm £ 127 mm, clamped, woven fabric, (O)S , GLE-12.
Incident impact energy: EII D 24:03 J.
The characteristic impact parameters, i.e. peak contact force, maximum displace-
ment, duration of impact, maximum plate energy, maximum deceleration and time
to reach peak contact force for each case are presented in Table 1. The values of
maximum plate energy, absorbed energy .Ea / and plate strain energy .Es / are pre-
sented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Characteristic impact energies
Specimen Maximum plate Energy absorbed, Plate strain energy,

thickness, energy, Ea (J) Es D Em ¡ Ea (J)
h (mm) E m (J)
8.0 21.1 7.8 13.3
(0.3, ¡0:2) (1.9, ¡2:8) (3.0, ¡2:1)
6.4 21.3 6.3 15.0
(0.0, 0.0) (3.4, ¡2:2) (2.2, ¡3:4)
5.0 21.1 9.7 11.4
(0.4, ¡0:3) (2.9, ¡2:9) (2.6, ¡3:0)
4.4 21.1 3.2 17.9
(0.1, ¡0:2) (3.3, ¡2:0) (1.8, ¡3:2)
Plate dimensions: 127 mm £ 127 mm, clamped, woven fabric, (O)S , GLE-12.
Incident impact energy: EII D 24:03 J.
5.1. Impact testing

5.1.1. Deceleration/acceleration plot. The deceleration/acceleration data mea-
sured are for the impactor. During the entire impact event, since there was contact
between the impactor and the plate, the deceleration/acceleration data measured is
that of the plate also. It is seen that the maximum deceleration is the lowest with
h D 4:4 mm and the highest with h D 8:0 mm. Here, h is the plate/specimen
thickness. With lower specimen thicknesses, the maximum plate displacement and
duration of impact are higher because of lower maximum deceleration.
5.1.2. Contact force plot. Contact force was derived from the deceleration/acce-
leration data. Contact force was also obtained from the load cell. The value of
contact force obtained from the load cell and that derived from the accelerometer
data are nearly the same (Figs 1–4). The data from the accelerometer was used to
derive the value of contact force by using equation (1).
The contact force measured indicates the resistance offered by the plate during
the impact event. The peak contact force was higher for h D 8:0 mm and lower for
h D 4:4 mm. For the other cases it was in-between. The plate with higher thickness
offers more resistance during the impact event.
5.1.3. Plate velocity plot. The velocity plots were derived from the decelera-
tion/acceleration data using equation (2). The incident impact velocity .V0 /, indi-
cates the velocity of the impactor at the beginning of the impact event. It was seen
that the rebound velocity was less than the incident impact velocity V0 .
5.1.4. Plate displacement plot. The plate displacement plots were derived from
deceleration/acceleration data using equation (3). The maximum plate displacement
was more with h D 4:4 mm and less with h D 8:0 mm. For the other cases it was
in- between.
5.1.5. Energy plot. The experiments were conducted at a constant incident

impact energy of EII D 24:03 J. Plate energy was derived using equation (4).
The energy–time relation was plotted using the contact force and displacement data
obtained using equations (1) and (3). The maximum plate energy .Em / represented
the maximum energy transferred to the plate by the impactor during the impact
event. The maximum plate energy was nearly constant for all the cases. The value
of maximum plate energy was slightly less than the incident impact energy. This
was possibly due to the loss of energy due to friction of the impactor with the guide
rails while coming down towards the plate, and probable micro- damage during
the loading phase. The maximum plate energy .Em / consists of the plate strain
energy .Es / and the energy absorbed .Ea / for fracture propagation. The plate strain
energy was responsible for the rebound of the impactor. The energy absorbed .Ea /
was the energy lost in the plate for creating damage. The energy absorbed .Ea /
also contained the kinetic energy of the plate, since the plate had not come back to
its initial position. Thus the energy absorbed .Ea / does not completely represent
the fracture energy if the separation between the plate and the impactor takes place
before the plate reaches its original position.
5.1.6. Damage patterns. Damage patterns in woven fabric (WF) composites

subjected to low velocity impact are shown in Fig. 9. Substantial damage was
observed in the central region throughout the thickness of the plate. On the upper
surface, damage propagation was more along the warp and ll directions compared
to the damage propagation along the other directions. The shape of the damage area
on the upper surface was found to be quasi-lemniscate. The inner region had intense
damage consisting of bre failure due to compressive stresses and substantial matrix
disintegration. The outer region consisted of only matrix damage.
On the lower surface, the damage area was circular. The intensity of damage was
more in the inner region. Only matrix damage was seen in the outer region. Clear
bre damage was seen only for specimens with 4.4 mm thickness.
Photographs of the top surface taken against bright light have also been presented
in Fig. 9. The damage dimensions are given in Table 3.
5.2. Compression after impact testing

Compression after impact testing was performed for all the specimens using the
compression after impact (CAI) test xture. The loading during CAI testing was
along the warp direction. The results of CAI testing have been presented in Table 3.
Here, Xc is the compressive strength of the unnotched specimen, Xcn is the post
impact compressive strength and Xcn =Xc is the damage tolerance. It was seen that
the post impact compressive strength was more with h D 8:0 mm and less with
h D 4:4 mm. For the other cases it was in-between.
Figure 9. Damage patterns in woven fabric composites subjected to low velocity impact, EII D
24:03 J: (a) h D 8:0 mm, (b) h D 6:4 mm, (c) h D 5:0 mm, (d) h D 4:4 mm.
Table 3.
Damage tolerance characteristics
Specimen Damage dimensions (mm): visual observations Post impact Xcn =Xc
thickness, compressive (%)
h (mm) Top Bottom Against light strength
Xcn (MPa)
Along Along Along Along Along Along Along Along Along loading along
wrap ll 45± warp ll 45± warp ll 45± warp
8.0 14.7 15.0 12.4 29.2 29.3 27.7 33.3 29.2 30.8 195 87
(1.3, ¡0:7) (1.0, ¡1:0) (0.3, ¡0:4) (4.8, ¡5:2) (3.2, ¡2:8) (2.3, ¡1:2) (2.7, ¡3:3) (1.8, ¡2:2) (3.0, ¡3:0)
6.4 16.5 13.4 13.0 33.1 26.3 32.3 33.8 32.0 31.7 175 78
(1.0, ¡0:5) (0.6, ¡0:4) (1.0, ¡0:5) (3.8, ¡4:1) (0.8, ¡1:3) (2.8, ¡5:1) (3.3, ¡4:8) (3.0, ¡3:0) (2.6, ¡4:7) (17, ¡11)
5.0 20.3 20.6 17.9 33.6 33.2 31.8 36.5 36.7 34.7 151 67
(6.8, ¡4:8) (6.8, ¡8:6) (5.3, ¡3:8) (8.4, ¡9:6) (5.8, ¡10:3) (5.9, ¡7:9) (4.5, ¡2:5) (3.0, ¡4:7) (3.3, ¡1:7) (5, ¡6)
4.4 19.4 18.6 16.3 24.4 20.5 21.6 24.6 20.7 21.9 143 64
Impact and compression after impact behaviour
(1.6, ¡1:4) (1.4, ¡2:6) (1.5, ¡2:7) (6.4, ¡2:5) (1.5, ¡1:5) (1.4, ¡0:6) (6.4, ¡2:6) (1.3, ¡1:3) (1.1, ¡1:8) (3, ¡3)
Plate dimension: 127 mm £ 127 mm, clamped, woven fabric, (O)S , GLE-12.
Incident impact energy: E II D 24:03 J, compressive strength (loading along warp): Xc D 225 (30, ¡10) MPa.
273
Figure 10. Load–displacement behaviour for impacted woven fabric composites under compressive
loading, (O)S , GLE-12, V0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
Load .Pn / vs. displacement .±n / plots for the impacted specimens under com-
pressive loading for different thicknesses are presented in Fig. 10. The loading was
along the warp direction. The post impact compressive strength failure data is pre-
sented in Table 3. The percentage failure strain for plate thicknesses 8.0, 6.4, 5.0
and 4.4 mm are 1.13, 0.96, 0.85 and 0.89, respectively. A clear non-linearity was
observed in load–displacement plots for h D 4:4 mm. This was because of possible
warping of the specimens during post-impact compressive loading. For the other
thickness cases, the non-linearity in load–displacement plots was marginal. The
percentage failure strain for the unnotched specimens was 1.55.
5.2.1. Damage mode. Damage patterns in the impacted woven fabric composites
subjected to compression after impact loading are shown in Fig. 11. For all the cases
shear failure was observed. The failure was nearly catastrophic.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From Table 3 and Fig. 9, it is observed that the damage area is more for 5.0 mm
thickness specimen on both upper and lower surfaces. During an impact event, the
energy absorbed by the plate and in turn the damage area is a function of plate
thickness. With higher plate thickness, the absorbed impact energy by the plate
de ection would be less and that by local indentation or crack formation on the
upper surface would be more. With lower plate thickness, the absorbed impact
Figure 11. Damage patterns in impacted woven fabric composites under compressive loading,
EII D 24:03 J: (a) h D 6:4 mm, (b) h D 5:0 mm, (c) h D 4:4 mm.
energy by the plate de ection would be more and the fracture energy would be less.
Possibly, for h D 5:0 mm, it is the combination of both energy absorbed by the
plate de ection and fracture energy. Hence, for the plate and impact parameters
considered, the damage area is more for the h D 5:0 mm case. From Table 2, it can
be seen that the energy absorbed is more for this case. Also the rebound velocity is
less (Figs 5–8).
The intensity of damage is less on the lower surface for 8.0 mm thickness
plates. For higher thickness plates, the energy absorbed would be because of
fracture initiation and propagation on the upper surface. The damage would not
Figure 12. Peak contact force as a function of plate thickness for woven fabric composites, (O)S ,
GLE-12, clamped, V 0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
spread throughout the plate thickness. Hence, post-impact compressive strength is

signi cantly higher compared to the other cases. For the specimen with thickness
equal to 4.4 mm, the damage intensity is signi cantly higher on the lower surface
also. Hence, for this case, post-impact compressive strength is lower compared to
the other cases. Overall, it can be seen that the post-impact compressive strength
decreases as the specimen thickness decreases.
The peak contact force, maximum displacement, energy and damage tolerance
as a function of plate thickness are presented in Figs 12–15, respectively. As an
initial trial, these quantities were evaluated with the general power of thickness such
as 1.0, ¡1:0 and 0.5. Since, this was not giving the least error, least error power t
equations have been used. These are non-linear power t equations.
The peak contact force as a function of plate thickness is presented in Fig. 12.
As the plate thickness increases, peak contact force increases. For the material
considered, it is observed that the power t gives,
Fm D 1:48 h0:88 : (5)
The maximum displacement of the specimen under the impactor is found to

decrease as the thickness increases (Fig. 13). For the material considered, it is
observed that the power t gives,
±m D 29:22 h¡0:99 : (6)

Figure 13. Maximum displacement as a function of plate thickness for woven fabric composites,
(O)S , GLE-12, clamped, V0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
Figure 14. Energy as a function of plate thickness for woven fabric composites, (O)S , GLE-12,
clamped, V0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
The energy plots as a function of plate thickness are presented in Fig. 14. The
maximum plate energy is nearly constant, but it is lower than the incident impact
energy. This indicates that some energy was absorbed or lost during the loading
phase itself. The energy absorbed is higher for the specimens with 5.0 mm
thickness. This would lead to an increased damage area (Fig. 9) and decreased plate
strain energy (Fig. 14). This decreased plate strain energy would lead to decreased
rebound velocity for this case as shown in Fig. 7.
It can be seen that the post-impact compressive strength is more with higher
thickness plates than with lower thickness plates. For lower thickness plates, the
intensity of damage is more throughout the thickness. For higher thickness plates,
the intensity of damage is less on the lower surface. Hence, for higher thickness
plates, the reduction in compressive strength of impacted plates would be less. This
indicates that, for the same incident impact energy, the damage tolerance increases
with increasing plate thickness (Fig. 15). For the material considered, it is observed
that the power t gives,
Xcn =Xc D 28:95 h0:53 : (7)
It was observed that, during post-impact compression testing, the failure was
nearly catastrophic. For all the cases shear failure mode was observed.
Figure 15. Damage tolerance as a function of plate thickness for woven fabric composites, (O)S ,
GLE-12, clamped, V 0 D 3:19 m/s, M D 4:71 kg, EII D 24:03 J.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Impact and compression after impact characteristics of a typical plain weave fabric
E-glass/epoxy composite with different plate thicknesses have been presented.
Impact studies have been carried out on an instrumented drop weight impact test
apparatus with incident impact energy of 24.03 J. Post-impact compressive strength
has been obtained using NASA 1142 test xture. It has been observed that,
² Peak contact force increases with increasing plate thickness and follows power
t
Fm D 1:48 h0:88 :
² Maximum plate displacement increases with decreasing plate thickness and

follows power t
±m D 29:22 h¡0:99 :
² The damage area is maximum with plate thickness equal to 5.0 mm.
² Shear failure takes place during the post impact compressive testing for all the
cases.
² The damage tolerance decreases with decreasing plate thickness and follows the
power t relation
Xcn =Xc D 28:95 h0:53 :
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the ISRO-IIT (Bombay) Space Technology
Cell and Structures Panel, Aeronautical Research and Development Board.
REFERENCES
1. S. Abrate, Impact on laminated composite materials, Appl. Mechan. Rev. 44, 155–190 (1991).
2. W. J. Cantwell and J. Morton, The impact resistance of composite materials — a review,
Composites 22, 347–362 (1991).
3. S. Abrate, Impact on laminated composites: recent advances, Appl. Mechan. Rev. 47, 517–544
(1994).
4. B. Z. Jang, Design for improved impact resistance of polymer composites, in: Advanced Polymer
Composites, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, pp. 167–198 (1994).
5. M. O. W. Richardson and M. J. Wisheart, Review of low velocity impact properties of composite
materials, Composites Part A 27A, 1123–1131 (1996).
6. A. G. Miller, P. E. Hertzberg and V. W. Rantala, Toughness testing of composites materials,
SAMPE Quarterly (January), 36–42 (1981).
7. J. D. Winkel and D. F. Adams, Instrumented drop weight impact testing of cross-ply and fabric
composites, Composites 16, 268–278 (1985).
8. D. Liu, B. B. Raju and X. Dang, Size effects on impact response of composite laminates, Intern.
J. Impact Engng. 21, 837–854 (1998).
9. G. Caprino, V. Lopresto, C. Scarpani and G. Briotti, In uence of material thickness on the
response of carbon–fabric/epoxy panels to low velocity impact, Compos. Sci. Technol. 59, 2279–
2286 (1999).
10. L. S. Sutherland and C. G. Soares, Impact tests on woven-roving E-glass/polyester laminates,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 59, 1553–1567 (1999).
11. L. S. Sutherland and C. G. Soares, Effect of laminate thickness and reinforcement type on the
impact behaviour of E-glass/polyester laminates, Compos. Sci. Technol. 59, 2243–2260 (1999).
12. N. K. Naik, Y. Chandrasekher and S. Meduri, Polymer matrix woven fabric composites subjected
to low velocity impact: part II — effect of plate thickness, J. Reinforced Plast. Compos. 19,
1031–1055 (2000).
13. J. K. Kim and K. W. Kang, An analysis of impact force in plain-weave glass/epoxy composite
plates subjected to transverse impact, Compos. Sci. Technol. 61, 135–143 (2001).
14. NASA/Aircraft Industry Standard Speci cation for Graphite Fiber Toughened Thermoset Resin
Composite Materials, NASA Reference Publication 1142 (1985).

Acm01 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acm01 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adv. Composite Mater., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.

261– 280 (2004)

Impact and compression after impact characteristics of

N. K. NAIK ¤ , M. N. JOGLEKAR, H. ARYA, S. V. BORADE

Received 26 March 2002; accepted 7 May 2003

impact behaviour of plain weave fabric E-glass/epoxy laminates. Firstly, impact

where V0 is the incident impact velocity.

where 1.t/ D d±.t/=dt

3. COMPRESSION AFTER IMPACT TESTING

Post-impact compression testing on impacted specimens was carried out using

3.1. Compression testing

typical practical application. Visual inspection of the impacted specimens was

Specimen Peak Maximum Duration Maximum Maximum Time to

Specimen Maximum plate Energy absorbed, Plate strain energy,

5.1. Impact testing

5.1.5. Energy plot. The experiments were conducted at a constant incident

5.1.6. Damage patterns. Damage patterns in woven fabric (WF) composites

5.2. Compression after impact testing

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

spread throughout the plate thickness. Hence, post-impact compressive strength is

Fm D 1:48 h0:88 : (5)

The maximum displacement of the specimen under the impactor is found to

±m D 29:22 h¡0:99 : (6)

Xcn =Xc D 28:95 h0:53 : (7)

² Maximum plate displacement increases with decreasing plate thickness and

You might also like