Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Original Article
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Keywords:
· Composite failure
· Delamination
· Low-velocity impact
· Bending after impact (BAI)
Correspondence to:
Tatacipta Dirgantara
tdirgantara@ftmd.itb.ac.id
Citation:
Quang, P. X., Wicaksono, S., Dirgantara,
T., Hadi, B. K. (2020). The effect of low-
velocity impact on the flexural strength of
E-glass/epoxy composite plates. Journal
of Mechanical Science and Technology
34 (5) (2020) 1879~1886.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Received March 31st, 2019
Revised February 13th, 2020
Accepted March 4th, 2020
† This paper was presented at FEOFS
2018, Eastparc Hotel Yogyakarta,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, August 26-28,
2018. Recommended by Editor
Chongdu Cho.
© The Korean Society of Mechanical
Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH
Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
DOI 10.
The effect of low-velocity impact on
the flexural strength of E-glass/epoxy
composite plates
Pham Xuan Quang, Satrio Wicaksono, Tatacipta Dirgantara and Bambang Kismono Hadi
Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
Abstract E-glass/epoxy composite is very prone to small impact such as dropping tools
or splash rocks, which can cause damage or degradation to E-glass/epoxy composite
components. A progressive damage model for E-glass/epoxy composite in ABAQUS Explicit
was developed in this study to numerically predict low-velocity impact (LVI) damage and
residual strength of an E-glass/epoxy composite component. Hashin-Rotem criteria were used
to define laminate damage initiation, and traction-separation law was used to define the
cohesive region. LVI and four-point bending after the impact (BAI) of the woven E-glass/epoxy
composite plates were simulated and compared with available experimental data in the
literature. Good agreement was found between finite element analysis (FEA) predictions and
the experimental results, which include the impact zone shape, as well as the load-deflection
response and residual bending strength from the four-point bending tests.
1. Introduction
E-glass/epoxy composite is currently a common alternative for skin in boat, wind turbine
blades, car exteriors, and home applications. However, a small impact from dropping tools or
splashed rocks may cause damage or degradation to E-glass/epoxy composite component,
which may affect the component ability to withstand its operational load. A lot of composite
components and structures are under bending load. Thus, it is necessary to understand the
bending behavior of composite components after impact, and it is essential to develop predic-
tive models and computational tools that would address this problem.
The common composite damage modeling, in general, can be divided into four: Plasticity,
damage mechanics, fracture mechanics, and failure criteria approaches [1]. The plasticity ap-
proach will not be discussed further as it is more suitable for ductile composite (e.g., composite
with thermoplastic resin). The damage mechanics approach has been used by many research-
ers in the last two decades. One of which, was proposed by Matzenmiller et al. [2] which used
exponential strain function for its damage growth. This damage mechanics model was imple-
mented by William and Vaziri [3] to predict the composite dam-age due to impact. The fracture
mechanics approach, on the other hand, has enormous potential in composite delamination
prediction [4]. Recently, Dimitri [5] has implemented a fracture mechanics approach to study
the mixed-mode delamination in a moment-loaded double cantilever beam and validate the
results analytically. Another application was performed by Zhao et al. to discriminate delamina-
tion morphologies of different neighboring ply angles by implementing extended finite element
method (XFEM) [6]. The failure criteria approach can be divided into two: Mode-independent
and mode-dependent [7]. The mode-independent failure criteria, such as Tsai-Hill [8], Tsai-Wu
[9], and Hoffman criteria [10], can be used to predict the damage and failure of a composite
material but without directly identifying the failure mode [7]. The mode-dependent failure criteria,
on the other hand, have the capability also to predict the mode of failure. One of which is the
Hashin criterion [11], which comprised of four failure modes: Fiber tension, fiber compression,
matrix tension, and matrix compression.
1879
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Combination of damage modeling approaches are quite
common in the case of bending after impact (BAI), due to the
complexity of the damage mechanism. Both intralaminar and
interlaminar damages usually are involved in the BAI case.
Many researches have been performed in this area. Wang et al.
[12] and Long et al. [13] have carried out a numerical damage
analysis on T700/3234 UD composite laminates subjected to
LVI to predict intralaminar and interlaminar damage behaviors,
which followed by ultrasonic C-scan to investigate the delami-
nation area of each interface. Additionally, Manalo et al. [14]
have studied the flexural behavior of a new generation com-
posite sandwich beams made of glass fiber-reinforced polymer
skins and modified phenolic core material. The composite
sandwich beams were subjected to a four-point static bending
test to determine their strength and failure mechanisms in the
flatwise and the edgewise positions. Li et al. [15] introduced a
prediction method of impact damage and residual strength of
woven SiC/SiC composites. They performed an impact test
with two different types of supports, i.e., partial support and full
support, followed by a four-point bending test to determine
flexural strength after impact.
Although many researches have been performed in the area
of BAI, further study is still needed, especially to develop a
reliable method to predict glass/epoxy bending behavior after
impact. In the current study, the development of a reliable pro-
gressive damage model for glass/epoxy composite to numeri-
cally predict the impact damage, especially delamination and
flexural strength after impact based on interactive failure criteria
is presented.
2. Composite damage models
Composite damage models used in the current research are
divided into two: Intralaminar and interlaminar damage models.
The details on damage criteria and damage evolution for both
damage models are as follow.
2.1 Intralaminar damage model
2.1.1 Intralaminar damage criteria
Hashin criteria [11] were applied to model both fiber dam-
ages and matrix damages. The fiber damages are caused by
normal stress in the fiber direction, while matrix damages are
caused by normal stress in the transverse direction and shear
stress as formulated below:
Fiber damages:
2
æs ö
Tension: ç 11T ÷ ³ 1 (s 11 ³ 0)
èX ø
2
æs ö
Compression: ç 11C ÷ ³ 1 (s 11 £ 0)
èX ø
Matrix damages:
2 2
æs ö æt ö
Tension: ç 22T ÷ + ç 12L ÷ ³ 1 (s 22 ³ 0)
èY ø èS ø
1880
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Fig. 1. Stress-strain relationship for fiber tensile damage.
2 2
æs ö æt ö
Compression: ç 22C ÷ + ç 12L ÷ ³ 1 (s 22 £ 0) (4)
èY ø èS ø
where
XT : Tensile strength in the fiber direction
YT : Tensile strength in the transverse direction
XC : Compressive strength in the fiber direction
YC : Compressive strength in the transverse direction
SL : Shear strength
s 11 : Normal stress in the fiber direction
s 22 : Normal stress in the transverse direction
t 12 : Shear stress in the plane of fiber and transverse direc-
tions.
2.1.2 Intralaminar damage evolution
Linear damage evolution law was applied after the damage
occurred. Fiber tensile damage evolution law is shown in Fig. 1.
Before normal stress reaches the tensile strength and fiber
tensile damage appeared, linear elastic behavior was applied
to the material. After that, the elastic modulus is linearly re-
duced. e n0 is the initial normal strain when the damage initia-
tion occurred and e nt is the normal strain of totally damaged
fiber. The area of the triangle formed under the curve is the
fracture energy of fiber tensile damage ( G ft ).
2.2 Interlaminar damage model
To capture the delamination phenomenon due to low-velocity
impact, the interlaminar damage was incorporated in the model.
The cohesive zone model (CZM) was used to simulate the
interlaminar damage. The basis of the method is the behavior
of cohesive elements between two adjacent surfaces. A trac-
tion-separation model based on damage mechanics composed
of an initially linear elastic behavior followed by initiation and
evolution of damage was used.
(1)
2.2.1 Interlaminar damage criteria
(2)
In composite laminates, the cohesive element between two
adjacent layers can be regarded as matrix material, which re-
lates the stresses to the separations across the interface. The
traction-separation model used in the current research, can be
(3)
written as:
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8

Table 1. WG07G E-glass/epoxy composite material property [16].

Density (kg/m3) 1750

Intralaminar
E1 = E2 = 21.4
G12 = 3.91
Elastic properties (GPa)
G13 = G23 = 4.1
n = 0.169
X T = 290, X C = 210
Fig. 2. Traction-separation law for cohesive elements.
Strength (MPa) Y T = 290, Y C = 210

0 ù éd n ù S L = 28
étn ù é K n 0
t = êê ts úú = êê 0 Ks 0 úú êêd s úú (5) G ft = G fc = 12.5
Fracture energy (N/mm)
êë tt úû êë 0 0 K t úû êë d t úû Gmt = Gmc = 12.5

Interlaminar
where t is the nominal traction stress vector, K is the elastic Elastic properties (GPa) K n = K s = K t = 850
modulus for the traction-separation law, and δ represents the
Tn = 12.42
separation displacement. The three directions n, s, and t are Strength (MPa)
Ts = Tt = 22.64
corresponding to the three fracture modes: Normal mode (mode
I), shearing mode (mode II), and tearing mode (mode III). Gn = 0.602
Fracture energy (N/mm)
Quadratic separation criteria were applied to control the Gs = Gt = 0.720
damage criteria of the delamination. The damage was as-
sumed to initiate when a quadratic interaction function involving
the separation ratio reaches a value of one. The quadratic
interaction function is formulated as:

2 2 2
æ d n ö æ d s ö æ dt ö
ç 0 ÷ + ç 0 ÷ + ç 0 ÷ =1 (6)
è d n ø è d s ø è dt ø

Fig. 3. Loading and boundary condition on the LVI model (where

where and represent the peak values of the contact separation U1 , U 2 , U 3 is displacement in the respective direction).
when the separation happens in the pure normal, pure shear-
ing and pure tearing directions, respectively. To define the
interlaminar damage evolution, effective separation is defined hesive property parameter.
as:
3. Finite element model
2
dm = dn + d s2 + d t2 (7) To predict E-glass/epoxy bending behavior after impact, two
different finite element models were created: Low-velocity im-
2.2.2 Interlaminar damage evolution pact model and quasi-static four-point bending model, which
The cohesive element was considered to have a linear be- will be discussed in the following.
havior before delamination appeared. Once nominal stress
value reaches the correlative strength, the cohesive stiffness 3.1 Low-velocity impact model
degrades linearly, as shown in Fig. 2.
Under mixed-mode loading, the propagation of the de- In order to check the validity of the incorporated progressive
lamination followed the relationship proposed by Ben-Zeggagh- damage model, the first low-velocity impact (LVI) model was
Kenane, which is formulated as: built based on the experiment performed by Long et al. [13].
The main difference of the current work in comparison to Long
h
æ G C + GtC ö et al. [13] is in the cohesive zone modeling. In the current work,
G C = GnC + ( GsC - GnC ) ç sC C ÷
(8)
è Gs + Gn ø cohesive element is introduced instead of surface-based cohe-
sive contact interaction, which was used by Long et al. [13], as
where G C is the mixed-mode delamination fracture energy, the cohesive element is believed to produce less error in two-
GnC , GsC and GtC are the critical fracture energies in normal, step modeling (e.g., bending after impact model).
shearing, and tearing directions, respectively, while η is a co- Subsequently, another finite element model with the configu-

1881
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8

ration according to ASTM D7136 [17], was developed to dem-

onstrate the low-velocity impact (LVI) progressive damage of
E-glass/epoxy composite. Composite plate configuration is
3.45 mm thick with the size of 150×100 mm and a stacking
sequence of [((+45°/-45°)2/(0°/90°)2)4/(+45°/-45°)2].
The loading and boundary conditions for the LVI model are
shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the material properties applied in
the simulation were listed in Table 1.

Where Fig. 4. Finite element model of quasi-static bending model, (where

E1 : Longitudinal elastic modulus U1 , U 2 are displacements in the respective directions and V3 is dis-
E2 : Transverse elastic modulus placement in the z-direction).
G12 : In-plane shear modulus
G13 : Transverse shear modulus elements (COH3D8) and 1104 brick elements (C3D8R). The
G23 : Transverse shear modulus friction coefficient of 0.3 was defined at the contact region be-
n : Major Poisson’s ratio tween the impactor and composite plate.
XT : Tensile strength in the fiber direction
XC : Compressive strength in the fiber direction 3.2 Quasi-static four-point bending model
YT : Tensile strength in the transverse direction
YC : Compressive strength in the transverse direction The quasi-static four-point bending models were built to pre-
SL : Shear strength in the fiber and transverse plane dict and compare the response of four-point bending before
G ft : Fracture energy of fiber tensile damage impact (BBI) and four-point bending after impact (BAI). The
G fc : Fracture energy of fiber compression damage models were developed according to ASTM D6272 [19].
Kn : Normal penalty stiffness The four-point bending models have the same dimension
Ks : Sliding penalty stiffness and mesh configuration as the LVI model. The load span and
Kt : Tearing penalty stiffness support span for the four-point bending model are 40 mm and
Tn : Interlaminar normal strength 120 mm, respectively. The loading and boundary conditions for
Ts : Interlaminar sliding strength the four-point bending model are shown in Fig. 4. The bending-
Tt : Interlaminar tearing strength nose and bending-support were modeled as a rigid body with a
Gn : Normal fracture energy diameter of 6 mm.
Gs : Sliding fracture energy In the case of four-point bending after impact (BAI), the im-
Gt : Tearing fracture energy. pacted panel was imported as a model with predefined fields
as the initial state. The predefined fields include the deforma-
To represent the distribution of tractions ahead of the crack tion field, 3D stress field, and material state. In the four-point
tip accurately, the maximum size of cohesive elements should bending analysis, if the material used is rate sensitive, choos-
follow the equation below [18]: ing the correct combination of loading rate and mass scaling is
critical to obtain a stable static state equilibrium for the whole
lcz G model. The increase in loading rate will reduce the time scale
lc = = Em c 2 (9)
3 (t 0 ) of the process, thus increasing the material strain rates in the
simulation. Mass scaling allows the model to be processed in
where its natural time scale when still considering the rate of sensitive
lc : The cohesive mesh size materials by artificially increasing the material density and the
lcz : The cohesive zone length stable time increment. Insufficient mass scaling factor will lead
Em : The modulus of the interface material (approximately to very expensive computational time. On the other hand, too
equals the transverse modulus E22 ) large a mass scaling factor will lead to a kinetic energy domi-
Gc : The mixed-mode fracture toughness nated system. The best value of loading rate and mass scaling
t0 : The nominal interfacial strength. factor are 0.05 mm/s and 1x107, respectively. This problem is
irrelevant if the material is rate insensitive. The final four-point
The resulted maximum cohesive element size based on the bending model is presented in Fig. 4.
properties used in the simulation is 1.7882 mm. In this low-
velocity impact simulation, an element size of 1.5 mm was 4. Experimental set-up
chosen for the middle area (30 mm x 30 mm) to guarantee the
4.1 Low-velocity impact test
convergence of the results, and mesh size of 2.5 mm was used
for the rest to reduce the computational cost. The model con- To validate the finite element predictions, composite plates
tains 29376 continuum shell elements (SC8R), 26112 cohesive were manufactured and tested according to ASTM D7136 [17].

1882
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Fig. 5. LVI experimental setup.
Fig. 6. Four-point bending experimental setup.
The tested specimens all belonged to the same composite
batch to ensure the same quality for each specimen, as it is
hard to control quality between each manufacturing batch with
hand lay-up method. The composite batch was then split into
18 specimens. Twelve specimens were used for the impact
tests, and the other six specimens were used in four-point
bending before impact.
The material used for the composite plates was EW-C200
woven fabric E-glass/epoxy composite. The specimen is 3.45
mm thick with the size of 150×100 mm and a stacking se-
quence of [((+45°/-45°)2/(0°/90°)2)4/(+45°/-45°)2].
The low-velocity impact (LVI) test was done on a drop-weight
machine. The hemisphere punch used in the test was made of
steel with a diameter of 16 mm and a weight of 3.73 kg. Impact
energy of 7 J was used, and the test was repeated six times.
The load cell recording was performed with a sampling rate of
40 kHz. Furthermore, a high-speed camera system was used
to records the displacement history. The final set-up of the low-
velocity impact (LVI) test is shown in Fig. 5.
4.2 Four-point bending test
To evaluate the residual strength of the composite plate,
four-point bending before impact (BBI) and after impact (BAI)
tests were performed according to ASTM D6272 [19]. The
specimen is rested on two supports and is loaded at two load-
ing noses with a loading rate of 6.3 mm/min. The four-point
bending set-up is shown in Fig. 6.
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Fig. 7. Delamination area and shape comparison between the current FEM
result (blue background) and Long’s experimental result [13] (black back-
ground).
Fig. 8. LVI force history comparison between the current FEM result (blue
line), Long’s experimental result (red line), and Long’s numerical result
(black line) [13].
5. Results and discussion
5.1 Low-velocity impact response
As discussed earlier, the first numerical model was config-
ured based on the experiment performed by Long et al. [13] to
validate the low-velocity (LVI) impact model. The delamination
results of the first LVI model are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen
that the delamination shape and size which were resulted from
the LVI simulation agree very well with Long’s experimental
results. Force history result of the LVI model also matches very
well with Long’s experimental result, with only 9.8 % difference,
as can be seen in Fig. 8. It is also shown that the difference in
the cohesive zone modeling between the current finite element
model and Long’s numerical model resulted in a 17 % differ-
ence in the peak force results. Although both models are still
considered valid as both show a difference of less than 10 % to
the experimental result.
After the validity of the low-velocity impact (LVI) progressive
damage model has been confirmed, the second LVI model
simulation was performed to predict the low-velocity impact
behavior of E-glass/epoxy composite plate. The force history of
1883
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Fig. 9. LVI force history results of the E-glass/epoxy plate.
Fig. 10. Delamination damage on each of the cohesive zone from the
bottom (1) to the top (8), with a square size of 30 mm x 30 mm.
the model agrees very well with the result of the experiment
performed in the current study (Fig. 9), with only a 4.37 % dif-
ference in the impact peak load.
The delamination on each cohesive zone resulted from the
LVI model from the bottom (1) to the top (8) is shown in Fig. 10.
The combined delaminated area from the LVI model is shown
in Fig. 11(a). No visual damage was observed in the specimen
after the LVI test, but after using the backlight method, delami-
1884
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Comparison of total delamination shape between (a) numerical; (b)
experimental, with a square size of 30 mm x 30 mm.
Fig. 12. BBI degradation zone (bottom view).
nation can be observed inside the E-glass/epoxy composite
plate as shown in Fig. 11(b). The delaminated area observed in
the tested specimen match well with the total delaminated area
achieved from the LVI model.
5.2 Four-point bending before and after impact
The finite element result of the bending before impact (BBI)
shows that the crack initiates from the middle area of the bot-
tom layer then propagates to the second lamina followed by
delamination before the final failure, as shown in Fig. 12. From
all the experimental validation that has been performed for the
bending before impact (BBI), 50 % of the failure occurred in the
middle area (Fig. 13 right) and another 50 % occurred at the
bending nose (Fig. 13 left). The failure at the bending nose
most likely caused by stress concentration due to contact be-
tween the bending nose and composite plate.
The finite element results of the bending after impact, on the
other hand, shows that stress is concentrated at the delami-
nated area, which was caused by the low-velocity impact, then
followed by fiber breakage and further delamination at several
layers before the final failure as can be seen in Fig. 14. The
observation results from the experimental validation that have
been performed show 72 % cases in which crack initiated from
the initial delamination (Fig. 15 right) and 28 % cases where
the crack did not propagate through the initial delamination (Fig.
15 left).
The force-displacement results of the four-point bending test
and simulation (Fig. 16) show that the flexural strength degra-
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Fig. 13. BBI crack propagation at the bending node (left) and middle area.
Fig. 14. BAI fiber degradation zone (bottom view).
Fig. 15. Crack propagation in the middle area without pass initial damage
(right) and failure tendency to pass initial damage (left) in BAI.
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
Fig. 16. Force vs. displacement comparison between experimental results
and FEM results in BBI and BAI.
dation of the E-glass/epoxy composite plate from the finite
element simulation and experiment are 11.7 % and 5.72 %,
respectively. It can be seen that the finite element simulation
has been able to predict the flexural degradation in the linear
zone quite accurately. The non-linear zone, on the other hand,
has complex behavior. Many factors were not considered in
this recent work such as the large deformation damage models
and woven fabric damage propagation. These factors will be
considered in the following work.
6. Conclusions
Finite element models capable of predicting flexural strength
degradation of the E-glass/epoxy composite plate due to low-
velocity impact (LVI) damage have successfully been devel-
oped. The newly developed model has successfully predicted
the delamination shape, size and location of the E-glass/epoxy
composite plate caused by low-velocity impact and was con-
firmed by the experimental results. The newly developed model
has also accurately predicted the four-point bending after im-
pact (BAI) damage propagation of an E-glass/epoxy composite
plate. The flexural strength degradation after the impact of the
E-glass/epoxy composite plate in the linear zone has also been
accurately predicted.
The current work is an initial stepping-stone to achieve better
prediction to the bending after impact case of a composite struc-
ture. The future works will focus on the large deformation dam-
age models, given that the large deformation bending force-
displacement value predicted by the current model was inaccu-
rate in comparison to the experimental results. Elastic-plastic
behavior, large deformation behavior, and woven fabric damage
propagation will also be taken into account in the future.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Kementrian Riset Teknolo-gi
dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia (Developing Coun-
tries Partnerships Scholarship and Penelitian Dasar Unggulan
Perguruan Tinggi), Institut Teknologi Bandung (P3MI), and
Royal Academy of Engineering, UK (Newton Fund Industry-
1885
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (5) 2020
Academia Partnerships Programme).
References
[1] M. V. Donadon and S. F. M. De Almeida, Chapter 2.07 - Dam-
age modeling in composite structures, Comprehensive Materi-
als Processing, 2 (2014) 111-147.
[2] A. Matzenmiller, J. Lubliner and R. L. Taylor, A constitutive
model for anisotropic damage in fiber-composites, Mech. Ma-
ter., 20 (2) (1995) 125-152.
[3] K. V. Williams and R. Vaziri, Application of a damage mechan-
ics model for predicting the impact reponse of composite mate-
rials, Comput. Struct., 79 (10) (2001) 997-1011.
[4] S. S. Wang, Fracture mechanics for delamination problems in
composite materials, J. Compos. Mater., 17 (1983) 210-223.
[5] R. Dimitri, F. Tornabene and G. Zavarise, Analytical and nu-
merical modeling of the mixed-mode delamination process for
composite moment-loaded double cantilever beams, Compos.
Struct., 187 (2018) 535-553.
[6] L. Zhao, J. Zhi, J. Zhang, Z. Liu and N. Hu, XFEM simulation of
delamination in composite laminates, Compos. Part A: Appl.
Sci. Manu., 80 (2016) 61-71.
[7] S. Wicaksono and G. B. Chai, A review of advances in fatigue
and life prediction of fiber-reinforced composites, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Pt. L: J. Mater. Des. Appl., 227 (3) (2012) 179-195.
[8] V. D. Azzi and S. W. Tsai, Anisotropic strength of composites -
Investigation aimed at developing a theory applicable to lami-
nated as well as unidirectional composites, employing simple
material properties derived from unidirectional specimens
alone, Exp. Mech., 5 (9) (1965) 283-288.
[9] S. W. Tsai and E. M. Wu, General theory of strength for anisot-
ropic materials, J. Compos. Mater., 5 (1) (1971) 58-80.
[10] O. Hoffman, The brittle strength of orthotropic materials, J.
Compos. Mater., 1 (2) (1967) 200-206.
[11] Z. Hashin, Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional fiber com-
posites, J. Appl. Mech., 48 (4) (1981) 846-852.
[12] H. R. Wang, S. C. Long, X. Q. Zhang and X. H. Yao, Study on
the delamination behavior of thick composite laminates under low-
energy impact, Compos. Struct., 184 (2018) 461-473.
[13] S. Long, X. Yao and X. Zhang, Delamination prediction in
composite laminates under low-velocity impact, Compos.
Struct., 132 (2015) 290-298.
[14] A. C. Manalo, T. Aravinthan, W. Karunasena and M. M. Islam,
Flexural behaviour of structural fibre composite sandwich
beams in flatwise and edgewise positions, Compos. Struct., 92
(4) (2010) 984-995.
[15] B. Li, M. S. H. Fatt and M. S. Hoo, Impact damage and
residual strength predictions of 2D woven SiC/SiC composites,
Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 113 (2016) 30-42.
[16] N. K. Naik, Y. C. Sekher and S. Meduri, Damage in woven-
fabric composites subjected to low-velocity impact, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 60 (5) (2000) 731-744.
[17] ASTM D7136-12, Standard Test Method for Measuring the
Damage Resistance of a Fiber-reinforced Polymer Matrix Com-
posite to a Drop-weight Impact Event, ASTM International (2012).
1886
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0409-8
[18] A. Turon et al., An engineering solution for mesh size effects
in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models,
Eng. Fract. Mech., 74 (10) (2007) 1665-1682.
[19] ASTM D6272-17, Standard Test Method for Flexural
Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and
Electrical Insulating Materials by Four-point Bending, ASTM
International (2017).
Pham Xuan Quang is a Ph.D. candidate
in Aerospace at the Pusan National Uni-
versity. He completed undergraduate
study at Ho Chi Minh City University of
Technology and his Master of Engineer-
ing at Institut Teknologi Bandung. He
works on the finite element method,
composite behavior, and reduced basis
method.
Satrio Wicaksono is an Assistant Pro-
fessor in the Faculty of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering at the Institut
Teknologi Bandung, where he has been
a faculty member since 2012. He has
been conducting several researches
funded by various sources and contribut-
ing papers in international journals and
conferences. He completed his Ph.D. and Master of Engineer-
ing at Nanyang Technological University and his undergradu-
ate studies at Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Tatacipta Dirgantara is a Professor in
the Faculty of Mechanical and Aero-
space Engineering at the Institut
Teknologi Bandung, where he has been
a faculty member since 2006. He has
been undertaking several researches
funded by various sources. He has been
contributing papers in international and
national journals and conferences. He completed his Ph.D. at
Queen Mary, University of London and his master and under-
graduate studies at Institut Teknologi Bandung. He has in-
volved in several industrial services ranging from aircraft struc-
ture, port equipment, oil and gas as well as mining facilities.
Bambang Kismono Hadi is a Professor
in the Faculty of Mechanical and Aero-
space Engineering at the Institut
Teknologi Bandung. He completed his
Ph.D. and master at Imperial College
London and his undergraduate studies at
Institut Teknologi Bandung. He has done
several researches funded by various
sources and contributing papers in international journals and
conferences. He works mainly on the composite structures and
modelling.