Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0263823122004517
Manuscript_4828fab8ab3a9d84775709940b296d3e

1 Ballistic impact experiments of titanium-based carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates

2
3 Jing Sun
4 School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
5 jingslinks@gzhu.edu.cn
6
7 Shanqing Xu (Equal Contribution)
8 School of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC,
9 Australia
10 sxu@swin.edu.au
11
12 Guoxing Lu (corresponding author)
13 School of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC,
14 Australia
15 glu@swin.edu.au
16
17 Qing Wang (corresponding author)
18 School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
19 wangq@gzhu.edu.cn
20
21 Ao Gong
22 School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
23 gongao0807@outlook.com
24

25 ABSTRACT
26 In this paper, high-velocity impact resistance of lightweight laminates with
27 multi-layers of carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates sandwiched by two titanium alloy skins
28 and aluminium alloy skins was extensively investigated by experiments with a total of
29 48 impact tests conducted. The ballistic limit of the titanium-based carbon-fibre/epoxy
30 laminate was estimated to be between 241.6 m/s and 257.1 m/s. Impact velocity
31 governed energy absorption and the corresponding damage modes were characterised
32 and identified. The influence of fibre metal laminates configuration on the impact
33 resistance was then experimentally investigated at a fixed impact velocity with full
34 penetration in ten types of laminates. The results also showed that thicker skin and
35 higher number of fibre layers favoured the specific energy absorption in the tested
36 matrix.
37
38
1

© 2022 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
39 KEYWORDS
40 Fibre metal laminates; titanium; carbon fibre; ballistic limit velocity (V50), energy
41 absorption.
42
43 1. Introduction

44 Fibre metal laminates (FMLs) are hybrid materials made by alternating thin layers of
45 metal alloys and plies of fibre reinforced composite materials [1-7]. Compared with
46 components made of pure metals or fibres, FMLs have high
47 stiffness/strength-to-weight ratio, excellent fatigue performance, enhanced energy
48 absorption capacity and impact resistance, increased ballistic limit and post impact
49 damage tolerance [8-13].
50 Titanium-based carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates (TI-CF FMLs), a newly emerged type
51 of FMLs, are made of carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates interspersed with thin titanium
52 layers [14,15]. Advantages of TI-CF FMLs can be extended as they are free from
53 galvanic corrosion in applications and can be operated at elevated temperatures
54 [16,17]. TI-CF FMLs have been increasingly utilised in aerospace, marine and
55 defense industry for their light weight and superior mechanical properties [18-23]. In
56 many applications, TI-CF FMLs are required to have better impact resistance due to
57 unpredictable impact loads. For instance, bird/hailstone impacts in airplane
58 application, vehicle crash in marine applications, ballistic and explosive protection
59 from terrorist attacks in applications as armoured vehicles and body armours [24-26].
60 The impact resistance, failure mechanics and energy absorption capacity of TI-CF
61 FMLs are directly related to their safety service in these fields.

62 Earlier studies showed that the impact properties of FMLs were superior to those
63 offered by their constituent materials [27]. Li et al. [28] demonstrated that in
64 comparison with aluminium-based FMLs, titanium-based FMLs had higher impact
65 resistance. Bernhardt et al. [29] conducted drop-weight tests and characterised the
66 impact response of TI-CF FMLs in two modes, depending on the failure or
67 non-failure of the titanium layer on the non-impact (rear) side. They also suggested
68 that the survival of this titanium layer was greatly aided by energy absorption through
69 delamination. Similarly Nakatani et al. [30] revealed that the low-velocity
70 impact-induced damage of TI-CF FMLs was dominated by fracture in the titanium
71 layer on the rear side. The extent of internal damages and residual out-of-plane
72 deformation in the composite core were indeed suppressed, and the energy absorption
73 was mainly achieved by plastic deformation and crack initiation in the titanium layer.
74 Jakubczak and Bienias [31] observed a growing proportion of absorbed energy in the
75 cases of growing impact energies, from approximately 50% to around 80% when the
76 impact energy increased from 2.5 J to 30 J. Nassir et al. [32] used finite element
77 models to predict the perforation resistance of the titanium-based FMLs under low
78 velocity impact loading. It showed that titanium-based FMLs exhibited rate-sensitivity,
79 both in terms of energy absorption and the maximum impact force. Yao et al. [33]
80 studied the successive impacts behaviour of FMLs under different impact angles. It
2
 81 was concluded that with the increase of impact angle, the contact load decreased,
82 while the contact duration rises evidently. Fathi et al. [34] investigated the effect of
83 incorporating graphene nanoplatelets on the low velocity impact behaviour of FMLs.
84 The results revealed that incorporating 0.2 wt% of graphene nanoplatelets
85 strengthened the impact resistance of FMLs so that the modified panels had higher
86 bending stiffness, peak load and energy absorption as compared with the unreinforced
87 ones.

88 Cortes and Cantwell [35] investigated the impact response of TI-CF FMLs at
89 velocities up to 80 m/s and found that interfacial debonding and interlamination of
90 TI-CF FMLs were primary mechanisms for dissipating energy during impact. Chai et
91 al. [36] showed that the peak contact force increased with increasing impact velocity,
92 even after the ballistic limit was exceeded. Sharma et al. [37,38] studied the response
93 and damage of titanium-based glass-fibre reinforced laminates under high velocity
94 impact (with velocities in the range of 70 – 140 m/s). Results indicated that, as
95 compared with aluminium-based FMLs, titanium-based FMLs showed less permanent
96 deformation, cracking and delamination, as well as the successive spreading and
97 propagation of crack and delamination.

98 Although the prevailing research indicated that TI-CF FMLs may offer superior
99 impact performance, insufficient experimental data can be found in literature to fully
100 understand the impact resistance of TI-CF FMLs at high-velocity impact. In addition,
101 the ballistic limit which is critical parameters to characterise the ballistic performance
102 of the composites [39,40], are rarely reported. The study on the influence of FMLs
103 configuration on the specific energy absorption is also limited.
104 In this paper, the dynamic response and energy absorption of TI-CF FMLs under
105 high-velocity impact (with impact velocity up to 500 m/s, or impact energy up to
106 887.5 J) was experimentally investigated. The impact tests were carried out by using a
107 gas gun apparatus. The impact resistance of TI-CF FMLs was assessed from the
108 residual velocities of the projectiles. The impact damage mechanisms and failure
109 modes of TI-CF FMLs at different velocities were identified. The ballistic limit and
110 energy absorption of TI-CF FMLs were obtained and discussed. The influence of
111 FMLs configuration on the specific energy absorption was also extensively studied
112 using experiments.
113

114 2. Experiments
115 2.1. Material
116 The FMLs investigated in this study consisted of multiple plies of unidirectional
117 carbon-fibre/epoxy prepreg with the density of 360 g/m2 and two layers of metal skin.
118 The mass fraction of fibres in prepregs was 58% with the thickness of each ply 0.45
119 mm. Two types of alloy skins were investigated: titanium alloy α-β Ti-6Al-4V
120 (thickness: 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 mm) and aluminum alloy (AA) 2024-T3 (thickness:
121 0.8 mm). There were totally ten types of FMLs studied as summarised in Table 1. As
3
122 an example, the lay-up scheme of TI-CF 0.4/4B were illustrated in
123 Figure 1, which was constructed by two Ti-6Al-4V skin layers (0.4 mm thick) and
124 four prepreg plies with fibres arranged in the order of 0º/45º/-45º/90º from bottom to
125 top. The specimens were produced by vacuum bagging technique in an autoclave. In
126 the curing cycle, specimens were heated at a rate of 3 °C/min up to 120 °C, and kept
127 for an hour before cooling to room temperature at a rate of 1 °C/min. The pressure in
128 the process was set to be 0.6 MPa and the vacuum was 0.09 MPa. The thickness,
129 density, and metal volume fraction (MVF) of the fabricated FMLs were listed in Table
130 2.
131 Table 1. Configuration of the tested FMLs

FML Metal skin Fibre layer

Thickness Number of Fibre lay-up
No. Notation Alloy Notation
(mm) prepreg plies orientation
1 TI-CF 0.4/2A Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 2A 2 0°/0°
2 TI-CF 0.4/2B Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 2B 2 0°/90°
3 TI-CF 0.4/2C Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 2C 2 -45°/45°
4 TI-CF 0.4/3A Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 3A 3 0°/90°/0°
5 TI-CF 0.4/4A Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 4A 4 0°/90°/90°/0°
6 TI-CF 0.4/4B Ti-6Al-4V 0.4 CF 4B 4 0°/-45°/45°/90°
7 TI-CF 0.3/4B Ti-6Al-4V 0.3 CF 4B 4 0°/-45°/45°/90°
8 TI-CF 0.5/4B Ti-6Al-4V 0.5 CF 4B 4 0°/-45°/45°/90°
9 TI-CF 0.6/4B Ti-6Al-4V 0.6 CF 4B 4 0°/-45°/45°/90°
10 AL-CF 0.8/4B AA 2024-T3 0.8 CF 4B 4 0°/-45°/45°/90°
132

Ti-6Al-4V

Unidirectional
carbon-fibre/epoxy
90° prepreg
-45° 45°

Ti-6Al-4V
0°
Warp clock
133 (0° is along the rolling direction of Ti-6Al-4V)
134 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of TI-CF 0.4/4B.

135 Table 2. Thickness, density, and metal volume fraction of the fabricated FMLs

FML type Thickness Density Metal volume fraction

4
 t (mm) ρ (kg/m3) MVF (%)
TI-CF 0.4/2A 1.60 3533.0 50.0
TI-CF 0.4/2B 1.60 3533.0 50.0
TI-CF 0.4/2C 1.60 3533.0 50.0
TI-CF 0.4/3A 1.98 3139.4 40.4
TI-CF 0.4/4A 2.36 2867.1 33.9
TI-CF 0.4/4B 2.36 2867.1 33.9
TI-CF 0.3/4B 2.16 2700.7 27.8
TI-CF 0.5/4B 2.56 3005.0 39.1
TI-CF 0.6/4B 2.76 3136.2 43.5
AL-CF 0.8/4B 2.96 2470.8 54.1
136
137 2.2. Experimental setup

138 In order to investigate the influence of impact velocity and configuration scheme on
139 the impact response of FML, the first series of the experiment were designed to
140 investigate one type of TI-CF FML (i.e., TI-CF 0.4/4B) under impact velocities
141 ranging from 140 m/s to 500 m/s. Whereas in the second series of experiments, ten
142 types of FMLs of different configurations were tested at a fixed impact velocity
143 around 356 m/s to achieve full penetration.
144 Figure 2a and Figure 2b showed the schematic diagram and photographic image of the
145 experimental setup respectively. Hornady bullets (traditional FMJ, item No. 3017) of
146 mass 7.1 g were held by specially designed sabots of mass 1.4 g (Figure 2c and Figure
147 2d) and placed inside an 8-metre gun barrel with an inner diameter of 12.7 mm and
148 length of 8 m. Nitrogen gas was charged to the gas gun at different values of pressure,
149 which accelerated the bullets in the gun barrel to achieve various flying-off velocities.
150 Square FML specimens of size 125 mm×125 mm were cut from the as-fabricated
151 large plates by water-jet cutting. An exposed circular area of 100 mm in diameter was
152 obtained by cutting two thick steel clamping plates of size 230 × 200 × 15 mm3, as
153 shown in Figure 3. Specimens were then sandwiched between the two steel plates and
154 the assembly fixed to the supporting frame as shown in Figure 2b. This represents the
155 fully clamped conditions at all the four sides.
156 In the test, flying-off velocity (V0, impact velocity) of the bullets was measured by
157 using a laser velocity sensor and a Tektronix TDS 1012B oscilloscope. The distance
158 between the two laser beams in the velocity sensor was set to be 50 mm. A Photron
159 Fastcam APX RS high speed camera was placed in front of the impact surface to
160 obtain front view of impact at a frame rate of 30,000 frames per second. A second
161 camera, Phantom v2512 high speed camera, was used to record deformation of the
162 rear surface at a frame rate of 88,000 frames per second. The residual velocity (VR) of
163 the projectile was also obtained from the highspeed photography. Both the two
164 cameras were calibrated to obtain accurate velocity measurements in consistent with
5
165 the velocities measured by the laser velocity censor. Side-view profiles of the samples
166 after impact were obtained from images taken by using a high resolution digital
167 camera.

High speed camera LED lights

Oscilloscope

Gas gun barrel Specimen

Projectile High speed camera

Laser velocity sensor

Clamp frame

168

169 (a)

170
171 (b)

172

173 (c)

174
175 (d)

6
176 Figure 2. Experimental setup: (a) schematic diagram, (b) photographic image, (c)
177 sabot, (d) bullet and sabot assembly.

Specimen Clamping
fixture

200 mm
100 mm

178 230 mm

179 Figure 3. Clamping fixture to install specimens.

180
181 3. Experimental Results

182 The results of the first and the second series of experiments were summarised in Table
183 3 and Table 4, respectively, which listed detailed values of impact velocity (V0),
184 residual velocity (VR), impact energy (E0 = ½ mbVo2), residual energy (ER = ½ mbVR2),
185 absorbed energy (ΔE = E0 – ER), specific impact energy ( = E0 / mb) and specific
186 energy absorption (SEA =ΔE / mf), where mb = 7.1 g is the mass of the bullet and mf
187 the mass of the exposed target FML (as listed in Table 4). The sabot disintegrated
188 before impact and hence had negligible effect on the specimen deformation. Figure 4
189 showed the images of the penetration for the specimen of Test No. 18 in Table 3 at V0
190 = 500 m/s.
191 Table 3. Experimental results of a typical TI-CF FML, TI-CF 0.4/4B, impacted at
192 various velocities ranging up to 500 m/s

Test Impact Residual Impact Residual Absorbed

No. velocity velocity energy energy energy
V0 (m/s) VR (m/s) E0 (J) ER (J) ΔE(J)
1 144.5 0.0 74.1 0.0 74.1
2 192.3 0.0 131.3 0.0 131.3
3 233.6 0.0 193.7 0.0 193.7
Not- 4 242.7 0.0 209.1 0.0 209.1
penetrated 5 243.9 0.0 211.2 0.0 211.2
6 245.1 0.0 213.3 0.0 213.3
7 248.8 0.0 219.8 0.0 219.8
8 250.0 0.0 221.9 0.0 221.9

7
 9 251.3 0.0 224.2 0.0 224.2
10 252.5 97.8 226.3 34.0 192.4
11 255.1 129.0 231.0 59.1 171.9
12 256.4 75.4 233.4 20.2 213.2
13 263.3 130.5 245.9 60.5 185.5
Penetrated 14 274.7 141.1 267.9 70.7 197.2
15 284.1 153.6 286.5 83.8 202.8
16 333.3 273.3 394.4 265.2 129.2
17 403.0 355.0 576.6 447.4 129.2
18 500.0 456.7 887.5 740.4 147.1

193 Table 4. Experimental results of ten different FMLs impacted at the same velocity of
194 around 356 m/s

FML Test Mass of Impact Residual Impact Residual Absorbed Specific Specific
type No. target velocity velocity energy energy energy impact energy
FML energy absorption
mf (g) V0 (m/s) VR (m/s) E0 (J) ER (J) ΔE (J) (J/g) SEA (J/g)
i 11.1 349.7 311.7 434.0 344.9 89.1 61.1 8.0
TI-CF
ii 11.1 349.7 308.9 434.0 338.7 95.3 61.1 8.6
0.4/2A
iii 11.1 354.6 319.4 446.4 362.2 84.2 62.9 7.6
i 11.1 354.6 303.5 446.4 327.0 119.4 62.9 10.8
TI-CF
ii 11.1 357.1 327.9 452.8 381.7 71.1 63.8 6.4
0.4/2B
iii 11.1 352.1 307.0 440.1 334.6 105.6 62.0 9.5
i 11.1 357.1 311.6 452.8 344.7 108.1 63.8 9.7
TI-CF
ii 11.1 353.4 326.2 443.3 377.7 65.5 62.4 5.9
0.4/2C
iii 11.1 352.1 322.4 440.1 369.0 71.1 62.0 6.4
i 12.2 349.7 306.2 434.0 332.8 101.2 61.1 8.3
TI-CF
ii 12.2 352.1 309.3 440.1 339.6 100.5 62.0 8.2
0.4/3A
iii 12.2 357.1 303.9 452.8 327.9 124.9 63.8 10.2
i 13.3 354.6 304.5 446.4 329.2 117.2 62.9 8.8
TI-CF
ii 13.3 357.1 302.8 452.8 325.5 127.3 63.8 9.6
0.4/4A
iii 13.3 362.3 301.9 466.0 323.6 142.5 65.6 10.7
i 13.3 362.3 306.4 466.0 333.3 132.7 65.6 10.0
TI-CF
ii 13.3 362.3 301.7 466.0 323.1 142.9 65.6 10.8
0.4/4B
iii 13.3 357.1 306.2 452.8 332.8 120.0 63.8 9.0

8
 i 11.5 359.7 304.5 459.3 329.2 130.2 64.7 11.4
TI-CF
ii 11.5 357.1 317.9 452.8 358.8 94.0 63.8 8.2
0.3/4B
iii 11.5 354.6 306.3 446.4 333.1 113.3 62.9 9.9
i 15.1 359.7 291.1 459.3 300.8 158.5 64.7 10.5
TI-CF
ii 15.1 359.7 290.2 459.3 299.0 160.4 64.7 10.6
0.5/4B
iii 15.1 357.1 287.8 452.8 294.0 158.8 63.8 10.5
i 17.0 357.1 262.7 452.8 245.0 207.8 63.8 12.2
TI-CF
ii 17.0 357.1 292.8 452.8 304.3 148.5 63.8 8.7
0.6/4B
iii 17.0 359.7 273.5 459.3 265.5 193.8 64.7 11.4
i 14.4 357.1 317.1 452.8 357.0 95.8 63.8 6.7
AL-CF
ii 14.4 357.1 320.1 452.8 363.7 89.1 63.8 6.2
0.8/4B
iii 14.4 362.3 313.5 466.0 348.9 117.1 65.6 8.2

195

Front view Rear view Front view Rear view

At 66.7 μs before impact At 33.3 μs before impact

Front view Rear view Front view Rear view

t = 0.0 μs, at impact moment t = 33.3 μs, after impact

Front view Rear view Front view Rear view

t = 66.7 μs t = 100.0 μs

196 Figure 4. High speed camera recordings of the perforation for a specimen at V0 = 500
197 m/s (Test No. 18).
9
198

199 4. DISCUSSIONS
200 4.1 Estimation of ballistic limit, V50

201 The ballistic limit or V50 is commonly defined as the impact velocity at which there is
202 a 50% probability of penetrating a target. This parameter is often used to characterise
203 the ballistic performance of the composites [39]. To assess the ballistic performance of
204 the TI-CF 0.4/4B, three methods are used to estimate the value of V50, i.e.,
205 energy-based approach, Lambert-Jonas equation, and logistic regression.
206 • Energy-based approach: The ballistic limit of TI-CF 0.4/4B targets was firstly
207 determined as 241.6 m/s through energy-based approach by using

208 2∆ ⁄ [41]. A minimum of three partial (Test No. 7-9) and three complete
209 penetration (Test No. 10-12) velocities were used to compute average absorbed
210 energy ∆ . This method is simple but less accuracy since the spall energy was
211 not taken into account.
212 • Lambert–Jonas equation: The experimental data of V0 and VR plotted in Figure 5
213 can be fitted by least-squares regression to the classical Lambert-Jonas equation,
214 , where A and B were dimensionless coefficients and p was the
215 power [42-44]. The ballistic limit V50 ( / / ) was the velocity when VR
216 became zero [45]. In Figure 5, when the fitted values of p ranging from 1.5 to 2.5,
217 the regression curves fell within a narrow band with the V50 in a range from 242.9
218 m/s to 250.3 m/s. Since the best fitted curve for perforated specimens was
219 obtained when p = 2.5, the ballistic limit velocity was 250.3 m/s.
550
Target not perforated
500 Target perforated
450 p = 1.5 (R-square = 0.9455)
p = 2.0 (R-square = 0.9681)
400 p = 2.5 (R-square = 0.9811)
Residual velocity (m/s)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50 V50 = 250.3 m/s ( p = 2.5)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

220 Impact velocity (m/s)

10
221 Figure 5. Residual velocity (VR)-impact velocity (V0) relation for TI-CF 0.4/4B.

222 • Logistic regression: the logistic regression was another method to analyse the
223 ballistic limit [46]. The logistic link function was a simple transformation of the
224 prediction curve, that is π / 1+ , where π(V0) was the
225 probability of a complete perforation for impact velocity V0, β0 and β1 were
226 regression parameters. V50 could only be determined once β0 and β1 were
227 evaluated, provided that / . It was noted the probability was defined
228 as 0 if there was no penetration, and 1 if penetration occurred. The probability of
229 occurrence was defined as Y 0 1 " and Y 1 " . The
230 logistic regressions were then performed using experimental data according to the
231 method of maximum likelihood to estimate the logistic parameters β0 and β1. By
232 estimating the probability of penetration of TI-CF 0.4/4B at different impact
233 velocities, the logistic regression produced a sigmoidal shaped response curve, as
234 shown in Figure 6. Therefore, the ballistic limit velocity could be estimated as
235 257.1 m/s to ensure the 50% penetration probability. Even though this method
236 was relatively more accurate, the ballistic limits of TI-CF 0.4/4B derived from the
237 three methods were reasonably close, 241.6-257.1 m/s, with a variation of around
238 6.0%.

1
Target not perforated
Target perforated
Probability of penetration
Probability of penetration

0.5

V50 = 257.1 m/s

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

239 Impact velocity (m/s)

240 Figure 6. Penetration probability curve of TI-CF 0.4/4B.

241 4.2 Impact velocity related energy absorption and failure modes

242 Energy absorption capacity, ΔE, is another critical parameter to evaluate impact
243 resistance of metal fibre laminates [40]. Table 3 also summarised the values of ΔE
11
244 from all the 18 tests. Figure 7 presented the energy absorption of TI-CF 0.4/4B against
245 impact energy. Since the mass of the projectile was the same, the values of impact
246 energy would also represent impact velocity squared. When the panel was not
247 perforated, all the initial impact energy was absorbed by the panel and the plot should
248 be a straight line with a slope of unity. However, when the impact energy was larger
249 than a critical value, corresponding to the ballistic limit, V50, the energy absorbed by
250 the panel decreases with increasing impact velocity.
251 It was found that the energy absorption of TI-CF 0.4/4B was closely related to the
252 deformation and failure of specimens. To characterise the damage modes, panel
253 specimens were carefully cut by using the method illustrated in Figure 8. Sectioned
254 specimens were photographed from the side at two angles, i.e., side view A and side
255 view B. It was observed that four damage modes emerged with the increase of impact
256 velocity. In modes I and II, TI-CF 0.4/4B panels were not perforated, while in modes
257 III and IV, the panels were perforated. These four damage modes are in accordance
258 with the four regions on the diagram of energy absorption against impact energy, as
259 shown in Figure 7. Figure 9 also provided the schematic diagram of the four damage
260 modes. Table 5 summarised typical deformation characteristics of the four types of
261 damages, with the front (impact side), rear and side views of the tested specimens.

262 In Mode I, the impact energy was completely absorbed. Table 5 shows a typical
263 damaged specimen impacted at 192.3 m/s. Evidently, the front titanium sheet was
264 indented and the rear titanium sheet bulged out. In side view A, delamination was
265 observed between composite core and titanium sheet, and also among different plies
266 of the composite core. In side view B, global deformation and local bulging around
267 the impact point were observed. The impact energy was absorbed by combined global
268 deformation and delamination. The plastic deformation of titanium sheets absorbs
269 most of the energy in this mode.
270 In Mode II, the energy was also completely absorbed. The maximum possible impact
271 energy that TI-CF 0.4/4B might absorb was when the impact velocity was close or
272 equal to the ballistic limit. In this mode, due to higher impact velocity than for Mode I,
273 the front titanium sheet fractured with cracks initiation and propagation, while the rear
274 titanium sheet was torn with an L-shaped crack, probably due to bending of fibre plies.
275 In the side view A, both fibre fracture and epoxy matrix cracks were observed,
276 together with debonding and delamination between the neighboring plies. A
277 debonding protuberance was also observed next to the impact point, caused by the
278 springing-back effect of the delaminated titanium layer, as well as the initial stress
279 wave propagation of impact [47]. In the side view B, the TI-CF 0.4/4B panel had
280 global deformation and local failure. In this mode, severe plastic deformation resulted
281 in tearing of titanium sheet, fracture of fibre and cracks in matrix, contributing to
282 more absorbed energy.
283 In Mode III, the TI-CF 0.4/4B panels were perforated. The bullet penetrated through
284 the panel with a residual velocity. Therefore, not all the impact energy was absorbed
285 by the specimen. In this mode, the front titanium sheet was penetrated, and rear sheet

12
286 was torn into petal shape with multiple cracks. In the side view A, the TI-CF 0.4/4B
287 panel experienced severe fibre fracture, matrix cracking and delamination. In the side
288 view B, TI-CF 0.4/4B panel exhibited a type of flexural-tearing failure. Petaling,
289 severe fibre fracture and matrix cracks in localised region around the penetration point,
290 which were the main sources of energy absorption. However, the energy absorbed
291 through global deformation decreased, as evidenced by the relatively smaller global
292 deformation (side view A), resulting in a slightly dropped energy absorption when the
293 impact velocity was slightly higher than the ballistic limit, accompanied with
294 fluctuations (Figure 7).
295 In Mode IV, the absorbed energy was significantly lower than that in Mode III,
296 accompanied by the damage mode changing from flexural-tearing to punching failure
297 when the impact velocity was sufficiently high. Here punching indicated out-of-plane
298 shearing failure. The front titanium sheet was fully penetrated, while the rear sheet
299 had more petals. In the side view A, TI-CF 0.4/4B panel showed extremely localised
300 penetration with fractures in localised fibres and matrix, as well as severe
301 delamination. In the side view B, TI-CF 0.4/4B panel was observed to have almost no
302 global deformation, which seemingly had only extremely localised failure. Thus, the
303 energy absorption was achieved by punching, petaling, fibre fracture, matrix cracks
304 and delamination, and resulting in even lower amount of energy absorption as
305 compared with that in Mode III.
306 Different damage modes were also seen in the deflection profiles of the rear titanium
307 sheets of non-perforated and perforated FMLs plotted in Figure 10a and Figure 10b
308 respectively. In Figure 10a, the deflection was approximately symmetrical with
309 respect to the center of the panel. In general, with the increase of the impact velocity
310 up to the ballistic limit, the global deformation or deflection increased, except for Test
311 No. 8 and 9, which had deceased deflection possibly due to rebounding. The
312 measured rear sheet deflection profiles of perforated TI-CF 0.4/4B in Figure 10b
313 showed that, with the increase of the impact velocity, the global deformation
314 decreased whereas local deformation increased. However, it was found that only when
315 impact velocity exceeded the ballistic limit by 30%, severe localised failure occurred.
316 Even though there were deflections observed at boundary (± 50 mm distance from
317 impact point) in some specimens, the magnitude of the deformation were insignificant
318 and negligible.

13
 250
Mode I (Test No. 1-2)
Mode II (Test No. 3-9)
200 Mode III (Test No. 10-15)
Mode IV (Test No. 16-18)
Energy absorbed (J)

150

100

50
I II III IV

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

319 Impact energy (J)

320 Figure 7. Energy absorption vs. impact energy for TI-CF 0.4/4B.

Side view A

Side view B
321
322 Figure 8. Illustration of sectioned TI-CF FMLs panel and the two view angles: Side
323 view A and B.

14
 Mode I: local bulging with delamination
only; some global deformation.

Mode II: local failure with fibre breakage

and delamination, accompanied with face
sheet cracks; global deformation.

Mode III: panel perforated;

flexural-tearing failure;
global deformation.

Mode IV: punching failure.

324
325 Figure 9. Schematic diagram of four damage modes.

326 Table 5. Characteristics of four damage modes with the front (impact side), rear and
327 side views of the tested specimens

Test
Mode Front/rear view Side view A/B
No.
Delamination
Side view A
Front view

I 2
Local bulging and some global deformation
Side view B
Rear view

Fibre fracture and matrix

Side view A
Front view

Tearing of metal

Debonding
II 7
Global deformation and local failure
Side view B
Rear view

15
 Petaling

Side view A
Front view
III 10
Flexural-tearing failure

Side view B
Rear view

Side view A
Front view

IV 18
Punching failure
Side view B
Rear view

328
10
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
8
Test No. 3
Deflection (mm)

6 Test No. 4
Test No. 5
4 Test No. 6
Test No. 7
2
Test No. 8
Test No. 9
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

329 Distance from impact location (mm)

330 (a)

16
 20
Test No. 10
Test No. 11
16
Test No. 12
Deflection (mm)

12 Test No. 13
Test No. 14
8 Test No. 15
Test No. 16
4
Test No. 17
Test No. 18
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

331 Distance from impact location (mm)

332 (b)
333 Figure 10. Measured deflection profiles of rear sheets of (a) non-perforated and (b)
334 perforated TI-CF 0.4/4B.

335 4.3 Influence of FML configuration on the energy absorption

336 To further investigate the energy absorption of different configurations of FMLs, ten
337 different FMLs of various combinations of alloy skins and fibre layers were tested at a
338 fixed velocity around 356 m/s (Table 4). As shown in Figure 11, in all the specimens,
339 the front impact faces were fully penetrated, while the rear faces were torn apart into
340 three or four pieces with cracks spreading from the impact point, displaying a feature
341 of petalling. The side view of the penetrated specimens in Figure 12 showed typical
342 Mode III flexural-tearing failure for TI-CF FMLs features with global deflection,
343 accompanied by local perforation, delamination, debounding, fibre fracture and
344 matrix cracks. It is noted that punching failure in Mode IV was captured in AL-CF
345 FMLs, as aluminium alloy skins were evidently weaker than titanium alloy skins.

346 The average energy absorption of the ten types of FMLs was plotted against the
347 impact energy in Figure 13a and specific energy absorption (energy absorption per
348 unit mass) of FMLs against specific impact energy was plotted in Figure 13b. The
349 influence of FML configuration on the energy absorption can be revealed through the
350 following parametric study.

351 4.3.1. Influence of metal thickness

352 It can be seen in Figure 13a, TI-CF 0.6/4B had the highest energy absorption (183.4 J),
353 followed by TI-CF 0.5/4B (159.2 J), TI-CF 0.4/4B (131.9 J), and TI-CF 0.3/4B (112.5
354 J). It indicated that thicker metal skins were more resistible to impact loads, resulting
355 in more global deflection. In Figure 13b, TI-CF 0.6/4B also had the highest SEA (10.8
17
356 J/g) whereas TI-CF 0.3/4B had the lowest value (9.8 J/g). Therefore, increasing the
357 metal thickness of FMLs tends to increase the energy absorption efficiency of the
358 materials.

359 4.3.2. Influence of metal type

360 Figure 13b also revealed that aluminium-based FMLs, AL-CF 0.8/4B, had the lowest
361 SEA (7.0 J/g). Although the skin of AL-CF 0.8/4B was the thickest (0.8 mm), its SEA
362 was even smaller than the most inefficient titanium-based FMLs, TI-CF 0.4/2C, with
363 a value of 7.3 J/g. Therefore, skin alloys had a direct influence on the SEA, and
364 titanium-based FMLs are evidently more efficient than aluminium-based FML.

365 4.3.3. Influence of fibre orientation

366 It seemed that fibre orientation had little influence on the specific energy absorption
367 of FMLs under impact load. For example, The SEA of TI-CF 0.4/4A (fibre orientation
368 0°/90°/90°/0°, SEA = 9.70 J/g) was only 2.32% smaller than that of TI-CF 0.4/4B
369 (fibre orientation 0°/-45°/45°/90°, SEA = 9.93 J/g), which could be negligible for
370 FMLs having specific impact energy of 2.29% smaller.

371 4.3.4. Influence of number of fibre layer

372 The number of fibre layers did affect the specific energy absorption of FMLs. Figure
373 13b showed that with the increase of fibre layers in FMLs, the SEA was generally
374 increasing. It can be concluded that increased number of fibre layers favoured the
375 specific energy absorption of FMLs. Therefore, TI-CF 0.6/4B, which had the thickest
376 titanium skins and the maximum number of fibre layers in the test matrix, showed
377 both the highest overall energy absorption and the highest specific energy absorption.

TI-CF 0.4/2A TI-CF 0.4/2B TI-CF 0.4/2C TI-CF 0.4/3A TI-CF 0.4/4A

TI-CF 0.4/4B TI-CF 0.3/4B TI-CF 0.5/4B TI-CF 0.6/4B AL-CF 0.8/4B
378 (a)

18
 TI-CF 0.4/2A TI-CF 0.4/2B TI-CF 0.4/2C TI-CF 0.4/3A TI-CF 0.4/4A

TI-CF 0.4/4B TI-CF 0.3/4B TI-CF 0.5/4B TI-CF 0.6/4B AL-CF 0.8/4B
379 (b)
380 Figure 11. Characteristics of perforated FMLs of different configurations: (a) front
381 (impact) face, (b) rear face.

FML
Side view A Side view B
type
TI-CF
0.4/2A

TI-CF
0.4/2B

TI-CF
0.4/2C

TI-CF
0.4/3A

TI-CF
0.4/4A

TI-CF
0.4/4B

TI-CF
0.3/4B

19
 TI-CF
0.5/4B

TI-CF
0.6/4B

AL-CF
0.8/4B

382 Figure 12. Side view of perforated FMLs of different configurations after impacts.

250 TI-CF 0.4/2A

TI-CF 0.4/2B
200
Absorbed energy ΔE (J)

TI-CF 0.4/2C
TI-CF 0.4/3A
150
TI-CF 0.4/4A
TI-CF 0.4/4B
100
TI-CF 0.3/4B

50 TI-CF 0.5/4B
TI-CF 0.6/4B
0 AL-CF 0.8/4B
400 425 450 475 500

383 Impact energy E0 (J)

384 (a)
15 TI-CF 0.4/2A
Specific energy absorption SEA (J/g)

TI-CF 0.4/2B
12
TI-CF 0.4/2C
TI-CF 0.4/3A
9
TI-CF 0.4/4A
TI-CF 0.4/4B
6
TI-CF 0.3/4B

3 TI-CF 0.5/4B
TI-CF 0.6/4B
0 AL-CF 0.8/4B
55 58 61 64 67 70

385 Specific impact energy (J/g)

386 (b)
387 Figure 13. Energy absorption of FMLs: (a) absorbed energy versus impact energy, (b)
388 specific energy absorption versus specific impact energy.
389
20
390 5. Conclusions

391 In this paper, the impact resistance of titanium and aluminium-based FMLs was
392 extensively investigated in experiments. Firstly, TI-CF 0.4/4B was selected to
393 investigate the influence of impact velocity on the impact resistance. Ballistic tests at
394 various velocities ranging from 140 m/s to 500 m/s have been conducted. The ballistic
395 limit and the energy absorption of TI-CF 0.4/4B were discussed and analysed.
396 Secondly, the influence of FMLs configuration on the impact resistance were
397 experimentally investigated at a fixed velocity of around 356 m/s using a testing
398 matrix containing 10 types of FMLs. The main findings are summarised as follow:
399 (1) The ballistic limit V50 for TI-CF 0.4/4B with a projectile mass of 7.1g estimated
400 using three different methods was found to be between 241.6 m/s and 257.1 m/s.
401 (2) Four damage modes were identified based on experimental observations and
402 analyses on the energy absorption, i.e., local bulging and some global deformation
403 (Mode I), global deformation and local failure (Mode II), flexural-tearing failure
404 (Mode III) and punching failure (Mode IV).
405 (3) Global deformation/failure of TI-CF 0.4/4B was generated by relatively lower
406 velocity impact. Higher velocity impact above ballistic limit would lead to
407 severely localised damage with almost no global deformation, resulting in less
408 energy absorption.
409 (4) The type and thickness of metal face sheets, and the number of fibre layers were
410 found to be affecting the specific energy absorption of FMLs in the impacts. In the
411 tested matrix of this study, titanium-based FMLs are evidently more efficient than
412 aluminium-based FML. In addition, FMLs with the thickest titanium face sheets
413 and the most number of fibre layers had the highest specific energy absorption.

414
415 Acknowledgements
416 The authors acknowledge the support of this research from the National Natural
417 Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.11902086, 52008120 and 11872125). The
418 authors are also grateful to the technical staff in the Impact Engineering Laboratory at
419 Swinburne University of Technology and the Composites Laboratory at RMIT
420 University for their supports.
421
422 References
423 [1] He WT, Wang LF, Liu HC, Wang CZ, Yao L, Li Q, Sun GY. On impact
424 behavior of fiber metal laminate (FML) structures: A state-of-the-art review.
425 Thin-Walled Struct 2021;167:108026.
426 [2] Sun J, Daliri A, Lu G, Liu DY, Xia FK, Gong A. Tensile behaviour of
427 titanium-based carbon-fibre/epoxy laminate. Constr Build Mater
428 2021;281:122633.
429 [3] Abdullah MR, Prawoto Y, Cantwell WJ. Interfacial fracture of the fibre-metal
21
430 laminates based on fibre reinforced thermoplastics. Mater Des 2015;66:446–
431 52.
432 [4] Hu Y, Zhang W, Jiang W, Cao L, Shen Y, Li H, Guan Z, Xu J. Effects of
433 exposure time and intensity on the shot peen forming characteristics of
434 Ti/CFRP laminates. Compos Part A 2016;91:96–104.
435 [5] Tooski MY, Alderliesten RC, Ghajar R, Khalili SMR. Experimental
436 investigation on distance effects in repeated low velocity impact on fiber–
437 metal laminates. Compos Struct 2013;99:31–40.
438 [6] Bourlegat LL, Damato C, Silva DD, Botelho E, Pardini L. Processing and
439 mechanical characterization of titanium-graphite hybrid laminates. J Reinf
440 Plast Compos 2010;29:3392–400.
441 [7] Sinmazçelik T, Avcu E, Bora MÖ, Çoban O. A review: fibre metal laminates,
442 background, bonding types and applied test methods. Mater Des
443 2011;32:3671–85.
444 [8] Sun J, Daliri A, Lu G, Ruan D, Lv Y. Tensile failure of fibre-metal-laminates
445 made of titanium and carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates. Mater Des
446 2019;183:108139.
447 [9] Cortes P, Cantwell WJ. The prediction of tensile failure in titanium-based
448 thermoplastic fibre–metal laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:2306–16.
449 [10] Bagnoli F, Bernabei M, Figueroa-Gordon D, Irving PE. The response of
450 aluminium/GLARE hybrid materials to impact and to in-plane fatigue. Mater
451 Sci Eng A 2009;523:118–24.
452 [11] Liu Q, Ma JB, Kang L, Sun GY, Li Q. An experimental study on fatigue
453 characteristics of CFRP-steel hybrid laminates. Mater Des 2015;88:643–50.
454 [12] Cortes P, Cantwell WJ. The fracture properties of a fibre–metal laminate based
455 on magnesium alloy. Compos Part B Eng 2006;37:163–70.
456 [13] Pärnänen T, Kanerva M, Sarlin E, Saarela O. Debonding and impact damage
457 in stainless steel fibre metal laminates prior to metal fracture. Compos Struct
458 2015;119:777–86.
459 [14] Salve A, Kulkarni R, Mache A. A review: fiber metal laminates
460 (FML’s)-manufacturing, test methods and numerical modeling. Int J Eng
461 Technol Sci 2016;6:71–84.
462 [15] Corderley G, Mostert F, Krüger JJ. Failure modes in a carbon/titanium fibre
463 metal laminate under hyper-velocity impact. Int J Impact Eng 2019;125:180–
464 7.
465 [16] Jakubczak P. The impact behaviour of hybrid titanium glass
466 laminates-experimental and numerical approach. Int J Mech Sci 2019;159:58–
467 73.
468 [17] Jakubczak P, Bienias J, Drozdziel M, Podolak P, Harmasz A. The effect of
469 layer thicknesses in hybrid titanium-carbon laminates on low-velocity impact
470 response. Materials (Basel) 2020;13.
471 [18] Ali A, Pan L, Duan LX, Zheng ZM, Sapkota B. Characterization of seawater
472 hygrothermal conditioning effects on the properties of titanium-based
473 fiber-metal laminates for marine applications. Compos Struct 2016;158:199–

22
474 207.
475 [19] Kazemi ME, Shanmugam L, Yang L, Yang JL. A review on the hybrid
476 titanium composite laminates (HTCLs) with focuses on surface treatments,
477 fabrications, and mechanical properties. Compos Part A 2020;128:105679.
478 [20] He PG, Chen K, Yang JL. Surface modifications of Ti alloy with tunable
479 hierarchical structures and chemistry for improved metal–polymer interface
480 used in deepwater composite riser. Appl Surf Sci 2015;328:614–22.
481 [21] Hu YB, Li HG, Cai L, Zhu JP, Pan L, Xu J, Tao J. Preparation and properties
482 of fibre–metal laminates based on carbon fibre reinforced PMR polyimide.
483 Compos Part B Eng 2015;69:587–91.
484 [22] Li X, Zhang X, Zhang H, Yang J, Nia AB, Chai GB. Mechanical behaviors of
485 Ti/CFRP/Ti laminates with different surface treatments of titanium sheets.
486 Compos Struct 2017;163:21–31.
487 [23] Pan L, Hu JL, Lv YF, Ma WL, Ding WY, Wang YF, Zhang AA, Wang F, Pang
488 XF, Tao J. Modification of Ti-6Al-4V plates with schiff base complex and
489 adhesive performance of Ti-6Al-4V/PEEK. Mater Des 2018;144:271–80.
490 [24] Sun J, Lam N, Zhang LH, Ruan D, Gad E. Contact forces generated by
491 hailstone impact. Int J Impact Eng 2015;84:145–58.
492 [25] McCarthy MA, Xiao JR, Petrinic N, Kamoulakos A, Melito V. Modelling of
493 bird strike on an aircraft wing leading edge made from fibre metal laminates -
494 Part 1: Material modelling. Appl Compos Mater 2004;11:295-315.
495 [26] Corderley G, Mostert F, Krüger JJ. Failure modes in a carbon/titanium fibre
496 metal laminate under hyper-velocity impact. Int J Impact Eng 2019;125:180–
497 7.
498 [27] Alderliesten RC, Hagenbeek M, Homan JJ, Hooijmeijer PA, Vries TJD,
499 Vermeeren CAJR. Fatigue and damage tolerance of glare. Appl Compos Mater
500 2003.
501 [28] Li X, Zhang X, Guo YB, Shim VPW, Yang JL, Boay GC. Influence of fiber
502 type on the impact response of titanium-based fiber-metal laminates. Int J
503 Impact Eng 2018;114:32–42.
504 [29] Bernhardt S, Ramulu M, Kobayashi AS. Low-velocity impact response
505 characterization of a hybrid titanium composite laminate. J Eng Mater Technol
506 2007;129:220–6.
507 [30] Nakatani H, Kosaka T, Osaka K, Sawada Y. Damage characterization of
508 titanium/GFRP hybrid laminates subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos
509 Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2011;42:772–81.
510 [31] Jakubczak P, Bieniaś J. The response of hybrid titanium carbon laminates to
511 the low-velocity impact. Eng Fract Mech 2021;246:107608.
512 [32] Nassir NA, Birch RS, Cantwell WJ, Sierra DR, Edwardson SP, Dearden G,
513 Guan ZW. Experimental and numerical characterization of titanium-based
514 fibre metal laminates. Compos Struct 2020;245:112398.
515 [33] Yao L, Yu H, Wang CZ, He WT. Numerical and experimental investigation on
516 the oblique successive impact behavior and accumulated damage
517 characteristics of fiber metal laminates. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;166:108033.

23
518 [34] Fathi A, Liaghat G, Sabouri H. An experimental investigation on the effect of
519 incorporating graphene nanoplatelets on the low-velocity impact behavior of
520 fiber metal laminates. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;167:108162.
521 [35] Cortes P, Cantwell WJ. The impact properties of high-temperature fiber-metal
522 laminates. J Compos Mater 2007;41.
523 [36] Chai GB, Manikandan P, Li X. A numerical study on high velocity impact
524 behavior of titanium based fiber metal laminates. J Compos Sci 2018;2.
525 [37] Sharma AP, Velmurugan R, Shankar K, Ha SK. High-velocity impact response
526 of titanium-based fiber metal laminates. Part I: experimental investigations. Int
527 J Impact Eng 2021;152:103845.
528 [38] Sharma AP, Velmurugan R, Shankar K, Ha SK. High-velocity impact response
529 of titanium-based fiber metal laminates. Part II: Analytical modeling. Int J
530 Impact Eng 2021;152:103853.
531 [39] Zhang T, Chen W, Guan YP, Gao DP. Study on titanium alloy TC4 ballistic
532 penetration resistance Part I: ballistic impact tests. Chinese J Aeronaut
533 2012;25:388–95.
534 [40] Atas C. An experimental investigation on the impact response of
535 fiberglass/aluminum composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2007;26:1479–91.
536 [41] Khodadadi A, Liaghat G, Reza A, Ahmadi H, Anani Y, Asemani S, Razmkhah
537 O. High velocity impact behavior of Kevlar/rubber and Kevlar/epoxy
538 composites : A comparative study. Compos Struct 2019;216:159–67.
539 [42] Ben-Dor G, Dubinsky A, Elperin T. On the Lambert – Jonas approximation for
540 ballistic impact. Mech Res Commun 2002;29:137–9.
541 [43] Wielewski E, Birkbeck A, Thomson R. Ballistic resistance of spaced
542 multi-layer plate structures: experiments on fibre reinforced plastic targets and
543 an analytical framework for calculating the ballistic limit. Mater Des
544 2013;50:737–41.
545 [44] Flores-Johnson EA, Shen L, Guiamatsia I, Nguyen GD. Numerical
546 investigation of the impact behaviour of bioinspired nacre-like aluminium
547 composite plates. Compos Sci Technol 2014;96:13–22.
548 [45] Recht RF, Ipson TW. Ballistic perforation dynamics. J Appl Mech 1963.
549 [46] Mukasey MB, Sedgwick JL, Hagy DW. Ballistic resistance of body armor. NIJ
550 Standard. U.S. 2008.
551 [47] Majzoobi GH, Morshedi H, Farhadi K. The effect of aluminum and titanium
552 sequence on ballistic limit of bi-metal 2/1 FMLs. Thin-Walled Struct
553 2018;122:1–7.
554

24