Sådhanå (2023)48:29 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02090-7
Sadhana(0123456789().,-volV)FT3](012345
6789().,-volV)

An experimental study on low velocity impact characteristics of glass

fiber reinforced epoxy nanocomposites
YASIN YILMAZ* , FATIH OZGUL and INAN AGIR

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20070 Denizli, Turkey

e-mail: yyilmaz@pau.edu.tr; ozgul.fatih@gmail.com; iagir@pau.edu.tr

MS received 16 March 2022; revised 21 November 2022; accepted 3 January 2023

Abstract. In this study, the low velocity impact behavior of glass fiber reinforced epoxy (GFRE) composites
with the addition of organic intercalated nanoclay and spheroidal powder of polyamide nanoparticles individ-
ually and together were investigated experimentally. The weight ratio of the additives was 2% of the epoxy
resin-hardener system. Composite laminates were manufactured using prepreg and hot-pressing techniques.
Impact tests were carried out at different energy levels from 10 J to 45 J up to complete perforation of the
laminates. To evaluate the damage characteristics of the laminates, the results are interpreted in terms of load-
time, load-displacement, energy-time, and observation of the physical damages introduced. Addition of
nanoparticles increased the peak load (up to 22.6%) and damage resistance (up to 40%) of the GFRE laminates
altering damage mechanisms of the composite material from out of plane to in-plane direction at higher impact
energy levels.

Keywords. Low velocity impact testing; nanocomposites; GFRE; nanoclay; polyamide.

1. Introduction brittleness of carbon fiber epoxy composites, the usage of

New developments in advanced material technology have
focused on multifunctional structural engineering materials
that simultaneously contain many superior features such as
high strength, low weight, damage resistance and low cost.
Epoxy resins, the most important class of thermoset poly-
mers, and fiber reinforced epoxy resin composites are
widely used in structural applications, automotive, defense
and aerospace industries due to their superior mechanical,
thermal and electrical properties. However, in all these
applications, epoxy resins are brittle and have poor resis-
tance to crack propagation limiting their usage in most
applications. Recent studies have shown that the combi-
nation of nanometer-sized additives or fillers with polymer
matrices is intensified by efforts to improve the material
properties of the polymer [1–6].
Composite structures are exposed to various in-plane and
out-of plane loading conditions during their service life.
According to many studies carried out in the literature,
impact events (specifically low velocity impact loading) is
one of the most critical factors to be considered in the
design and application of composite structures [7–9].
According to Avila et al [10], the key issue in the design of
fiber reinforced composite laminates for impact loading is
the damage tolerance of fibers and matrix system. Because
of the high cost of aramid reinforced composites and
*For correspondence
fiber-glass reinforcement is suggested. It is also mentioned
that fiber-glass epoxy composite toughness is highly
dependent on strain rate damage and the matrix behavior
itself, and matrix toughness can be enhanced by addition of
nanoclay to epoxy system. However as mentioned by Fer-
reira et al [11] there is no apparent consensus on the frac-
ture toughness behavior of nanoclay filled composites
looking at the results reported in the literature. Haque et al
[12] investigated the effects of nanoclay particles on
mechanical and thermal properties of S2-glass/epoxy
polymer nanocomposites using various amounts of (1, 2, 5
and 10 wt.%) of particles. They concluded that thermo-
mechanical properties mostly increase at low clay loadings
(1–2 wt.%) but decrease at higher clay loadings (5 wt.%
and above). Aymerich et al [13] investigated the impact
response of standard and clay modified glass fiber fabric/
epoxy laminates using three different clay volume frac-
tions, 1%, 3% and 5% with impact energies ranging
between 1 J and 10.6 J. They observed an increase in
absorbed impact energy (up to 30%), a reduction in the
impact force (from 10 to 15%) and an increase in damage
area with respect to the standard laminates for 3% volume
fraction of nanoclay. In another study, Koricho et al [14]
investigated the quasi-static indentation and low velocity
impact behavior of pristine and nano-/micro-modified S2-
glass plain weave fabric reinforced epoxy polymer com-
posites. They used nanoclay, CloisiteÒ 30B and micro-
Glass Bubbles iM16K as nano- and micro- additives,
29 Page 2 of 13
respectively at a wight ratio of 1%. They observed that
pristine and Glass Bubble modified laminates showed the
highest peak force and low absorbed energy with penetra-
tion of the impactor through the thickness of the laminate
while nanoclay modified laminate showed the highest
absorbed energy and minimum peak reaction force without
penetration at high impact energy levels. The hybrid lam-
inate (with inclusion of nanoclay and Glass Bubble addi-
tives together into the epoxy) exhibited intermediate
absorbed energy with peak reaction force that was sustained
for longer time. They also observed that nanoclay added
and hybrid laminates showed an extensive area of damage
compared to pristine laminate for the same impact energy
conditions. Rafiq et al [15] studied the effect of nanoclay
addition in glass fiber mat reinforced epoxy composites on
impact response using 1.5 and 3.0 wt.% loading of I.30E
nanoclay. They found that laminates with nanoclay exhib-
ited better impact resistance as compared to neat samples
and samples with 1.5 wt.% nanoclay showed better per-
formance compared to samples with 3.0 wt.% nanoclay.
According to their study, there is an increase in peak load
and stiffness, a reduction in physical damage and a decrease
in absorbed energy with the addition of nanoclay to epoxy.
They also concluded that 3.0 wt.% nanoclay loading con-
tributed towards limiting the improvement in impact
resistance due to clay agglomeration in samples.
There are also other studies on low velocity impact
characteristics of epoxy nanocomposites with different
types of fiber reinforcement. Reis et al [16] examined the
low velocity impact response and damage tolerance of
Kevlar/epoxy composites filled with two different types of
additives, cork powder and nanoclay 30B with the filler
content of 3 wt.% of the epoxy resin-hardener mixture.
They found that addition of fillers increases the maximum
impact load and decreases the maximum displacement.
According to their study, the best performance in terms of
elastic recuperation was obtained for laminates that have
nanoclay as additive and addition of clays increases the
damage area as compared to the control samples. Minimum
damage area is observed for laminates manufactured with
epoxy resin filled by cork powders. In another work, Reis
et al [17] studied the low velocity impact response of
Kevlar/epoxy composite to determine the ideal amount of
nanoclays (up to 6 wt.%) to obtain the best impact per-
formance. They found that addition of nanoclays increased
the maximum impact force and damage area. The laminates
manufactured with epoxy resin filled by 3 wt.% and 6 wt.%
of nanoclays showed the best performance in terms of
elastic recuperation and penetration threshold compared to
the control samples. Rahman et al [18] investigated the
effect of nanoclay and graphene inclusion with different
weight fractions (up to 10 wt.%) on the low velocity impact
resistance of 4-harness satin weave Kevlar-epoxy laminated
composites. They observed that nanoclay is more effective
than graphene in impact resistance and the absorption of
impact energy. They also found that as the impact energy
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
increases, the damage area decreases for the laminates filled
by nanoclays. Iqbal et al [19] investigated the influence of
nanoclay addition (3 and 5 wt.%) into the epoxy resin of
unidirectional carbon fiber-epoxy composites utilizing low
velocity impact and compression after impact tests. They
found that the addition of nanoclay into the carbon fiber/
epoxy laminates improved impact damage resistance and
damage tolerance by providing smaller damage area, higher
residual strength and higher perforation threshold energy
level. They also concluded that the addition of 3 wt.% clay
was an optimal content for the highest damage resistance.
Mahdi et al [20] carried out low velocity impact tests to
determine the effect of addition of multiwalled carbon
nanotubes (MWCNTs) and nanoclay into the 8-harness
satin weave carbon fiber fabric reinforced epoxy resin.
They used 0.3 wt.% of MWCNTs, 2 wt.% of nanoclay and
hybrid of MWCNTs and nanoclay at 0.1 wt.% and 2 wt.%,
respectively in the fabrication of composite laminates. They
found that nanophased carbon fiber/epoxy composites
increased the peak load. Hybrid nanoparticle filled com-
posite laminates reduced the damage area and increased the
absorbed energy compared to neat laminates. Najafabadi
[21] investigated the effect of addition of nanoclay Cloisite
20A to the woven unidirectional carbon fiber fabric rein-
forced epoxy nanocomposites under three impact energy
levels of 10 J, 15 J, and 20 J. Optimum nanoclay addition
was found to be 0.2 wt.%. They observed that addition of
nanoclay increased the maximum impact force and
decreased the absorbed energy, maximum displacement
and delamination area. In a recent review study, Balguri
et al [22] stated that based on the morphology of nanofiller
reinforcements, epoxy nanocomposites can be classified as
isotropic nanofillers (a material having identical dimensions
in all directions usually in spherical shape) reinforced and
anisotropic nanofillers (materials that show variation in
physical properties along different axes with different
properties in different directions like clay-based 2D layered
nanofillers) reinforced epoxy nanocomposites.
In this study, the effects of addition of organic interca-
lated nanoclay and spheroidal powder of polyamide 12,
individually and together, on the low velocity impact
characteristics of woven glass fiber reinforced epoxy
(GFRE) laminates were investigated experimentally.
Impact tests were carried out at different energy levels until
full perforation occurs. To evaluate the damage character-
istics of the laminates, the results were interpreted in terms
of load-time, load-displacement, energy-time diagrams, and
observation of the physical damage introduced.
2. Materials and experimental procedures
2.1 Materials
In the present study, woven glass fiber fabric 0/90° pattern
with areal density of 300 g/m2 was used as primary
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
reinforcement. The matrix used was the warm curing epoxy
system, Araldite LY 1564 epoxy resin combined with the
formulated amine hardener Aradur 3486, both supplied by
Huntsman, Switzerland. The mixing weight ratio of resin:
hardener was set to 100:34 as recommended by the sup-
plier. The additives used was organic intercalated nanoclay
Cloisite 20, a bis(hydrogenated tallow alkali) dimethyl,
supplied by BYK-Chemie GmbH, from Wesel, Germany,
and a spheroidal powder of polyamide 12, Orgasol, with
30 lm as average diameter and a narrow particle size dis-
tribution, supplied by Grolman GmbH, from Neuss, Ger-
many. Orgasol represents a range of ultra-fine polyamide
powders made by the polymerization of lauryllactam
(polyamide 12) and/or caprolactam (polyamide 6). The
physical and descriptive properties of the additives used are
presented in table 1, as reported by the manufacturers.
2.2 Fabrication of composite laminates
The glass fiber-epoxy-additives composite laminates were
manufactured using prepreg and hot-pressing techniques.
One of the problems encountered during the production of
additive enhanced laminates is the nonhomogeneous dis-
persion of fillers in the polymer. The fact that the additive,
which tends to cluster, is not homogeneously distributed in
the matrix, that is, agglomeration, affects the mechanical
properties of the composite material negatively. To prevent
these agglomeration formations, the ultrasonic mixing
technique (mixing of the particles by emission of ultrasonic
waves) was used in the dispersion process. First, the addi-
tives were weighed precisely at 2.0 wt.% of the epoxy
resin-hardener mixture and then the mixture of additives
and epoxy resin were sonicated for 30 min at the temper-
ature of 30 °C by using a Bandelin ultrasonic sonicator and
a cooling system. Four different types of matrix composi-
tions which are pure epoxy named as Neat, polyamide
powder (2.0 wt.%) /epoxy named as PA, nanoclay
(2.0 wt.%) / epoxy named as NC and polyamide powder ?
nanoclay (1.0 wt.% ? 1.0 wt.%) / epoxy named as PA?NC
were used in manufacturing of GFRE nanocomposites.
Epoxy resin-hardener mixtures containing additives in
specified ratios were impregnated into the woven glass fiber
fabric by hand lay-up method. Prepregs produced were left
on the shelves for three days to form a smooth interface free
Table 1. Physical and descriptive properties of the additives.
Density [g/
Additives Description cc]
Nanoclay Organic intercalated nanoclay 1.77
(Cloisite 20)
Polyamide Spheroidal powder 1.03
powder
Page 3 of 13 29
of air bubbles. 10 layers of prepregs covered with waxed
papers were placed on top of each other and cut in
400 mm 9 400 mm dimensions, and hot pressed at 5 bar
pressure and 120 °C temperature for 2 h. Composite lam-
inates were cooled slowly to room temperature to avoid
thermal distortions and stress concentrations, then the
pressure was removed. The composite plates produced have
an average thickness of 2.3 mm. After manufacturing of
composite plates, they were cut in 100 mm 9 100 mm
dimensions by water jet to prepare test specimens for low
velocity impact testing.
2.3 Morphology
Distribution of nanoparticles in the epoxy resin was
investigated using ZEISS-Supra 40VP model field emission
scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM). First fractured
surfaces of the nanocomposite samples were coated with
gold (80%) and palladium (20%) using a Quorum - Q10R
ES model coating device. Then SEM images of the
nanocomposite samples were obtained at different
magnifications.
2.4 Impact tests
For impact testing of the specimens, Instron-Dynatup 9250
HV impact testing machine shown in figure 1 was used. It
consists of a dropping crosshead with its accessories,
pneumatic rebound brakes, a pneumatic clamping fixture
and Dynatup 930-I impulse data acquisition system.
The weightlifting and holding system enable weight to be
dropped on to the sample, by raising the weight box, the
crosshead and the impactor to the desired height, by taking
the spring support if necessary. Thus, the impact load is
applied to the sample at the desired impact energy level or
at the desired speed by adjusting the height of the dropping
weight. During all of the impact tests, the total weight of
the crosshead with its accessories was 6.32 kg and the nose
of the impactor was a 12.7 mm diameter hemispherical tup.
Pneumatic rebound brake system, if activated, prevents
repeated impacts on the specimen. The velocity detector
measures the impact velocity just before the impact event
occurs using a photoelectric-diode and flag system and
Bulked Density [g/ Average particle Moisture
cc] size content Appearance
0.175 \10 lm (d50) \= 3.0% Off white
3.16 nm (d001)
0.375 30 ± 2 lm \= 1.0% White
29 Page 4 of 13
Figure 1. Instron-Dynatup 9250 HV impact testing machine.
ensures that the impact velocity is transferred to the data
acquisition card with the signal conditioning unit. Impulse
data acquisition system records the load vs time data and
instantaneous velocity at the moment of impact and con-
verts them into load-deflection data based on Newtons
second law and kinematics with the assumption that the
impactor was rigid.
During the impact tests, the specimens were supported
by a steel plate that has a circular opening of 76 mm
diameter in size and held at four corners by rubber clamps
using a pneumatic clamping fixture. To examine the dam-
age mechanisms and to compare various impact parame-
ters, composite laminates were impacted at the center with
impact energies ranging from 10 J to 45 J up to the com-
plete perforation of the specimens. At each impact energy
level at least three impact tests were carried out for any
composite material system considered. The drop weight
Figure 2. SEM images of (a) polyamide and (b) nanoclay particles.
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
tests were carried out according to the ASTM D7136
standard.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Morphology of nanoparticles
and nanocomposites
Figure 2 shows the SEM images of polyamide and nanoclay
particles. Figure 3 presents the SEM images of epoxy
nanocomposites. The presence of large size polyamide
aggregates can be observed at higher magnifications
whereas nanoclay doped nanocomposite shows relatively
uniform microstructure to some extent and rougher surface
with the occasional localizations of small patches of clay
agglomerations.
3.2 Low velocity impact test results
Impact tests were carried out at 10 J, 20 J, 30 J, 35 J, 40 J
and 45 J impact energy levels and low velocity impact
behavior of neat and nano-modified composite laminates
were investigated in terms of load-time, load-displacement,
and energy-time diagrams. For 10 J, 20 J and 30 J impact
energy levels, the impactor deforms the specimens and
rebounds which means that the impact energy was not high
enough to produce full penetration or perforation. For these
energy levels, the impact, rebound and absorbed energies
for each material configuration can easily be distinguished.
After a critical value of impact energy, perforation of the
composite laminates takes place. As stated by Atas and
Sayman [23], for higher impact energies resulting in the
perforation of specimens, the post-perforational frictional
effects between the impactor and the specimen need to be
removed from the diagrams to determine the real dis-
placement and energy absorption due to the formation of
damage. Taking this situation into consideration, impact
Sådhanå (2023)48:29 Page 5 of 13 29

Figure 3. SEM images of (a) PA, (b) NC and (c) PA?NC nanocomposites.

damage performance and resistance of the control and
nanomodified composite laminates were determined con-
tinuing the tests at 35 J, 40 J and 45 J energy levels until
full perforation occurs. A summary of the impact test
results, which will be discussed and analyzed in the fol-
lowing subsections, is given in table 2.
3.2.1 Force-time responses The impact load-time
response gives qualitative indications of how the laminate
responds and whether there is any significant damage under
a given impact energy level and is a good predictor for
evaluating and comparing the impact behavior of different
laminate architectures [20]. Figure 4 presents the impact
load vs time responses for neat, polyamide, nanoclay, and
polyamide?nanoclay filled GFRE composite laminates
impacted at different energy levels. These curves show
typical behavior for composite laminates, and exhibit a
regular rise in load up to a critical value, Pmax, followed by
a sudden decrease which indicates an alteration in stiffness
associated with extensive matrix cracking, fiber breakage,
delamination, and large damage area. These curves also
contain some oscillations at the beginning due to elastic
waves resulting from the vibrations generated in the
specimens at the time of impact. These vibrations depend

Table 2. Impact test results for neat and nanomodified composite laminates at different impact energy levels.

Impact Peak load Displacement at peak Maximum Total displacement Absorbed

Specimen energy (J) (kN) load (mm) displacement (mm) (mm) energy (J)
Neat 10 3.89 5.64 5.71 2.20 6.26
20 4.98 6.94 7.75 3.60 15.67
30 5.22 6.99 11.27 7.56 28.74
35 5.36 7.13 12.99 12.99 31.58
40 6.00 7.22 12.26 12.26 33.00
PA 10 3.56 5.88 6.14 2.74 7.57
20 4.72 7.95 8.12 3.42 15.06
30 5.18 8.82 9.91 4.34 24.27
35 5.49 9.05 11.36 6.77 32.03
40 5.24 9.70 12.56 7.21 36.20
45 4.71 8.42 13.50 13.50 35.50
NC 10 3.63 6.02 6.14 2.57 6.98
20 4.67 8.28 8.38 3.72 15.08
30 6.01 9.65 9.82 4.07 22.86
35 6.57 9.64 10.08 4.64 27.48
40 6.65 9.93 11.04 4.97 31.44
45 6.11 10.15 12.95 7.00 41.20
PA?NC 10 3.77 5.95 6.11 2.55 6.76
20 4.89 7.72 8.24 3.47 15.32
30 5.37 8.00 10.17 6.54 28.10
35 5.62 6.67 13.40 13.40 35.00
40 5.81 9.11 12.24 12.24 37.00
45 5.28 7.46 13.02 13.02 33.35
29 Page 6 of 13
Figure 4. Impact load vs time responses for neat, polyamide, nanoclay, and polyamide?nanoclay filled GFRE composite laminates
impacted at (a) 10 J, (b) 20 J, (c) 30 J, (d) 35 J, (e) 40 J, and (f) 45 J energy levels.
on a variety of factors including the stiffness and the mass
of the samples and the impactor [8, 9].
All of the composite laminates show almost elastic
behavior under 10 J impact energy as the impact load is
symmetric before and after unloading. No serious sudden
drop of impact load is observed, indicating that the dam-
ages created in the specimens were not so severe to reduce
the stiffness of the laminates. For 20 J and higher impact
energy levels, there are sudden drops in the impact load
demonstrating significant damage in the composite lami-
nates. In general, the maximum impact load increases as the
impact energy level increases.
As it can be seen from figure 4, the neat laminate showed
higher maximum reaction force than nanoparticle dopped
laminates for the impact energy levels of 10 J and 20 J. But
as the impact energy level increased, the maximum reaction
force exhibited by the nano-modified laminates exceeds
that of neat laminate. In detail, for the impact energy level
of 10 J, maximum reaction force exhibited by neat laminate
is 9.3%, 7.2% and 3.2% higher than that of PA, NC and
PA?NC laminates, respectively. For 20 J impact energy
level the percent differences in maximum reaction forces
are 5.5%, 6.6% and 1.8% in favor of neat laminate. On the
other hand, the maximum load for 30 J and 35 J impact
energy levels is demonstrated by NC, PA?NC, PA and neat
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
laminates, respectively. For 30 J impact energy level, the
maximum load exhibited by NC laminate is 11.9%, 16.0%
and 15.1% higher than that of PA?NC, PA and neat lam-
inates, respectively and for 35 J impact energy level it is
16.9%, 19.6% and 22.6% higher than that of PA?NC, PA
and neat laminates, respectively. The maximum load rep-
resents the peak load value that a composite laminate can
tolerate under a given level of impact energy before major
damage is occurred [19]. As a result, it can be concluded
that the addition of nanoparticles increased the damage
resistance of the GFRE laminates at higher impact energy
levels especially with the addition of nanoclay, that is
nanoparticle filled laminates can tolerate higher impact
energy levels before undergoing major damage. Hybrid
laminate (PA?NC) showed intermediate values between
NC and PA laminates in terms of maximum impact load.
According to Rafiq et al [15] and Mahdi et al [20], the
improvement in impact resistance is mainly due to the
tortuous fracture path and effective load transfer mecha-
nism between fiber and matrix created by the addition of
nanoparticles.
It is also observed from figure 4 that the time to reach
maximum reaction force for neat laminate is generally
shorter than the other material configurations. After the
impact load reached a maximum value, there is a gradual
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
Figure 5. Impact load vs displacement responses for neat, polyamide, nanoclay, and polyamide?nanoclay filled GFRE composite
laminates impacted at (a) 10 J, (b) 20 J, (c) 30 J, (d) 35 J, (e) 40 J, and (f) 45 J energy levels.
recovery to peak load for nanoclay and polyamid doped
laminates at the impact energy levels of 30 J, 35 J and 40 J.
This load is carried by the partially damaged and remaining
laminate layers. However, for the neat laminate there is no
recovery of peak load after the sharp drop for the energy
levels higher than 30 J which shows complete perforation
of the laminate. The perforation thresholds of the
nanoparticle doped GFRE laminates are higher compared to
the neat laminates which will be discussed in the following
subsections. For the impact energy levels higher than 20 J,
the nanomodified laminates showed longer contact dura-
tions at peak load between the impactor and the specimen
compared to neat laminates, that is they exposed peak
reaction forces sustained for a longer time which implies
more damage resistance through laminate thickness and
more damage propagation through interlaminate interface.
Within the nonperforated samples, the average impact time
of neat laminates is slightly lower than the nanomodified
laminates for impact energy levels of 10 J and 20 J. But as
the impact energy level reached 30 J, the average impact
time for neat laminates reached 14.56 ms and it was the
highest one compared to the nanoparticle filled laminates.
For this energy level, average impact time is 10.25 ms for
NC laminate, 11.15 ms for PA laminate and 12.6 ms for
PA?NC laminate. Impact duration drops suddenly after the
Page 7 of 13 29
energy level of 30 J for neat laminate because of signifi-
cantly greater localized damage and complete perforation
introduced by the higher impulse generated by the higher
impact energy. It is also worth to mention that the frictional
force generated between the impactor and laminate after
perforation is higher for nanomodified laminates compared
to neat laminates as can be seen from figures 4d and 4e.
3.2.2 Force-displacement responses Figure 5 shows
the impact load vs displacement responses for neat,
polyamide, nanoclay, and polyamide?nanoclay doped
GFRE composite laminates impacted at different energy
levels. As can be seen from the figures 5a-c, perforation did
not occur in any of the specimens examined for 10 J, 20 J
and 30 J impact energy levels. The maximum displacement
of the neat specimen is lower than nanomodified laminates
for 10 J and 20 J impact energy levels, but it becomes
higher as the impact energy level reaches 30 J. The
maximum displacement of the composite laminates
increase as the impact energy level increases. In detail,
maximum displacement of neat laminate is 5.71 mm and
7.75 mm for 10 J and 20 J impact energies, respectively
whereas maximum displacements of polyamide, nanoclay
and polyamide?nanoclay doped laminates are 6.14 mm,
6.14 mm and 6.11 mm for 10 J impact energy and
29 Page 8 of 13
8.12 mm, 8.38 mm and 8.24 mm for 20 J impact energy,
respectively. For the impact energy level of 30 J, maximum
displacement of neat laminate is 11.27 mm, and it is 13.7%,
14.8% and 10.8% higher than that of polyamide, nanoclay
and polyamide?nanoclay doped laminates, respectively.
Similar observations can be made for total (permanent)
displacement of the laminates. As the reduced maximum
and total displacement indicates the ability of the laminate
to resist perforation, the nanoclay doped laminate shows the
best performance in this regard for high impact energy
levels. This inference can be justified looking at the
figures 5d, 5e and 5f. Perforation of the neat laminate,
polyamide?nanoclay laminate and polyamide laminate
come true at 35 J, 40 J and 45 J impact energy levels,
respectively, whereas nanoclay modified laminate is near
the perforation limit at 45 J but is not perforated yet. As a
result, it can be said that the addition of nanoparticles into
GFRE laminates increased the impact resistance of the
specimens. Based on the study of Rafiq et al [15], this
improvement in impact resistance can be attributed to the
enhanced interfacial adhesion and improved interlaminar
shear strength with the incorporation of nanoparticles
which can change the failure mode from interlaminar to
intralaminar. Failure modes of the laminates will further be
Figure 6. Energy vs time responses for neat, polyamide, nanoclay, and polyamide?nanoclay doped GFRE composite laminates
impacted at (a) 10J, (b) 20J, (c) 30J, (d) 35J (e) 40 J and (f) 45J energy levels.
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
Figure 7. Images of the front and back sides of the composite c
laminates impacted at 20 J energy level, (a) Neat, (b) PA, (c) NC,
and (d) PA?NC.
discussed in the ‘‘characterization of physical damage’’
subsection.
3.2.3 Energy-time responses and perforation
thresholds Figure 6 depicts the energy vs time
responses for neat, polyamide, nanoclay, and
polyamide?nanoclay doped GFRE composite laminates
impacted at different energy levels. In general, the impact
energy for which the impactor does not rebound from the
specimen for the first time is known as the penetration
threshold while the absorbed energy for which the nose of
the impactor goes through the back face of the specimen for
the first time is defined as the perforation threshold. Thus, at
the penetration threshold, the impactor velocity reaches
zero but for perforation, the impactor velocity may only
become zero under the effect of frictional forces between
the impactor and the specimen. In this study, since the
specimen thickness is much smaller than the radius of the
impactor (2.3 mm to 6.35 mm), no definite penetration
Sådhanå (2023)48:29 Page 9 of 13 29
29 Page 10 of 13 Sådhanå (2023)48:29
 Sådhanå (2023)48:29
b Figure 8. Images of the front and back sides of the composite
laminates impacted at 40 J energy level, (a) Neat, (b) PA, (c) NC,
and (d) PA?NC.
Figure 9. Damage area of NC laminate impacted at 20 J.
threshold is observed that is impactor always rebounds for
small impact energy levels or perforates the specimen when
a specific energy level is reached. The total impact energy
which is determined by the height of the impactor from the
specimen is divided into elastic energy and absorbed
energy. Elastic energy is stored in the specimen and used
for the rebounding of the impactor. The beginning of the
plateau of the energy-time curve is coincident with the loss
of contact between the impactor and the specimen, so, this
specific energy indicates the energy absorbed by the
specimen as the formation of damage [15, 16]. As can be
seen from figures 6a-6c, there is no perforation in any of the
specimens tested at 10 J, 20 J and 30 J impact energy
levels but the elastic energy decreases as the impact energy
level increases which shows the formation of higher
damage. The neat specimen is near to perforation
Table 3. Total damage areas of neat and nanomodified composite laminates at different impact energy levels.
Impact Energy (J) Specimen
20 Neat
PA
NC
PA?NC
40 Neat
PA
NC
PA?NC
Page 11 of 13 29
threshold for 30 J impact energy level. It is also observed
that the absorbed energy is higher for nanomodified
laminates than the neat laminates for 10 J impact energy
level, whereas the absorbed energy is higher for neat
laminates than for nanomodified laminates for 20 J and
30 J impact energy levels. As the level of impact energy
reached 35 J, perforation of the neat laminate has occurred,
and perforation threshold of the neat laminate was
determined to be around 32 J. For this energy level, the
energy curve does not show a maximum value, but after a
specific energy level (perforation threshold) is reached it
increases steadily up to the end of the curve due to the
dissipation of energy through frictional forces created
between the impactor and the specimen after perforation.
So, the beginning of straight line indicates the completion
of the crash event and the energy at that point shows the
absorbed energy by the specimen. For impact energies
higher than the perforation threshold, the energy absorbed
stays almost the same which shows no further damage to
the specimen can be introduced. Consequently, no
significant change in the behavior of the energy-time
profile was observed at 40 J impact energy level for neat
laminate. Perforation thresholds for PA, NC and PA?NC
doped GFRE laminates were found to be around 40 J, 45 J
and 37 J, respectively. Thus, nanoclay doped GFRE
laminates showed the best performance in terms of
impact resistance (with percentage increase of around
40% with respect to neat laminate) and energy dissipation
at high impact energy levels.
3.3 Characterization of physical damage
Figures 7 and 8 show the images of front and back faces of
the neat and nanomodified laminates impacted at 20 J and
40 J energy levels, respectively. In general, the impact
damages to the composite laminates can be categorized into
interlaminar and intralaminar failures which are related to
delamination, matrix cracking, fiber fracture, fiber splitting
and fiber pullout [20, 21]. As can be seen from figures 7 and
8, the impacted laminates showed larger back side damaged
areas as compared to front side damaged areas because
delamination is first formed at the middle plane and
Damage Area (mm2) Standard deviation
329.503 0.37
320.483 0.51
330.481 0.52
332.263 0.49
516.014 0.53
646.073 0.65
798.022 0.67
730.808 0.66
29 Page 12 of 13 Sådhanå (2023)48:29

proceeds at the tensile side (back side) of the specimen neat laminate. On the other hand, the presence of
[10]. Looking at figures 7a-d, it is seen that at 20 J impact nanoparticles increases the brittle behavior of the epoxy
energy level, neat and nanomodified laminates showed resin causing damage to propagate through the in-plane
similar damage patterns mainly matrix cracking, fiber direction rather than in the thickness direction.
pullout and delamination spreading away from the point of
impact which implies that approximately the same amount
of energy is dissipated through the formation of damages
4. Conclusions
such as matrix cracking, fiber pullout and delamination.
This situation can also be verifiable looking at the energy
In this study, the effects of organic intercalated nanoclay
time profiles of the laminates (figure 6b) in which all of the
and spheroidal powder of polyamide 12 additives on the
laminates showed the nearly same amount of absorbed
low velocity impact characteristics of GFRE composites
energy, neat laminates being a bit higher. But as it can be
were investigated by drop weight impact testing. The
observed from figures 8a-d, as the impact energy level
nanocomposites were produced using prepreg and hot-
increased to 40 J, the failure mode changed from inter-
pressing techniques. Nanoparticles with weight percentages
laminar to intralaminar with the addition of nanoparticles to
of 2% were dispersed in the epoxy resin-hardener mixture
GFRE laminates. The addition of nanoparticles enhances
by an ultrasonic sonicator. Control samples with no addi-
the interlaminar shear strength. As in low impact energy
tives were also manufactured for comparison purposes. Six
levels penetration of the impactor into the laminate is
different impact energy levels ranging from 10 J to 45 J
negligible, the improvement in interlaminar shear strength
were used to determine load, deflection, and energy
is more observable at high-impact energy levels which
responses of the laminates. Physical damages introduced in
changes failure mode from interlaminar to intralaminar.
the composite laminates were also examined to determine
Neat laminate showed localized damage in terms of matrix
the impact damage characteristics of the laminates. The
cracking, fiber fracture, and edge delamination occurred at
addition of nanoparticles increased the maximum impact
the point of impact. PA, NC and PA?NC nanomodified
load up to 22.6% at higher energy levels. The perforation
laminates impacted at 40 J showed increased damage area
thresholds of the neat and nanomodified laminates were
in terms of matrix cracking, fiber pullout and fiber fracture.
determined. The perforation threshold of nanoclay doped
For this energy level, energy absorbed by the PA?NC
GFRE laminates was the highest followed by that of
laminate is the highest followed by PA, neat and NC
polyamide, polyamide?nanoclay doped and neat laminates.
laminates. But it is important to mention that at 40 J impact
Overall, the addition of nanoparticles increased the impact
energy level, complete perforation of the neat and PA?NC
damage resistance of the GFRE laminates. Analyzing the
laminates has occurred, and PA laminate is near to perfo-
physical damages introduced in the composites, it is
ration limit, whereas NC laminate showed extensive matrix
observed that neat laminates showed localized damages in
cracking, fiber pullout and fiber splitting, but no complete
terms of matrix cracking, fiber fracture, and edge delami-
perforation which indicates an increase in impact resistance
nation occurred at the point of impact whereas nanomodi-
and a further energy absorption capability due to changes in
fied laminates showed increased damage area in terms of
failure mechanism with the inclusion of nanoclay to epoxy
matrix cracking, fiber pullout and fiber fracture at 40 J
matrix.
impact energy level. The addition of nanoparticles altered
The total damage area was calculated by employing
the impact behavior and damage mechanisms of the GFRE
back-lighting method. Specimen photos have been scaled
laminate at high impact energy levels leading a damage to
with reference to sample sizes. Visible damage areas are
propagate through the in-plane direction rather than in the
based on color tone transitions in order to detect the dam-
thickness direction.
age edges. As an example, the damage area of NC laminate
impacted at 20 J was given in figure 9. The calculated
damage areas cover the damage from all modes including
Acknowledgements
delamination, matrix cracking, fiber fracture and fiber
pullout. They were given in table 3. At 20 J impact energy
The authors would like to thank Pamukkale University
level, total damage areas of all of the laminate types are
Scientific Research Council for supporting this study under
nearly equal to each other. As the impact energy level
project contract number 2017FEBE049.
increased to 40 J, nanomodified laminates demonstrated
bigger damage areas compared to neat laminate.
Overall, nanomodified laminates showed better perfor-
mance compared to neat laminates in terms of impact References
resistance altering the impact behavior and damage mech-
anisms of the composite material. At high energy levels, [1] Luo J J and Daniel I M 2003 Characterization and modeling
serious damage at the region of impact point leading big of mechanical behavior of polymer/clay nanocomposites.
deformations in the thickness direction is observed for the Compos. Sci. Technol. 63(11): 1607–1616
Sådhanå (2023)48:29
[2] Lin J C, Chang L C, Nien M H and Ho H L 2006 Mechanical
behavior of various nanoparticle filled composites at low-
velocity impact. Compos. Struct. 74(1): 30–36
[3] Hussain F, Hojjati M, Okamoto M and Gorga R E 2006
Review article: polymer-matrix nanocomposites, processing,
manufacturing, and application: an overview. J. Compos.
Mater. 40(17): 1511–1575
[4] Njuguna J, Pielichowski K and Desai S 2008 Nanofiller-
reinforced polymer nanocomposites. Polym. Adv. Technol.
19(8): 947–959
[5] Shokrieh M M, Kefayati A R and Chitsazzadeh M 2012
Fabrication and mechanical properties of clay/epoxy nanocom-
posite and its polymer concrete. Mater. Design 40: 443–452
[6] Azeez A A, Rhee K Y, Park S J and Hui D 2013 Epoxy clay
nanocomposites – processing, properties and applications: A
review. Compos. Part B-Eng. 45(1): 308–320
[7] Luo R K, Green E R and Morrison C J 1999 Impact damage
analysis of composite plates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 22(4): 435–447
[8] Schoeppner G A and Abrate S 2000 Delamination threshold
loads for low velocity impact on composite laminates.
Compos. Part A-Appl. S. 31(9): 903–915
[9] Belingardi G and Vadori R 2002 Low velocity impact tests
of laminate glass-fiber-epoxy matrix composite material
plates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 27(2): 213–229
[10] Avila A F, Soares M I and Neto A S 2007 A study on
nanostructured laminated plates behavior under low-velocity
impact loadings. Int. J. Impact Eng. 34(1): 28–41
[11] Ferreira J A M, Santos D S C, Capela C and Costa J D M
2015 Impact response of nano reinforced mat glass/epoxy
laminates. Fiber. Polym. 16: 173–180
[12] Haque A, Shamsuzzoha M, Hussain F and Dean D 2003 S2-
glass/epoxy polymer nanocomposites: manufacturing, struc-
tures, thermal and mechanical properties. J. Compos. Mater.
37(20): 1821–1837
[13] Aymerich F, Via A D and Quaresimin M 2011 Energy
absorption capability of nanomodified glass/epoxy laminates.
Procedia Eng. 10: 780–785
Page 13 of 13 29
[14] Koricho E G, Khomenko A, Haq M, Drzal L T, Belingardi G
and Martorana B 2015 Effect of hybrid (micro- and nano-)
fillers on impact response of GFRP composite. Compos.
Struct. 134: 789–798
[15] Rafiq A, Merah N, Boukhili R and Al-Qadhi M 2017 Impact
resistance of hybrid glass fiber reinforced epoxy/nanoclay
composite. Polym. Test. 57: 1–11
[16] Reis P N B, Ferreira J A M, Santos P, Richardson M O W
and Santos J B 2012 Impact response of Kevlar composites
with filled epoxy matrix. Compos. Struct. 94(12):
3520–3528
[17] Reis P N B, Ferreira J A M, Zhang Z Y, Benameur T and
Richardson M O W 2013 Impact response of Kevlar
composites with nanoclay enhanced epoxy matrix. Compos.
Part B-Eng. 46: 7–14
[18] Rahman A S, Mathur V and Asmatulu R 2018 Effect of
nanoclay and graphene inclusions on the low-velocity impact
resistance of Kevlar-epoxy laminated composites. Compos.
Struct. 187: 481–488
[19] Iqbal K, Khan S U, Munir A and Kim J K 2009 Impact
damage resistance of CFRP with nanoclay-filled epoxy
matrix. Compos. Sci. Technol. 69(11–12): 1949–1957
[20] Mahdi T H, Islam M E, Hosur M V and Jeelani S 2017
Low-velocity impact performance of carbon fiber-rein-
forced plastics modified with carbon nanotube, nanoclay
and hybrid nanoparticles. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 36(9):
696–713
[21] Najafabadi S F, Torabi M and Behrooz F T 2021 An
experimental investigation on the low-velocity impact per-
formance of the CFRP filled with nanoclay. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 116: 106858
[22] Balguri P K, Samuel D G H and Thumu U 2021 A review on
mechanical properties of epoxy nanocomposites. Mater.
Today-Proc. 44(1): 346–355
[23] Atas C and Sayman O 2008 An overall view on impact
response of woven fabric composite plates. Compos. Struct.
82(3): 336–345