Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

Materials Science and Engineering Faculty Materials Science and Engineering

Research & Creative Works

1-1-2011

Modelling of Low Velocity Impact of Laminated Composite

Substructures
Homayoun Hadavinia

Fatih Dogan
Missouri University of Science and Technology, doganf@mst.edu

Ahmed M. Elmarakbi

Seyed Mohammad Reza Khalili

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/matsci_eng_facwork

Part of the Materials Science and Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
H. Hadavinia et al., "Modelling of Low Velocity Impact of Laminated Composite Substructures,"
International Journal of Vehicle Structures and Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 96-106, MechAero Foundation
for Technical Research & Education Excellence (MAFTREE), Jan 2011.
The definitive version is available at https://doi.org/10.4273/ijvss.3.2.04

This Article - Journal is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Materials Science and Engineering Faculty Research & Creative Works by an authorized administrator
of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for
redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.
H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106
I n te r na ti on al J our na l of
ISSN: 0975-3060 (Print), 0975-3540 (Online)
doi: 10.4273/ijvss.3.2.03
Vehicle Structures & Systems
Available online at www.ijvss.maftree.org
© 2011. MechAero Foundation for Technical Research & Education Excellence

Modelling of Low Velocity Impact of Laminated Composite Substructures

H. Hadaviniaa,b, F. Dogana,c, A. Elmarakbid and S.M.R. Khalilia,e
a
Faculty of Engineering, Kingston University,
London SW15 3DW, UK.
b
Corresponding Author, Email: h.hadavinia@kingston.ac.uk
c
Email: f.dogan@kingston.ac.uk
e
Email: m.khalili@kingston.ac.uk
d
Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sunderland,
Sunderland SR6 0DD, UK.
Email: ahmed.elmarakbi@sunderland.ac.uk

ABSTRACT:
Impact is among the important loading scenario which is required to be addressed for fibre reinforced plastics (FRP)
materials in ground or space vehicle applications. The failure behaviour of FRP materials under impact loading is a
complex process and a detailed analysis of various mode of failure is necessary. In this paper the failure behaviour of
laminated carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) composite structures under impact loading is investigated by
conducting numerical simulations using the explicit finite element analysis ANSYS LS-DYNA software [1]. The impact
responses and failure behaviours are being investigated by performing a parametric study and sensitivity analysis in
which impact velocity, number of plies, incident angle, friction between contacted surfaces, impactor mass and the
geometry are varied in separate cases. The FE model is validated by comparing the numerical results with other
published results and good correlations are achieved.

KEYWORDS:
Composite structures; energy absorption; impact; finite element analysis; delamination

CITATION:
H. Hadavinia, F. Dogan, A. Elmarakbi and S.M.R. Khalili. 2011. Modelling of Low Velocity Impact of Laminated
Composite Substructures, Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106. doi:10.4273/ijvss.3.2.04

inspections of structures thus they become important

1. Introduction
Laminated composite materials are widely used in many
advanced applications such as aerospace and automotive
sectors due to their superior mechanical properties. In
particular carbon fibre reinforced plastics (FRP)
materials are light weight, have excellent damping,
higher specific stiffness and strength ratios relative to
those of metallic materials and their corrosion resistance
is very good. In the design of a ground or space vehicle
the need to protect its occupants from serious injury or
death in case of impacts and accidents is of prime
importance and this should be addressed when fibre
reinforced plastics (FRP) materials are used in their
design. The failure behaviour of FRP materials under
impact loading is a complex process and a detailed
analysis of various mode of failure is necessary. Many
studies have been carried out on impact behaviour of
laminated FRP materials.
The response of laminated composite structures to
foreign object impact at various velocities has been a
subject of intense research in recent years. In high
velocity impact (HVI) damage is usually detectable by
visual inspection though they can be difficult to be
detected in some cases such as small stones. On the other
hand the low velocity impact (LVI) damage cannot be
easily identified during routine visual maintenance
96
issue in the design of composite structures. Impact
generally causes a global structural response and often
results in internal cracking and delamination in the resin
rich zone between the actual plies for lower energy
levels while high impact energies cause penetration and
excessive local shear damage [2]. When a low velocity
impact happens, the matrix material overstressed,
resulting in micro-cracking which leads to redistribution
of the load and the concentration of energy and stress at
the inter-ply regions where large differences in material
stiffness exist. However this may not necessarily lead to
fracture. Real life examples of low velocity impact
include in-service loads such as a dropped tool or impact
of debris from runway on an aircraft made from
laminated composite. Especially compressive load will
cause continuous growth of damaged area when
subjected to impact loads, with the corresponding
decrease of their residual strength and the subsequent
risk of structural failure under service loads. The
initiation and rapid propagation of a crack will cause in
abrupt change in both sectional properties and load paths
within the affected damaged area.
The decrease in mechanical properties after impact
was identified years ago [3], and researchers have tried
to answer two main questions: how damage appears
under impact conditions, and once damage has appeared,
how it spreads when static or cyclic loading are acting on
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106
the structural component. These enquires have led to
advancement in understanding of the damage micro-
mechanisms at impact loading conditions, related to the
basic properties of resin, fibres, fibre–matrix interfacing
mechanism, the architecture of the laminate and stacking
sequence [4,5]. Understanding the mechanics of contact
interaction between impactor and the target laminated
composite structure is also essential in order to
accurately predict the contact force history and to predict
damage evolution during the impact events [6]. In many
structures the damage can significantly reduce their load
bearing capability or cause catastrophic failures.
In the past decades, many studies dealt with metallic
structures where the mechanism of energy absorption is
dominated by plastic deformation. Recently, as the usage
of the composite materials becomes more widespread,
impact research is focused more on composite structures.
Many parameters have influences on the impact of
composite structures. Impact velocity affects the energy
absorption of composite structures significantly and it is
considered as the most important parameter [7]. In order
to maximizing the impact energy absorption for
passenger safety and comfort, it is important to limit the
maximum load transmitted to the rest of the structure.
This maximum load must not cause catastrophic failure
within the overall structure.
The heterogeneous and anisotropic nature of fibre-
reinforced plastic (FRP) laminates gives rise to four
major modes of failure under impact loading (although
many others could be cited). Matrix mode failure occurs
when cracks appear parallel to the fibres due to tension,
compression or shear. Delamination mode can occur as
the plies separate from each other under transverse
interlaminar stresses. Fibre mode failure happens when
the tensile stress in the fibre reaches to fibre tensile
which lead to fibre breakage or in compression will lead
to fibre buckling, and Penetration happens when the
impactor completely perforates the impacted surface [8].
This delamination failure mode is typical of CFRPs
laminates and is caused mainly by the interlaminar
stresses generated between plies of different fibre
orientation and thus showing different flexural
behaviour. This greatly contributes to decrease the
strength of the laminate, as the different plies no longer
work together. Many studies have been done on the
behaviour of carbon fibre/epoxy laminates subjected to
impact loading [5, 9-15]. The first step in studying the
impact behaviour of composite materials is to
characterize the type and extension of the damage
induced in the structural component which could cause
fibre fracture, matrix cracking, fibre pull-out and
delamination [12-16]. The threshold energy, that is, the
impact energy below which no apparent damage is
induced within the laminate, as well as the damage
extent for a given impact energy above this threshold,
are of great practical interest.
The transition between different regimes of impacts
based on the impactor velocity is not strictly defined and
there are disagreements on the definition [8]. Sburlati’s
[17] definition is based on the time during which the
impactor and the plate remain in contact. If the contact
time is very long in comparison to the lowest period of
free vibrations of the plate, the impact is counted as a
97
quasi-static contact problem as the influence of elastic
waves and the strain rate in the interior of the plate are
not taken into account [18]. In other words, at low
velocity impacts, the duration of the impact, i.e. the
interval of time elapsed from the first contact and the
complete detachment, is much longer than the time
required by the generated elastic waves at the point of
first impact to propagate through the whole body. For
this reason, the impact is a highly dynamic event. When
many vibration modes of a body are excited, the
statically determined contact laws can be used for the
dynamic analysis as strain rate and wave propagation
effects are negligible for commonly used materials. For
example, Hunter [18] showed that the energy lost by
elastic waves during the impact of a sphere on an elastic
half-space is negligible as long as the initial velocity of
the sphere is small compared with the phase velocity of
compressive elastic waves in that solid [2].
According to Zukas et al. [19], impacts are
categorized in four different regimes. They are low
velocity, high velocity, ballistic and hyper velocity
regimes. Zukas et al. [19] defined the velocity of these
four ranges as <250 m/s, 250-2000 m/s, 2000-12000 m/s
and >12000 m/s. In general low velocity impact is
defined as events which can be treated as quasi-static,
the upper limit of which can vary from one to tens m/s
depending on the target stiffness, material properties and
the mass and stiffness of the impactor [17, 20]. Cantwell
and Morton [9] specified velocity <10 m/s as low
velocity while Abrate [2] assume <100 m/s as low
velocity impact. Olsson [21] categorised the impact
phenomenon on composite based on the energy
associated by impact and contact time. For e.g., when the
duration of impact is the same (small impactor mass with
high velocity) or longer (heavy mass with low velocity)
as that of the time required for the flexural and shear
waves to reach the target boundaries. Low velocity
impact is also classified according to damage [22, 23]. If
the damage causes by delamination and matrix cracking,
the impact can be defined as a low velocity impact.
Otherwise, the impact is defined a high velocity impact
when penetration and fibre breakage occurs.
In this paper, the impact responses and failure
behaviours of composite substructures are being
investigated by performing a parametric study and
sensitivity analysis in which impact velocity, number of
plies, incident angle, friction between contacted surfaces,
impactor mass and the geometry are varied in separate
cases.
2. Validation of Finite Element Modelling
In this paper, ANSYS LS-DYNA explicit finite element
program is used as a platform for the study of low
velocity impact of various substructures made from
laminated CFRP composites. The explicit solution
method used by LS-DYNA provides solutions for short-
time, large deformation dynamics, quasi-static problems
with large deformations and multiple non-linearity, and
complex contact/impact problems. The models can be
transferred between ANSYS and LS-DYNA to perform
sequential implicit-explicit/explicit-implicit analyses,
such as those required for drop test, spring back and
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

other applications [24]. The composite substructures
which will be discussed later are impacted at right angle
and the effect of incident angle on the energy absorption
of these structures has also been investigated.
In order to be assured of reliability of the modelling
results, the FEA results need to be compared with
experimental tests. For this study, the low velocity
impact tests on laminated plates carried out by Heimbs et
al. [25] is chosen for verification of the modelling
methodology (see Fig. 1). In their study, they used
carbon fibre-reinforced epoxy laminate with a
symmetric, quasi-isotropic lay-up made of 24 plies with
stacking sequence of [-45/0/45/90]3s. The Cytec©
unidirectional prepreg material is made of the 12 K HTS
carbon fibres and 977-2 epoxy matrix. The laminated
plate were made by stacking plies according to the
required fibre orientation angles and were cured in an
autoclave at 180 C and 7 bar. The resulting average
cured plate thickness was 2.7 mm with free specimen
size of 300mm150mm. The specimen length was
400mm and the specimen was bonded with a 50mm
width end tabs on both ends, see Fig. 1. The reported
material properties of CFRP are =1.46 g/cm3 E11= 153
GPa, E22= 10.3 GPa, G12= 5.2 GPa, Xt=2540 MPa,
Xc=1550 MPa, Yt=82 MPa, Yc=236 MPa, SC=90 MPa
and ν12= 0.3 [25].
the laminate occurred. In the FEA model, the CFRP
plate is clamped at lateral end tabs (ux=uy=uz=0) and
simply supported along the longitudinal edges (uy=0).
No rotational constraints are imposed on the edges. The
results of experimental and FEA impact energy time-
history for unstressed and pre-stressed plates are
compared in Fig. 2(a). The beginning of the plateau of
the curve coincides with the loss of contact between the
impactor and the plate and this is the plate absorbed
energy. The plateau energy is made of kinetic and elastic
energies, and absorbed energy due to laminate damage.
It is commonly assumed that in FRP composite materials
the first two energies are much lower than the third one,
so the total absorbed energy practically equivalent to the
energy dissipated by damage in the laminate.
During the experiment the contact force between the
impactor and the plate was also recorded. Fig. 2(b)
compares the time history of experimental contact force
and FE results for both unstressed and pre-stressed
plates. The experimental and FEA results are in good
agreement with high degree of accuracy for both
unstressed and pre-stressed plate. The contact force
shows high oscillation during the impact period due to
elements failure.
50
Unstressed- FEA
Unstressed- Experiment
Pre-stressed- FEA
40 Pre-stressed- Experiment
Energy (kJ)

30

20

10

(a)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (ms)

(a) Energy
10
Unstressed- FEA
Unstressed- Experiment
Fig. 1: Dimensions of experimental impacted specimen [25] and Pre-stressed- FEA
LS-DYNA model of laminated composite plate with the rigid 8 Pre-stressed- Experiment
spherical impactor

In this paper, the plate is modelled in LS-DYNA

Contact Force (kN)

6
using thin shell element SHELL163 with 24 sub-layers
through the thickness. For modelling damage evolution
during the impact of the plate, material MAT54, 4
MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE is used.
This material model is based on Chang-Chang failure
2
criteria explained in detail in section 3. The impactor is
modelled as a spherical rigid body using a rigid material
model MAT20. Note that the strength of the elements 0
(b)

around the failed elements can be reduced by setting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

parameter SOFT to capture the extent of the damage. Time (ms)
Heimbs et al. [25] investigated two different impact
scenarios, un-prestressed plate and compressively (b) Contact force
prestressed plate by applying a uniaxial compressive Fig. 2: History of non-penetrated impact of laminated CFRP plate
load of 23 kN where in both cases the plates was hit by with and without uniaxial compressive pre-stress
an impactor at a speed of 6.5 m/s while no penetration of
98
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

3. Impact Analysis: Modelling of

Composite Substructures
After verification of the FEA, the same methodology is
applied to study the impact behaviour of composite
substructures. Five different laminated composite
substructures are selected with all wall thickness of 4
mm and materials properties as described in Table 1.
These are plain plate, stiffened plate, cylindrical tube, (a) Laminated plain composite plate
rectangular box beam, and stiffened rectangular box
beam as shown in Fig. 3.
Table 1: Mechanical properties of composite material

Parameter Description Value

 ( RO) Mass density ( 1939 kg/m3
Young’s modulus
EA (EA) 20.69 GPa
Longitudinal fibre direction.
Young’s modulus
EB (EB) 6.89 GPa
Transverse direction.
Poisson’s ratio in longitudinal
νBA (PRBA) fibre direction due to loading in 0.10 (b) Laminated stiffened plate
transverse direction.
Shear modulus in plane of
GAB (GAB) 2.5 GPa
element.
Shear modulus in
GBC (GBC) 1.25 GPa
transverse/normal direction.
Shear modulus in normal /
GCA (GCA) 2.5 GPa
longitudinal direction
XC (XC) Longitudinal compressive strength 207 MPa
Xt (XT) Longitudinal tensile strength 207 MPa
YC (YC) Transverse compressive strength 103 MPa
Yt (YT) Transverse tensile strength 48 MPa
SC (SC) In-plane shear strength 69 MPa (c) Laminated cylindrical tube

Mesh sensitivity analysis is performed and a mesh

with elements size of 10mm10mm is used in all the
models. This element size gives accurate results with
acceptable computational time [26]. Thin Shell163
(Belytschko-Tsay) is used for all elements. The number
of layers of laminated composite plate is defined by
integration point option in LS-DYNA. Each integration
point represents one layer of the laminate [27].
The plates, box structures and cylindrical tube are
encastered at their ends, i.e. no rotation and no (d) Laminated rectangular box beam
displacement at the ends are allowed. For the cylinder
impactor all the rotations are fixed while translations are
fixed in x and z directions and it is free to move in y-
direction.
LS-DYNA keyword commands are used to define
the contact between components and parts, impact
velocity, material properties regarding to the failure
modes and welding options. Contacts in all of the models
are defined using the keyword command
*CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFAC
E. Sliding can be avoided by setting appropriate friction.
The coefficient of friction between plastics and steel (e) Laminated stiffened rectangular box beam
surfaces is in the range of 0.05-0.65 [28]. In this work,
Fig. 3: Different substructure geometries under impact loading
the static coefficient of friction for the base model is ( = incident angle. All plate thicknesses = 4mm)
assumed to be 0.1 and the dynamic coefficient of friction
is assumed to be 0.0225 in the base model between all Fig. 4 shows the side view of stiffened composite
contact surfaces. In the parametric studies, both the static box beam with different surfaces of the substructure.
and dynamic friction coefficients are changed to observe Each number represents a surface. An AUTOMATIC
their influence on the results. contact is defined between surfaces 1-12, 2-8, 3-9, 10-
13, 11-13 and 10-11 where the first surface is the
MASTER surface and the second surface is the SLAVE
99
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

surface. Tiebreak contact *CONTACT_TIEBREAK_ When failure in all through the thickness composite
SURFACE_TO_SURFACE is one of the recommended layers has occurred, the element is deleted. The
methods for modelling adhesives in LS-DYNA [27]. parameter  can be used to scale the shear stress
Tiebreak contacts have been placed between surfaces 2-6 interaction in the fibre tensile failure criterion. Hashin
and 3-7. Tiebreak contact functions the same way as criterion will be resulted if =1 which overestimates the
common contacts under compressive loading. Under shear stress interaction as stated by Schweizerhof et al.
tensile load, tiebreak allows the separation of the tied [33]. For =0 simple maximum stress criterion without
surface under the following failure criterion: interaction will be resulted which compare better with
2 2 experiments. In this study the value of β=0 has been

 n 

 s 
   1 (1) chosen.
 NFLS   SFLS  MAT20 is used to model the rigid cylindrical
  
Where NFLS is normal failure strength and SFLS is impactor. Impactor mass is normally limited in real tests
depending to the testing capability. Cylindrical impactor
shear failure strength for adhesive and n and s are the
mass is approximately 62 kg. The mass density of
applied normal and shear stresses, respectively. In this
cylindrical impactor is taken as 15 times the mass
study, the adhesive strength in normal and shear modes
density of steel, ρ=7826 kg/m³, to reduce the
are assumed to be NFLS= 56 MPa and SFLS= 44 MPa
computation time. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s
which are the common properties of structural epoxy
ratio have been selected the same as steel, i.e. E=207
adhesive.
GPa and =0.28. In reality, a box beam can be
manufactured using welding at corners or using
appropriate adhesives. In modelling, welding can be
defined by using spot-weld option in LS-DYNA. In this
study, welding will be used for simple box and stiffened
box beam. In both of these models, mid-planes of the
vertical plates are offset from the horizontal plates’
edges. Spot welds are inserted to connect the edge nodes
of vertical and horizontal plates. Spot welds are created
using *CONSTRAINED_SPOTWELD command (see
Figure 4). More details about spot welds can be found in
LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual [27]. These spot
Fig. 4: Definition of contact between different surfaces welds modelled as massless and rigid therefore they do
not have any effect on the mass of the beams.
The orthotropic, linear elastic material law MAT54
The wall thickness is t=4mm and distance between
based on Chang-Chang failure criteria [29-32] control
failure in longitudinal (fibre) and transverse (normal to nodes (element edge size) is d=10mm. Due to stress
fibre) directions in tensile, compressive and shear concentration at the corner, the transverse tensile
loading of the fibre and the matrix. These failure modes strengths and in-plane shear strength were reduced by
in the Chang-Chang failure criterion for composite shell 50% giving:
elements are: 1 1
S n  Yt t d , S s  Sc t d (6)
 Tensile fibre mode (aa > 0) 2 2
 
2
   0 failed (2) Where Yt is the transverse tensile strength and Sc is in-
e2f   aa     ab   1 
 t 
X  c 
S  0 elastic plane shear strength given in Table 1 [34]. Sn and Ss are
normal and shear strength of the spot weld. Putting
If failed then Ea = Eb = Gba = vab = 0. values given in Table 1 in Eq. (6), Sn=960 N and Ss =
 Compressive fibre mode (aa < 0) 1380 N. During the analysis, spot welds will fail when
2
   0 failed (3) the following condition is met:
ec2   aa   1 
 Xc   0 elastic N 2
 f   f 
 n   s  (7)
If failed then Ea = vba = vab = 0.     1
 Sn   Ss 
 Tensile matrix mode (bb > 0)    
2 2
     0 failed (4) where fn and fs are normal and shear forces in the spot-
2
em   bb    ab
  S
 1
 
 Yt   c   0 elastic weld element at the end of each increment of the
loading. N and M are the failure criteria exponents which
If failed then Eb = vbs = 0 .Gba = 0. are set to 1.0 in the current work.
 Compressive matrix mode (bb < 0)
 
2  Y 
2  4. Parametric Studies
e d2   bb    c   1 bb
  2 S c   Yc (5)
 2S c     Before analysis of the composite substructures a
 
2
 0 failed parametric studies were carried out to find the effects of
  ab  1
  various parameters. Many parameters have significant
 Sc   0 elastic
influences on the behaviour of laminated composites
If failed then Eb = vba =vab = 0 .Gab. Xc =2Yc for during low velocity impacts. For example, impactor
50% fiber volume. velocity is one of the most important parameter.
100
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

Different impact velocities cause various levels of The deflections of the beam are shown in Fig. 6(b).
damage and energy absorptions. Other important The deflection is increased at higher impact velocity as
parameters are incident angle, the impactor mass, an impact at a higher initial velocity has higher kinetic
number of plies, frictions between contacted surfaces, energy. When the velocity is 3 m/s, cylinder bounced
and structures geometry. A rectangular composite box back. The energy absorbed by the box at various
beam is chosen as the base model for sensitivity analysis. velocities is shown in Fig. 6(c).
The laminates in the base model made of five plies
14
(IP=5) impacted at a velocity of 4 m/s with an impactor V= 3 m/s
mass of 62 kg with static coefficient of friction 0.1 and 12
V=
V=
4
5
m/s
m/s
dynamic coefficient of friction 0.0225. In the sensitivity V= 6 m/s

analysis, only one parameter is changed at a time while 10

Average Deflection (mm)

all other parameters are set at the base model value. 8

4.1. Impact velocity

6
Impact velocity has significant effect on the extent of
damage. The impactor velocity is changed to 4 m/s, 5 4

m/s and 6 m/s. The deformed shapes of the box are

2
shown in Fig. 5. It is observed that at higher velocities,
spot welds failed earlier while impact event occurs 0
quicker than other velocities. Fig. 6(a) shows variation of (b)
reaction force with time. The peak reaction force -2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
increases and occurs earlier as the impact velocity
increases. Higher impact velocities increase damages on Time (ms)

both of the vertical and top horizontal plates. When (b) Deflection
impactor velocity is 3 m/s no buckling (damage) 1000
occurred on vertical plates. Top horizontal plate resists
to the impactor load itself.
800

V = 4 m/s V= 3 m/s
V= 4 m/s
600
V= 5 m/s
Energy (kJ)

V= 6 m/s

400

V = 5 m/s 200

(c)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

V = 6 m/s Time (ms)

(c) Energy
Fig. 6: Time history for box beam at different impactor velocities

Fig. 5: Damage of composite box beam at different impact

4.2. Incident angle
velocities at t= 60 ms The effect of incident angle of impactor on the impact
50
behaviour of the composite box substructures are
investigated by changing the incident angles  shown in
40 V= 3 m/s
Fig. 3. During the oblique impact, over an unknown
V=
V=
4
5
m/s
m/s
contact area of the plate, there is an unknown normal
30 V= 6 m/s
pressure distribution and corresponding anisotropic
Reaction Force (kN)

friction. After the incident, the impactor either rebounds

20 or penetrates into the composite laminate depending on
the energy of the impactor and properties of the
10
laminate. The time histories of the energy and impactor
velocity of the base model for a range of incident angles
0
from 0 to 75 are shown in Fig. 7. It is shown that
-10
energy absorption decreases with increasing the incident
(a)
angle, thereby implying that the incident energy is more
-20 efficiently absorbed at right incident angle. This has
0 10 20 30 40 50
been reported elsewhere [35].
Time (ms)

Fig. 6(a): Reaction force history for box beam

101
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

500

m = 31 kg
400
Energy (kJ)

300 =0 =45

m = 62 kg
=15 =60

=30 =75
200

100 m = 124 kg

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (s)
m = 248 kg
(a) Energy
5
=0 =45
=15 =60
=30 =75
4 Fig. 8: Damage of composite box beam for different impactor mass
at t=50 ms
Impactor Velocity (m/s)

40
3
m= 31 kg
m= 62 kg
30 m= 124 kg
m= 248 kg
2

20
Reaction Force (kN)

1
10

0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (s)
-10
(b) Impactor velocity
(a)
Fig. 7: Time history at different incident angles for box beam -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

4.3. Impactor mass

Time (ms)
The impactor mass is changed by varying the density of
the impactor. The impactor mass of 31 kg, 62 kg, 124 kg (a) Reaction force
and 248 kg are investigated. The deformed results are 60

shown in Fig. 8. It is expected that by increasing the

impactor mass at the same velocity, a greater damage to 50
m= 31 kg
the box beam is occurred. Fig. 9(a) shows reaction force m=
m=
62 kg
124 kg
40
versus time for various impactors mass. The peak m= 248 kg
Average Deflection (mm)

reaction force remained the same and occurred

30
approximately at the same time. When the reaction force
reached to the peak, vertical plates started to buckle. In 20
Fig. 9(b) the deflection of the beam for various
impactors mass is shown. At higher mass, fluctuation of 10
reaction force is smaller. In all cases, the buckling of the
vertical plates is inward. In case of impactor mass of 248 0
kg, initially a big damage to the top horizontal and
(b)
vertical plates is happened and then impactor reached to -10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
the bottom horizontal plate. Whole box beam starts to
bend in y-direction while impactor continues its path. Time (ms)

When the stress exceeds the maximum tensile (b) Deflection

strength of vertical plates, these plates start to tear from
Fig. 9: Time history for box beam for different impactor mass
top to bottom from the ends supports and the two pieces
free fall and there is no further interaction with the 4.4. Number of plies
impactor. At low impactor mass, the beam bounce back Number of plies in a laminate is set by number of
to its original shape while at higher mass due to greater
integration points while keeping the total thickness of the
impact energy permanent damage occurs to the plates unchanged. The numbers of integration points
composite box and it does not bounce back to zero.
102
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

(plies) are set to 2, 5 and 8. The base model has five impact velocity and impactor mass have significant
integration points. When number of plies is 2, top effects on the behaviour of composite structures during
horizontal plate is not damaged by impactor. By low velocity impacts, the static and dynamic coefficients
increasing the number of plies the damage on composite of friction and number of plies have a negligible effect
box is increased slightly. The peak reaction force value on the energy absorption and reaction force.
and peak time remained the same for all cases Fig. 10(a). 30
The deflection of box beam is smaller with increasing
the layers while keeping the thickness unchanged, Fig. 25
s=0.1
10(b). Hence using more integration points makes the
s=0.2
beam stiffer. 20
s=0.4

Reaction Force (kN)

30 15

25 10

NIP=2
NIP=5
20 5
NIP=8

0
Reaction Force (kN)

15

10 -5

(a)
5 -10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 Time (ms)

(a) Reaction force

-5
10
(a)
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (ms) 8
 =0.1
s

(a) Reaction force  s=0.2

Average Deflection (mm)

 =0.4
s
10 6

8
NIP=2 4
NIP=5
NIP=8
Average Deflection (mm)

6
2

(b)
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (ms)
2
(b) Deflection
(b) Fig. 11: Time history for box beam for various static coefficients of
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
friction
30
Time (ms)

25
(b) Deflection
 =0
d
Fig. 10: time history for box beam for different number of plies 20
 =0.0225
d
 =0.05
4.5. Static and dynamic friction coefficients d
Reaction Force (kN)

15

The effect of static and dynamic coefficients of friction

10
on the behaviour of substructures under impact loading
are also studied by varying the values of static 5
coefficient of friction to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 and the dynamic
coefficient of friction to 0.0, 0.0225 and 0.05. The 0

results of reaction force and deflection are shown in Fig.

-5
11. No change is observed in the peak reaction force and
the maximum centre deflection of the beam when -10
(a)

coefficient of static friction is changed and the time of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

these peaks are not changed as shown in Fig. 11. Also, Time (ms)
there are no significant changes in reaction force and
displacement when coefficient of dynamic friction is Fig. 12(a): Reaction force history for box beam for various
dynamic coefficients of friction
changed as shown in Fig. 12. In summary though the
103
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106

10 From Fig. 13(c) it can be noted that the impactor

bounce back after hitting box beam, cylindrical tube and
stiffened box but it cut through plain plate and stiffened
8
 =0
d
plate. Figures 14(a-d) show the damage evolution in the
 =0.0225 four substructures at time t=30 ms. The stiffened box
Average Deflection (mm)

d
 =0.05
6
d beam structural integrity remains nearly intact while the
simple plate and stiffened plate broken to pieces.
5
4

2
3

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

Plate
Stiffened Plate
2 Box Beam
0 Cylindrical Tube
Stiffened Box Beam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1
Time (ms)
0
Fig. 12(b): Deflection history for box beam for various dynamic
coefficients of friction
-1

4.6. Different composite substructures geometries (c)

-2
The impact behaviour of 5 substructures shown in Fig. 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

under impact velocity of 4 m/s and other base load Time (ms)
35
scenario defined in Section 4 are studied. The results of
deflections, energy, impactor velocity and contact forces 30
for the considered four substructures are compared in
Figs. 13(a-d). From Fig. 13(a), the deflection of box 25
Plate
Stiffened Plate
Contact Force (kN)

beam and stiffened box beam bounces back to zero while Box Beam
Cylindrical Tube
plain plate, stiffened plate and cylindrical tube are 20 Stiffened Box Beam

damaged extensively and they are broken. From Fig.

15
13(b) it can be noted that there is some energy
absorption in stiffened box beam showing that some 10
damage is happened to the stiffened box beam, but it did
not lose its structural integrity. 5
(d)
40 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (ms)
30
Average Deflection (mm)

Fig. 13: (c) Impactor velocity (above) and (d) Contact force
(below) histories at impact velocity of 4 m/s
20

Plate
Stiffened Plate
Box Beam (a) Simple plate
10 Cylindrical Tube
Stiffened Box Beam

(a)
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 (b) Stiffened plate
Time (ms)
500

400

(c) Cylindrical tube

Energy (kJ)

Plate
300 Stiffened Plate
Box Beam
Cylindrical Tube
Stiffened Box Beam
200

100 (d) Stiffened box beam

(b)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (ms)

Fig. 13: (a) Deflection (above) and (b) Energy (below) histories at Fig. 14: Damage of composite substructures at t=30 ms
impact velocity of 4 m/s

104
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the explicit LS-DYNA finite element
software is used to simulate low velocity impacts of
different laminated composite substructures. In the FE
models, spot welds are used at corners and tiebreak
contacts are used for adhesive joints to construct
different laminated composite substructures. A
cylindrical rigid impactor is used to impact the
substructures at normal angle. No damping is applied to
the models in this study; element size remained
unchanged in all simulations. In this study MAT54 is
used for laminated composite, but there are other
material models with different damage models which are
also suitable for this type of study, e.g. MAT55, MAT58
and MAT59. It is worth to note that materials and
techniques such as interleaves, stitching and resin
transfer moulding are shown to improve the impact
performance of FRP laminates by reducing damage area
and density of damage while increasing the residual
strength and stiffness properties. Sensitivity analysis on
the influence of different parameters is performed and
simulation results are verified by comparing the results
with a published experimental work.
The numerical analysis show that the damage
induced in CFRP plate at low velocity impact when no
perforation occurs increases with increasing the impact
energy. However, by adding stiffener to composite plate
the total damage to the composite plate is reduced
significantly and the impactor is stopped in a shorter
time. From parametric studies on the laminated box
beam it is found that as the impactor velocity and mass
increased, impactor rebounded slower with higher beam
deflection in the normal direction. When the impactor
velocity and mass are large enough, there is no rebound
of impactor. By increasing the velocity and mass of
impactor, the absorbed energy by box due to higher
damage has also increased.
As the number of layers of the plates of composite
box beam increased (2, 5 and 8), no noticeable
difference in reaction forces is observed. However,
more layers resulted in a stiffer structure. Also, it is
noted that an increase in number of integration points
increase the solution time. During normal impact, the
static and dynamic friction coefficients do not have
noticeable effects on the energy absorption and
deformation of the structures. In oblique impact energy
absorbed increases with decreasing incident angle
thereby implying that the impact energy is more
efficiently absorbed at smaller incident angles. This can
be explained on the basis that the energy absorbed at
oblique impact angles includes a substantial component
attributable to the energy dissipation by frictional
deformation at the interface of impactor–target material
and further the absorbed energy depends very strongly
on the incident velocity through the coefficient of
friction. At large incident angles, a large portion of the
incident energy is dissipated via deformation in the near-
surface regions of the target material.
As the composite box beam is stiffened by stiffener
from inside the box, damage to the box beam (especially
top plate) decreased significantly. If the impact velocity
is not high enough, energy absorption of the simple box
105
beam is higher due to larger damage area. For these
cases the impactor will bounce back in reverse direction
when it hit the stiffened box beam. Generally speaking
by incorporating stiffeners inside the box beam, the
substructure deflects less and the extent of damage at the
top face is less relative to the simple box beam and the
structural integrity remains acceptable.
REFERENCES:
[1] Livermore Software Technology Corporation, California,
USA, LS-DYNA 971; 2009.
[2] S. Abrate. 1998. Impact on Composite Structures,
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511
574504
[3] C.T. Sun. 1977. Analytical method for evaluation of
impact damage energy of laminated composites, 4th Conf.
Compos. Mater.: Testing and Design, ASTM STP-617-T.
[4] D.R. Cartié and P.E. Irving. 2002. Effect of resin and fibre
properties on impact and compression after impact
performance of CFRP, Compos.: Part A, 33(4), 483-493.
[5] T.G. Rio, R. Zaera, E. Barbero, and C. Navarro. 2005.
Damage in CFRPs due to low velocity impact at low
temperature, Composites: Part B, 36(1), 41-50.
[6] S. Abrate. 1997. Localized impact on sandwich structures
with laminated facing, Appl. Mech. Rev., 50, 69-82.
doi:10.1115/1.3101689
[7] S. Ramakrishna and H. Hamada. 1998. Energy absorption
characteristics of crash worthy structural composite
materials, Key Engg. Materials, 141-143, Part II, 585-620.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM. 141-143.585
[8] M.O.W. Richardson and M.J. Wisheart. 1996. Review of
low-velocity impact properties of composite materials,
Composites: Part A, 27A, 1123-1131. doi:10.1016/1359-
835X(96)00074-7
[9] W.J. Cantwell and J. Morton. 1991. The impact resistance
of composite materials: A review, Composites, 22(5), 347-
362. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(91)90549-V
[10] S. Abrate. 1991. Impact on laminated composite
materials, Appl. Mech. Rev., 44, 155-190. doi:10.1115/1.
3119500
[11] S. Abrate. 1994. Impact on laminated composite: recent
advances, Appl. Mech. Rev., 47(11), 517-544. doi:10.11
15/1.3111065
[12] P.T. Curtis. 1984. A study on the impact performance and
subsequent compression fatigue performance of non-
woven and mix-woven composites, In: J. Morton, Editor,
Structural Impact and Crashworthiness.
[13] K.S. Krishnamurthy, P. Mahajan, and R.K. Mittal. 2001.
A parametric study of the impact response and damage of
laminated cylindrical composite shells, Composites
Science & Tech., 61, 1655-1669. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538
(01)00015-X
[14] P.O. Sjoblom, J.T. Hartness, and T.M. Cordell. 1988.
Low-velocity impact testing of composite materials, J.
Compos. Mater., 22, 30-52.
[15] K.N. Shivakumar, W. Elber, and W. Illg. 1985. Prediction
of low velocity impact damage in thin circular laminates,
AIAA J., 23(3), 442-449.
[16] S.M.R. Khalili, M. Soroush, A. Davar, and O. Rahmani.
2011. Finite element modeling of low-velocity impact on
laminated composite plates and cylindrical shells,
Composite Structures, 93(5), 1363-1375. doi:10.1016/j.
compstruct.2010.10.003
 H. Hadavinia et al. 2011. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 3(2), 96-106
[17] R. Sburlati. 2002. The contact behavior between a foam
core sandwich plate and a rigid indentor, Compos.: Part
B, 33 (4), 325-332. doi:10.1016/S1359-8368(02)00014-8
[18] S.C. Hunter. 1957. Energy absorbed by elastic waves
during impact, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 5, 162-171. doi:10.
1016/0022-5096(57)90002-9
[19] J.A. Zukas, T. Nicholas, H.I. Swift, L.B. Greszczuk, and
D.R. Curran. 1982. Impact Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons.
[20] A.E.H. Love. 1862. A Treatise on the Mathematical
Theory of Elasticity, Cambridge University Press.
[21] R. Olsson. 2000. Mass criterion for wave controlled
impact response of composite plates, Composites: Part A,
31, 879-887. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00020-8
[22] D. Liu and L.E. Malvem. 1987. Matrix cracking in
impacted glass/epoxy plates, J. Compos. Mater., 21, 594-
609. doi:10.1177/002199838702100701
[23] A. Faggiani and B.G. Falzon. 2010. Predicting low-
velocity impact damage on a stiffened composite panel,
Composites: Part A, 41, 737-749. doi:10.1016/j.composit
esa.2010.02.005
[24] ANSYS V11.0, USER HELP MENU
[25] S. Heimbs, S. Heller, P. Middendorf, F. Hahnel, and J.
Weiße. 2009. Low velocity impact on CFRP plates with
compressive preload: Test and modelling, Int. J. Impact
Engg., 36, 1182-1193.doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.04.006
[26] M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, and T. Berstad. 1999.
Crashworthiness of aluminium extrusion: validation of
numerical simulation, effect of mass ratio and impact
velocity, Int. J. Impact Engg., 22, 829-854. doi:10.1016/
S0734-743X(98)00070-0
[27] LS-DYNA Keyword’s User Manual, Livermore Software
Technology Corporation, 2003, Version 970.
106
View publication stats
[28] S.H. Benabdallah. 2007. Static friction coefficient of some
plastics against steel and aluminium under different
contact conditions, Tribology Int., 40, 64-73. doi:10.1016
/j.triboint.2006.02.031
[29] F.K. Chang and K.Y. Chang. 1987. A progressive damage
model for laminated composites containing stress
concentrations, J. Compos. Mater., 21, 834-855. doi:10.11
77/002199838702100904
[30] H.Y. Choi, H.Y.T. Wu, and F.K. Chang. 1991. A new
approach toward understanding damage mechanisms and
mechanics of laminated composites due to low-velocity
impact: Part II, J. Compos. Mater., 25, 1012-1038.
[31] H.Y. Choi and F.Y. Chang. 1990. Impact damage
threshold of laminated composites. Failure Criteria and
Analysis in Dynamic Response, AMD Vol. 107, ASME
Applied Mechanics Division, Dallas, TX, 31-35.
[32] H.Y. Choi, H.S. Wang, and F.K. Chang. 1992. Effect of
laminate configuration and impactor’s mass on the initial
impact damage of graphite/epoxy composite plates due to
line loading impact, J. Compos. Mater., 26(6), 804-827.
doi:10.1177/002199839202600603
[33] K. Schweizerhof, M. Maier, A. Matzenmiller, and W.
Rust. 1993. Energy absorption with composite crash
elements in frontal crash – an analysis with LS-DYNA3D,
11th CAD-FEM user’s meeting, 315-325.
[34] J.R. Smith, L.C. Bank, and M.E. Plesha. 2000.
Preliminary study of the behavior of composite material
box beams subjected to impact, 6th Int. LS-DYNA Users
Conf., Vol. 11, Dearborn, 1–15.
[35] C.Y. Tu and C.C. Chao. 1999. Three-dimensional contact
dynamics of laminated plates: Part 2 -Oblique impact with
friction, Composites: Part B, 30, 23–41. doi:10.1016/S135
9-8368(98)00039-0