Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Simulation of constrained layered damped laminated plates subjected

to low-velocity impact using a quasi-static method
Guang-Min Luo, Ya-Jung Lee *
Department of Engineering Science and Ocean Engineering, National Taiwan University, 73, Chow-Shan Road, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This investigation presents a quasi-static simulation method that adopts energy conservation and the
Available online 13 April 2008 results from the static crush to simulate the impact behavior of carbon-epoxy composite laminate plates.
These plates consist of adhered visco-elastic material, and formed constrained layered damped (CLD)
Keywords: components. The damping force is considered in the quasi-static simulation. Comparison with experi-
Visco-elastic mental results indicates that the proposed method yields accurate results and produces significant saving
Quasi-static in computing resources.
Constrained layered damping (CLD)
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and excellent shear-deformation ability can be employed to dissi-

Carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) has been adopted widely
because of its light, high stiffness and high strength. CFRP material
is brittle, and absorbs little energy in impact loading. Hence, the
impact strength of CFRP is always considered before applying it
to structure construction. Finite element method (FEM) software
has been used in many investigations, [1,2]. The failure of compos-
ite material is a very complex issue, involving time-consuming
simulation of dynamic behavior. Belingardi and Vadori [3] there-
fore, studied the mechanics of GFRP plate under low-velocity im-
pact by ASTM. However, FEM simulations or experiments are
always very time-consuming and expensive. Results of low-veloc-
ity experiments indicate that the failure forms of static crush and
low-velocity impact are very close. Therefore, this study adopts
the quasi-static algorithm to simulate the CFRP with constrained
layered damping (CLD) under low-velocity to obtain dynamic im-
pact results quickly.
The quasi-static method has been applied to simulate the low-
velocity impact for many years. Huang and Lee [4,5] established a
quasi-static simulation rule for CFRP plates and shells. Under the
low-velocity impact, the force–displacement (F–s ) curve of static
crush can be utilized to simulate the impact behavior of different
impactor masses and impact velocities. This study considers the
constrained layered damped effects using constrained layered
damping (CLD) based on visco-elastic damping and aluminum. A
sandwich-like plate is formed by adhering CLD to a laminated
plate. The impact strength of sandwich plate is always concerned
with the core. For the CLD laminated plate, the core is visco-elastic
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 33665773; fax: +886 2 33665776.
E-mail address: yjlee@ntu.edu.tw (Y.-J. Lee).
pate the impact energy constantly.
FRP sandwich plates subjected to impact have been widely dis-
cussed recently. For instance, Fatt and Park [6] adopted different
dynamic models to predict the low-velocity impact response of
sandwich panels under different boundary conditions. Gustin
et al. [7] experimentally investigated the low-velocity impact char-
acteristics of a sandwich CFRP plate with a honeycomb core. Jiang
and Shu [8] considered the local displacement of the core in a two-
layer sandwich composite plate subjected to low-velocity impact.
Malekzadeh et al. [9] utilized the three degree of freedom (TDOF)
mass-spring-damping model to simulate the responses of compos-
ite panels with transversely flexible core subjected to low-velocity.
This study discusses the use of quasi-static methods to simulate
the impact response of CFRP laminated plate with CLD and consid-
ers the damping force during the impact. Finally, the quasi-static
simulation results are compared experimentally, confirming the
accuracy of the quasi-static method with damping. Experimental
and quasi-static simulation results of this study could serve as
the basis for discussing the low-velocity impact behavior of lami-
nate plate with CLD specimens.
2. Quasi-static method for laminate plate with CLD
This study applies the quasi-static method. The impact energy is
assumed to be absorbed by the elastic deformation and fracture of
laminate plate with CLD component. The impactor can thus be con-
sidered as a signal system, and the dynamic energy variation of the
impactor equals the energy absorbed by the laminate plate.
The damping c and stiffness k of the signal-degree-of-freedom
system are addressed. The impactor mass is m, the initial velocity
is v0, and the velocity variation during the impact is v(t). The damp-
ing force Fd can thus be expressed as Fd = cv(t). Fig. 1 illustrates the

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.04.009
 G.-M. Luo, Y.-J. Lee / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295 291

2
v-s curve without damping
1.5

0.5
velocity (m/s)

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Fig. 3. Integration path and unloading path.
displacement (m)

Fig. 1. Velocity–displacement curve subjected to low-velocity impact without 2 v-s curve without damping
damping. v-s curve with damping : Iteration-1
1.6
v-s curve with damping : Iteration-2
1.2 v-s curve with damping : Iteration-3
relationship between impact velocity v and displacement s (v–s) as
defined by Huang and Lee [4]. If the v–s trend of CLD laminate plate 0.8
is similar to that without damping in Fig. 1, then the relationship velocity (m/s)
0.4
between damping force Fd = cv and displacement s is as given in
Fig. 2(b). 0
The energy conservation during the impact is considered.
-0.4
Assuming the dynamic energy lost from the impactor all trans-
ferred the work of mass-spring-damping system. The equation -0.8
can be expressed as: -1.2
Z s Z s
1
m½v20  v2 ðtÞ ¼ Fds þ F d ds ð1Þ -1.6
2 0 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
displacement (m)
Fig. 2 shows F–s and Fd–s curves, after obtaining the force–displace-
ment (F–s ) curve of static crush. The impact energy of the first dis- Fig. 4. The v–s trends after iteration.
placement increment s1 can be expressed as Eq. (2).
1 1 1 W 2 ¼ W 1 þ ½ðF 2 þ F 1 Þ  ðs2  s1 Þ=2 þ ½cðv2 ðtÞ þ v1 Þ  ðs2  s1 Þ=2
W 1 ¼ W k1 þ W d1 ¼ F 1 s1 þ cðv0 þ v1 ðtÞÞs1 ¼ m½v20  v21 ðtÞ ð2Þ
2 2 2 1
¼ m½v20  v22 ðtÞ ð4Þ
The velocity of the first step, v1(t), can be computed by solving Eq. 2
(2).
By solving Eq. (4), the velocity of the second increment, v2(t), can be
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
expressed as Eq. (5).
cs1  ðcs1 Þ2  4mF 1 s1 þ 4m2 v20  4mcv0 s1
v1 ðtÞ ¼ ð3Þ c
2m v2 ðtÞ ¼  ðs2  s1 Þ
2m
The damping force Fd1 = cv1(t) and energy W1 of the first increment sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h c i2 2  s2  s1 1

can all be obtained once v1(t) is known.  ðs2  s1 Þ  W1 þ ðF 1 þ F 2 þ cv1 Þ  mv20
The energy corresponding to the next displacement increment 2m m 2 2
s2 can thus be written as Eq. (4). ð5Þ

Fig. 2. Static crush F–s curve and Fd–s curve.

292 G.-M. Luo, Y.-J. Lee / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295

From Eq. (5), if v2(t) is known, then the damping force Fd2 = cv2(t) When the t–v–s–F arrays of CLD laminate plate are obtained, the
and impact energy W2 corresponding to s2 are obtained. The veloc- obtained v–s arrays gain a modified Fd–s curve to substitute for
ity array vi(t) and the corresponding energy Wi can be calculated by Fig. 2(b). Iterating quasi-static method with modified Fd–s curve,
repeating the above steps. The general formula of velocity is given and new t–v–s–F arrays can be obtained. Fig. 4 shows the results
by Eq. (6), where i P 2. of the iterations and proves that the v–s trend of CLD laminate

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
c h c i2 2  si  si1 1 2
vi ðtÞ ¼  ðsi  si1 Þ  ðsi  si1 Þ  W i1 þ ðF i1 þ F i þ cvi1 Þ  mv0 ð6Þ
2m 2m m 2 2

The dissipation of dynamic energy cause the impactor velocity to plate is similar to that without damping. The first iteration result
slow down gradually until it reaches zero, i.e. vi(t) = 0. This case named the iteration-1, the second iteration result named the iter-
indicates that the impact is finished, and the CLD laminate plate ation-2, and the third iteration result named the iteration-3. The
has the maximum displacement. The dynamic energy of impactor given v–s curve of iteration-1 can be utilized in the second itera-
is absorbed by the CLD laminate plate. The energy equation of the tion, and the new v–s curve obtained form iteration-2 utilized in
impact-ending is presented as Eq. (7) the third iteration. The iteration results in Fig. 4 show that twice
Z s Z s iterations have obtained the convergence result. Hence, the t–v–
1
mv20 ¼ Fds þ F d ds ð7Þ s–F arrays calculated in this research always used the iteration-2
2 0 0
v–s curve.
The rebound route of the impactor was based on Miki [10]. If dam-
age to the CLD laminate plate occurs during impact, then the resid- 3. Dynamic simulation results by quasi-static method
ual stiffness declines during the rebound. Miki recommended
returning the unloading path to its origin. Fig. 3 shows the unload- A dynamic experiment was performed using the sizes of speci-
ing path. mens and impactor, in this paper, boundary condition, material
With the velocity, displacement and impact force arrays for the and laminate form of specimens as in [11]. The carbon fiber was
impact process, including rebound process, are given. The time Toray T700 24K, and the matrix was Fiber Cote E765expoxy. The
increment array Dt can then be obtained. length and width of the specimens were 0.12 and 0.05 m, respec-
Dt ¼ Ds=v ¼ ðsi  si1 Þ=v ð8Þ tively. The thickness was 0.00214 m, and the constrained layered
damping (CLD) was 3M damping foil SJ-2552. Two stacking se-
The t–v–s–F arrays of CLD laminate plate subjected to low-velocity quences [45/45]4s and [90/0]4s, respectively, named angle-ply
impact are then obtained, where t denotes the time, v denotes the (PA) and cross ply (PC) were adopted. Table 1 shows the specimens
impactor velocity, s denotes the displacement of impactor, and F de- and impactor data.
notes the impact force. The static crush F–s data were then adopted to perform the
quasi-static simulation. Fig. 5 shows the force–displacement (F–s)
Table 1 curves of static crush from the reference [11].
Specimen and impactor data The dynamic drop tests were performed by GRC-8250 Dynatup
Name Specification Dimension from the General Research Corporation. The impactor masses were
2.95 and 5.73 kg, and the two initial impact velocities were1.41
Laminate specimen PC [90/0]4s Span = 0.12 m
PA [45/45]4s Width = 0.05 m and 3.05 m/s.
Thickness = 0.00214 m The impact force data were measured by a hemi-spherical steel
Constrained layered 3M damping foil SJ- Backing thickness = 0.25 mm impactor, namely the 208A-33 force sensor, from PCB Piezotronics.
damping 2552 Total thickness = 0.38 mm
The impact force data were then recorded by the dynamic ampli-
Impactor PCB 208A-33 Hemisphere/
fier PCB 494A. Fig. 6 illustrates the drop and measurement
diameter = 0.0127 m
machine.

a b
1200 2000
Experiment curve of angle-ply plate Experiment curve with CLD
ABAQUS simulation with UMAT
1800
1000 1600 ABAQUS simulation with UMAT

1400
800
force (N)

force (N)

1200
600 1000
800
400 600
400
200
200
0
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

displacement (mm) displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. F–s curves, (a) angle-ply and (b) cross-ply [11].

 G.-M. Luo, Y.-J. Lee / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295 293

Fig. 6. Drop test and measurement apparatuses of impact experiment: (a) GRC-8250 dynatup and (b) PCB 494A amplifier and 208A-33 force sensor.

Fig. 7 [11] shows the damaged PA and PC specimens of static
crush test, and Fig. 8 shows the damaged PA and PC specimens
of drop test results. The results of static crush and drop tests indi-
cate that the failure forms of the drop test were similar to those of
the static crush test under low-velocity impact. According to Fig. 8
the failures in the PA specimen comprise several local failures (in
±45° direction) in the width direction, and the failures of CLD ad-
hered to the PA specimens were spread widely and irregularly.
However, the failures of PC specimen were based on fiber-snap
in the width direction, and the failure of CLD adhered to PC speci-
mens were similar to those of the PC specimens themselves.
Figs. 9–12 show the results of quasi-static simulation and
experiments were shown in. Besides quasi-static simulation, the
FEM package ABAQUS-UMAT was also adopted to simulate the
behavior of low-velocity impact. The stiffness modifications for
the ABAQUS-UMAT simulation were based on the suggestions of
Luo and Lee [11].
The CLD laminated plates at an impact velocity of 1.41 m/s
presented no obvious failures, and the dynamic evaluation easily
converged in ABAQUS-UMAT. However, at an impact velocity of
3.05 m/s, the failure of CLD laminate plates was very obvious, and
the evaluation of ABAQUS-UMAT did not converge. The ABAQUS
evaluation in this study only considered the case of v = 1.41 m/s.
Fig. 9 presents the results of the cases with velocity of 1.41 m/s
and impactor mass of 2.95 kg. Fig. 10 presents the results of the
cases with velocity of 1.41 m/s and impactor mass of 5.73 kg. Figs.
9, 10 also show the time and velocity arrays calculated by the
quasi-static method. The maximum impact force at v = 1.41 m/s
occurred at an impact velocity of zero. At this time, the failure
of CLD plate was not very serious, and the impactor would
rebound.
The simulation results of the quasi-static and ABAQUS-UMAT
algorithms were very similar to the experiment results. Compari-
son with ABAQUS-UMAT further confirms the accuracy of the
quasi-static method.
The greater impact force let to serious failure, and the evalua-
tion of ABAQUS-UMAT did not converge, at an impact velocity of
3.05 m/s. Therefore, only the quasi-static simulation results and
experiment results were compared for v = 3.05 m/s case. Figs. 11,
12 show the comparison results.
The quasi-static simulation results were also closed to the
experiment results for v = 3.05 m/s. Because of the greater impact
force led the serious fracture after impact, the rebound stage of
the PA and PC specimens were uncertainly. For PA specimens
([45/45]4s), the strength in the length direction was weaker than
PC specimens, and the CLD laminate plate were damaged during
the impact, so the impactor did not rebound in this case. For PC
specimens ([90/0]4s), the stronger strength in the length direction
led a little rebound stage of the impactor after impact. Figs. 11,
12 show the results with v = 3.05 m/s.

Fig. 7. Front view and rear view of damaged PA and PC specimens [11].
294 G.-M. Luo, Y.-J. Lee / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295

Fig. 8. Damaged PA and PC specimens subjected to low-velocity impact.

a b
1000 Pah1w1-dyna experiment 2 1500 Pch1w1-dynamic experiment
2

900 ABAQUS simulation

1.5 ABAQUS simulation
1.5
Quasi-static simulation Quasi-static simulation
800 1200
1 impact velocity 1
impact force (N)

impact velocity
impact force (N)

700

velocity (m/s)
velocity( m/s)

600 0.5 900 0.5

500 0 0
400 -0.5 600 -0.5
300
-1 -1
200 300
100 -1.5 -1.5

0 -2 0 -2
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
time (s) time (s)

Fig. 9. Quasi-static simulation, v = 1.41 m/s, m = 2.95 kg: (a) PA specimen and (b) PC specimen.

a Pah1w2-dyna experiment
b 1800 2
1000 2 Pch1w2-dyna experiment
ABAQUS simulation
ABAQUS simulation
900 Quasi-static simulation
1.5 1600
impact velocity
Quasi-static simulation 1.5
800 impact velocity
1400
1
impact force (N)

impactforce(N)

1
700
velocity (m/s)

velocity (m/s)

1200
600 0.5
1000 0.5
500 0
800 0
400 -0.5 600
300 -0.5
-1 400
200
-1
-1.5 200
100
0 -2 0 -1.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
time (s) time (s)

Fig. 10. Quasi-static simulation, v = 1.42 m/s, m = 5.73 kg: (a) PA specimen and (b) PC specimen.
 G.-M. Luo, Y.-J. Lee / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 290–295 295

a b
1200 Pah2w1-dyna experiment 3.5 2000 Pch2w1-dyna experiment 4
Quasi-static simulation
Quasi-static simulation
1000 impact velocity 3 3
impact velocity
impact force (N) 1600

impact force (N)

2.5
2

velocity(m/s)

velocity (m/s)
800
2 1200 1
600
1.5
800 0
400
1
-1
200 0.5 400
-2
0 0
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0 -3
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018
time (s)
time (s)

Fig. 11. Quasi-static simulation, v = 3.05 m/s, m = 2.95 kg: (a) PA specimen and (b) PC specimen.

a b
Pah2w2-dyna experiment
1200 Quasi-static simulation 3.5 2000 Pch2w2-dyna experiment 3.5
impact velocity 1800 Quasi-static simulation 3
1000 impact velocity
1600 2.5
3
1400
800 2
velocity (m/s)

force (KN)
force (KN)

velocity (m/s)
1200
1.5
600 2.5 1000
1
800
400 0.5
600
2 0
400
200
200 -0.5

0 -1
0 1.5 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
time (ms) time(ms)

Fig. 12. Quasi-static simulation, v = 3.05 m/s, m = 5.73 kg: (a) PA specimen and (b) PC specimen.

4. Conclusions [3] Belingardi G, Vadori R. Low velocity impact tests of laminate glass-fiber-epoxy
matrix composite material plates. Int J Impact Eng 2002;27:213–29.
[4] Huang, Lee. A quasi-static method for the simulation of composite laminated
The failures of CLD laminated plate subjected to low-velocity are plates subjected to low-velocity impact. J Soc Naval Architects Marine Eng
very complex. The use of a finite element package and experiments 2002;21:83–91.
[5] Huang, Lee. Quasi-static simulation of composite-laminated shells subjected to
to realize the failures of CLD laminate plate is always time-consum-
low-velocity impact. J Reinf Plates Compos 2005;24:763–74.
ing. This study adopts the quasi-static method in order to simplify [6] Michelle S, Hoo Fatt, Park Kyong S. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact
the description of failure behavior through the static crush results. damage of composite sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2001;52:335–51.
[7] Gustin J, Mahinfalah M, Jazar GN, Aagaah MR. Low-velocity impact of sandwich
The quasi-static simulation rule established in this paper con-
composite plates. Exp Mech 2004;44:1741–2765.
siders the damping effect. The impact force and the velocity varia- [8] Jiang, Shu. Local displacement of core in two-layer sandwich
tion of impactor can be obtained quickly using the quasi-static composite structures subjected to low velocity impact. Compos Struct 2004;
method through the relations of force and displacement from the 71:53–60.
[9] Malekzadeh K, Khalili MR, Mittal RK. Analytical prediction of low-velocity
static crush simulation. Finally, experimental results are adopted impact response of composite sandwich panels using new TDOF spring-mass -
to verify the accuracy of quasi-static simulation. The simulation re- damper model. J Compos Mater 2006;40:1671–89.
sults from the quasi-static method and experiment are very close, [10] Miki M, Fukuda T, Motogi S, Houjiyou M. Composite Materials. Kyoritsu
Publishing Co., Inc.; 1997. p. 202–3.
and confirm the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed quasi-sta- [11] Luo, Lee. Static crush experiments and simulations of laminated composite
tic method. plates and shells with constrained layered damping. Compos Struct
2008;85:64–9.
References

[1] Sun, Liou. Investigation of laminated plates under impact dynamic loading
using a three-dimensional hybrid stress finite element method. Comp Struct
1989;33:879–84.
[2] Reddy YS, Reddy JN. Three-dimensional finite element progressive failure
analysis of composite laminates under axial extension. J Compos Technol Res
1993;15:73–87.