M. J.

Pérez-Martı́n1
Department of Materials Science,
E.T.S.I. Caminos,
Canales y Puertos,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM),
28040, Madrid, Spain
Impact Behavior of Hybrid
e-mail: mariajesus.perez@mater.upm.es
Glass/Carbon Epoxy Composites
A. Enfedaque
Department of Civil Engineering: Construction, The high velocity impact performance in hybrid woven carbon and S2 and E glass fab-
E.T.S.I. Caminos, ric laminates manufactured by resin transfer molding (RTM) was studied. Specimens
Canales y Puertos, with different thicknesses and glass-fiber content were tested against 5.5 mm spherical
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), projectiles with impact velocities ranging from 300 to 700 m/s to obtain the ballistic
28040, Madrid, Spain limit. The resulting deformation and fracture micromechanisms were studied. Several
impacts were performed on the same specimens to identify the multihit behavior of such
W. Dickson laminates. The results of the fracture analysis, in conjunction with those of the impact
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), tests, were used to describe the role played by glass-fiber hybridization on the fracture
Cambridge, MA 02139 micromechanisms and on the overall laminate performance under high velocity impact.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4023344]
F. Gálvez
Department of Materials Science, Keywords: impact behavior, multihit behavior, hybrid composites, fracture
E.T.S.I. Caminos, micromechanisms
Canales y Puertos,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM),
28040, Madrid, Spain

1 Introduction dispose the different layers, could be a key factor in improving

Fiber-reinforced composites made of epoxy matrices reinforced
with high-strength carbon fibers are becoming standard structural
materials in certain industrial applications which require very
high specific stiffness and strength, such as aerospace compo-
nents. Given that in these applications the weight is a key factor,
carbon components are an effective solution against other struc-
tures that work better when weight is not relevant. They are
mostly used in the form of laminates made by stacking composite
layers using either unidirectional or woven fiber reinforcement.
Fiber orientations should be optimized to achieve the proper lami-
nate behavior depending on the loading conditions. It is well
known, however, that composite laminates are highly susceptible
to impact damage, which can significantly reduce their mechani-
cal behavior. Composites may behave in a brittle manner under
impact penetration due to a limited capacity to absorb energy. The
behavior of carbon/epoxy laminates under impact has been an
active research for many years, and several papers have been pub-
lished over the last 20 years [1–4].
Carbon fiber composites work well for applications where
weight is important; nevertheless, performance could be lower
than other fiber based materials such as those made of aramid or
glass fibers. The main advantage of carbon fibers is because of
their low weight, leading to specific properties that are even better
than the above mentioned fiber competitors. Recently, some
research has shown that a good solution to improve the perform-
ance of carbon based composites is by adding some other type of
fibers in low percentage through hybridation techniques [5,6].
This solution gives enhanced performance without increasing sig-
nificantly a penalty on the final weight of the composite. Stacking
different layers of carbon fibers and glass fibers has been proved
as a good solution in increasing the impact behavior [7] for low
velocity impact. The stacking arrangement, which refers to how to
1
Corresponding author.
Manuscript received June 29, 2012; final manuscript received November 13,
2012; accepted manuscript posted January 9, 2013; published online April 19, 2013.
Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon.
performance. In addition, the type of fibers used for hybridization
may have some relevance. This paper analyses such aspects in
laminates that combine glass fibers type E and S2 plies with car-
bon fiber ones.
2 Materials and Experimental Procedure
Composite laminates were manufactured using carbon fabrics
and glass fabrics purchased from Hexcel and using RTM6 epoxi
resin by means of a resin-transfer molding method. Carbon fabrics
(Hexcel reference G0926) were made up of high strength fibers
with architecture of five-hardness satin. Glass fabric S2 (Hexcel
reference 6781) was made up of S2 glass fibers and Glass fabric
E (Hexcel reference 7781) of E glass fibers, both with an eight-
harness satin structure. All fabrics, glass and carbon, were balanced
in weft and warp orientations. Composite panels were consolidated
and cured in a vacuum at 180  C for 2 h. Four different laminates
were manufactured and their denomination, nominal thickness,
stacking sequence, and nominal proportion of carbon and glass
fibers are shown in Table 1. The denomination consists of a letter,
H in the case of hybrid materials or C when containing only carbon
fibers, followed by the number of plies in the laminate. In the case
of hybrid materials, the volume nominal proportion of glass fabrics
in the laminate are also included: E for glass fiber type E or S2 for
glass fibers type S2. For example, the denomination H-18/21S
means hybrid material composed of 18 plies with 21% volume of
S2 glass fibers.
One laminate only containing carbon fibers was manufactured
with a thickness of 5.7 mm, while three hybrid laminates were
manufactured with different thicknesses and proportions of glass
fibers. First, a laminate with 21% in volume of S2 glass fibers and
a 5.6 mm in thickness close to the carbon laminate, intended to
compare the inclusion of glass fibers. Second, a laminate with
12% in volume of S2 glass fibers and a 6.7 mm in thickness, to
compare the amount of glass fibers and the thickness with the
above mentioned laminates. And finally a third hybrid laminate
with 15% in volume of E glass fibers and a 6.9 mm in thickness,

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright V

C 2013 by ASME MAY 2013, Vol. 80 / 031803-1

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1 Denomination of laminates, thickness, stacking sequence and fibre content

Laminate ID Thickness (mm) Stacking sequence C (vol. %) S2 (vol. %) E (vol. %)

C-16/0 5.64 [(45/0)4]S 100 0 0

H-18/21S 5.52 [(45/45S/0/45S/0/2045/0/45S/45)]S 79 21 0
H-20/12S 6.60 [(45/45S/0/0/45/0/45S/0/45/45)]S 88 12 0
H-22/15E 5.85 [(45/0E/0/45/0/0E/45/0/0/45/0E)]S 85 0 15

to compare the performance of the glass fibers with the behavior
aforementioned.
All the laminates were ultrasonically inspected after manufac-
turing and were free of macroscopic defects. The actual thickness
of each laminate was determined as the average of eight measure-
ments carried out with a 0.01 mm resolution micrometer. Areal
density was computed by weighting the plate with a balance with
a resolution of 0.01 g and using the thickness previously obtained.
Square specimens of 50  50 mm were obtained from the lami-
nates. The samples were tested on a SABRE A1þ gas gun. The
projectiles used were 5.5 mm ball of high strength steel using a
sabot to fit on a 7.62 barrel. They were fired using air compressed
or helium, with both varying the pressure from 50 bar to 200 bar
and achieving projectile velocities ranging from 300 m/s to 700 m/s.
Samples were placed on the impact chamber without using any
fixture. This decision was taken in order to avoid any forces
applied on the specimen, excepting those coming from the projec-
tile. Such a process allows computation of the energy impact, the
energy transferred to the specimen, and the projectile residual
energy without any dissipation through any specimen mounting
system. Impact velocity was obtained using two infrared window
frames, as well as a Phantom V12 video camera. The images were
recorded at a frame rate of 80,000 fps (leading a period of 12.5 ls
among frames), a resolution of 512  128 pixels, and an exposure
time of 9.35 ls. The measurements taken from the video camera
were used to compute the impact velocity, the residual velocity of
the projectile, and the residual velocity of the target if any.
Through these measurements and weighting, the projectile and the
tested specimens, the energy balance was obtained.
3 Results
The results of the velocities of the test campaign were obtained
using the recordings of the tests taken by means of a high-speed
camera. The velocity of the projectile before and after the impact
was obtained using a fixed distance and knowing the time between
two different frames of the video. All tests were performed with a
normal impact. In addition, the trajectories of the projectile before
and after the tests were stable.
A sequence of images taken from an impact is shown in Fig. 1.
The images show the projectile, the frame and a carbon laminate
(C-16/0), which is in contact to the frame without any attachment
system. Those images were taken at times 112 ls, 37 ls, 76 ls
and 201 ls from the impact instant. Given that the images reveal
that the residual velocity of the target is almost negligible, it can
be considered that the latter is not moving after the impact. Meas-
urements taken from this video give an initial velocity of 700 m/s
and residual velocity of 537 m/s.
The results of the test performed in the quasi-isotropic carbon
laminate are shown in Fig. 2. Some specimens were impacted
twice to study the multihit behavior; in this figure the first shot on
the specimen is represented as a full symbol, while the second
shot is represented as hollow symbols.
The ballistic limit obtained V50 was 348 m/s. The behavior of
the laminate at speeds above the ballistic limit shows two types of
trend. One such trend comprises the tests performed at speeds
slightly higher than V50. In this zone, any increment of the impact
velocity of the projectile causes a total penetration in the sample.
For instance, a change of 5 m/s in the impact velocity generates an
increment of the residual speed of 125 m/s. The second trend can
be seen in the shots made at 400 m/s and above. The results of
these tests form a straight line and therefore the increment of the
residual speed is proportional to that of the impact speed.
Once the first test was conducted a second shot was performed
in order to study the multihit behavior of the laminates. The
results of these tests are represented as hollow symbols in
the Fig. 2, whereas the distance between the center of the first and
the second impact is shown in millimetres. The hollow symbols
are plotted near or right on top of the full ones, except the projec-
tile that impacted at 6.3 mm. Comparing the residual velocity of
this second impact (V0 ¼ 393 m/s, Vr ¼ 257 m/s) with the nearest
first one result (V0 ¼ 393 m/s, Vr ¼ 216 m/s) there is a 41 m/s ve-
locity increment. Based in these results it can be stated that if the
second impact is closer than 6.3 mm from the first one, then the
loss of ballistic performance in not negligible, while if it is further
than 7.5 mm from the first one there is no decrease in the ballistic
efficiency.
The results obtained when shooting the H-18/21S specimens
(made of an 18-layer hybrid composite with 21% of S2 glass fiber
distributed among six different layers) is shown in Fig. 3. The
results of the first impacts made in the samples are represented as
full squares, while the second impacts are plotted as hollow
squares. The V50 of the composite is slightly higher than the one
obtained in the carbon laminate, with it being 354 m/s. The two
trends previously observed in the carbon laminate are reproduced
again. The first one starts at V50 and finishes around 420 m/s; and
the second one comprises higher speeds. However, the slope of
the first straight trend is less steep when compared with the carbon
laminate. This different slope shows that slight changes in the
impact velocities are accompanied by reductions of the residual
velocity in contrast to that observed in the composites without
hybridization.
The second trend shown is similar to the one obtained for car-
bon fiber composites. The increments of impact velocities cause a
proportional increment of the residual velocities of the projectile.
The second impacts in the samples showed no different behav-
ior. Most of the points of Fig. 3 that appear in hollow squares are
in contact with previous results of samples tested only once. Not
only did this event take place, but also some of the second impacts
performed showed better behavior than the first ones. However,
this cannot be related with the material properties because the dis-
tances between impacts were larger than those previously regis-
tered in the case of the carbon fiber laminates.
The influence of the amount of hybridization was studied by test-
ing hybrid laminates with smaller amounts of glass fibers. These
tests were performed in a hybrid laminate named H-20/12S. This
composite was manufactured with the same S2 glass fibers as H-18/
21S, though the fibers were placed in two layers placed close to the
free surfaces of the laminate. The results obtained can be seen in
Fig. 4. Laminate H-20/12S has a measured ballistic limit of V50 of
399 m/s. In this laminate, the trends shown in Figs. 2 and 3 cannot
be seen so clearly. However, it seems that the slope of the first part
of the graph is steeper than the one shown in Fig. 3, but less steep
than the one in Fig. 2. The first trend ends close to 400 m/s. In the
second part of Fig. 4, as in the previous laminates, there is propor-
tionality between any increment of the impact velocity and the re-
sidual velocity.
The results obtained after shooting in the samples already tested
can be seen in hollow symbols. As happens in H-18/21S, there are
no great differences between the first and second impacts in the

031803-2 / Vol. 80, MAY 2013 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 1 Sequence of the impact against a carbon specimen with an initial velocity of 700 m/s

Fig. 2 Residual velocity versus impact velocity of the projec- Fig. 3 Residual velocity versus impact velocity of the projec-
tile for laminates C-16/0. Distance between first and second tile for laminate H-18/21S. Distance between first and second
impact shown next to the test result. impact shown close to the test result.

Journal of Applied Mechanics MAY 2013, Vol. 80 / 031803-3

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 4 Residual velocity versus impact velocity of the projec-
tile. Tests performed in laminate H-20/12S. Distance between
first and second impact shown next to the test result.
Fig. 5 Residual velocity versus impact velocity of the projec-
tile. Tests performed in laminate H-22/15E. Distance between
first and second impact shown next to the test result.
samples. The smallest distance between the impacts on the same
plate was 7.3 mm.
To ascertain the changes in the behavior of hybrid laminates due
to changes in the properties of the glass-fiber laminate H-22/15E,
made of different glass fibers, was impacted. The type of glass
fibers now changes from S2 type to E type, which has a theoretical
lower performance than S2 type. This laminate has three layers of
E glass fibers with the stacking sequence, as described previously.
The results of both single and multiple impacts can be seen in
Fig. 5. The V50 of the composite is 362 m/s. In Fig. 5, the points
obtained in the tests were gathered by forming two straight lines.
The first one, as in the previous hybrid laminates studied, has a
slope smaller than the one registered in the carbon-fiber laminate.
The end of this first straight line is at a velocity slightly lower than
400 m/s. No second shots were performed on the laminates.
031803-4 / Vol. 80, MAY 2013
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 6 Recht–Ipson model for the different laminates. Thick-
ness for each laminate is indicated in the legend.
Table 2 Parameters used in the Recht–Ipson model
V50 (m/s) n
C-16/0 348 1.77
H-18/21S 354 1.70
H-20/12S 399 1.64
H-22/15E 362 1.63
The experimental results were fitted by using the experimental
model developed by Recht and Ipson [8]. For moderately thick
plates with a thickness of the plate close to the diameter of the
projectile (t/D1), this fit worked appropriately. This model
assumes rigid, nondeforming projectiles, and after recovering the
projectile this assumption was validated. The following equation
shows the analytical formula of the curves plotted: where V0 is the
impact velocity of the projectile, V50 the velocity of the projectile
when stopped by the sample and Vr the residual velocity of the
projectile. The results are plotted in Fig. 6 and the parameters in
Table 2.

1
Vr ¼ V0n  V50
n n (1)
4 Discussion
To evaluate the improvement that the hybrid composites might
represent when compared with carbon composites, the data
obtained in the tests had to be processed. The samples are made
up of a combination of layers of the different materials; thus sam-
ples with same thickness are almost unable to obtain. As can be
seen in Fig. 6, the position of the glass-fiber plies is the key factor
when comparing samples of similar thickness. However, the effect
of the thickness had to be removed and in order to do so the
energy balance of the tests and the results obtained were divided
by the thickness. In these tests the energy balance to be examined
can be expressed by the following equation:
E0 ¼ Ekp þ Eks þ Eabs (2)
In this equation, E0 represents the energy of the system before the
impact, Ekp the kinetic energy of the projectile after the impact,
Eks the kinetic energy of the sample after the impact and Eabs the
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Percentage of initial energy absorbed versus impact
velocity
energy absorbed by the sample. This expression can be developed
in the following one, assuming that the kinetic energy of rotation
of the sample after the impact can be neglected when comparing it
with the rest of the energies obtained. Therefore, the previous
equation will be expressed as:
1 1 1 nates absorbed more energy as the residual speed grew. Besides,
mp v20 ¼ mp v2rp þ ms v2rs þ Eabs (3)
2 2 2 the increment in the energy absorbed by the H-20/12S laminate is
In the latter equation all the data needed has been obtained in the
tests and thus the energy balance is complete.
A comparison between the behavior of the composite materials
was studied, relating how much energy absorbed by the samples
in contrast to the impact energy. However, direct comparison
between materials cannot be made because the results shown in
Fig. 7 are influenced by the thicknesses of the composites.
According to the thicknesses that appear in Table 1, only a direct
comparison between H-18/21S and C-16/0 can be made. The
amount of energy absorbed in relation to the energy before the
impact is higher in H-18/21S than in C-16/0, even though the car-
bon laminate is thicker than the hybrid one.
Laminate H-22/15E absorbs more energy than C-16/0 or H-18/
21S, though it is probable that the differences between H-22/15E
and H-18/21S might be caused because H-22/15E is 0.37 mm
thicker than H-18/21S. The differences between C-16/0 and H-
22/15E are noticeable, and the thickness differences between the
two laminates thickness is only 0.21 mm. The different results
between these two composites are sound; this suggests that they
could be partially caused by a better behavior of the hybrid
material. Above all, the best performance of all laminates was
achieved with H-20/12S. These results were expected, due to
the differences in the number of plies, and thus in thickness of
H-20/12S.
However, direct comparison between the behavior of the com-
posites is still not possible due to their different thicknesses. To
solve this problem the energy absorbed by the samples was di-
vided by their thicknesses and plotted versus the residual speed of
the projectile. This plot can be seen in Fig. 8 which shows the test
results for all laminates. As can be clearly seen, there is no cross-
ing between the data of the laminates. The dots obtained by test-
ing the carbon laminate appear in the lowest part of the curve,
whereas the hybrid laminates appear right above them. The dots
closest to the carbon laminate results are those obtained for the
hybrid laminate manufactured with three layers of glass fiber
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 8 Energy absorbed by mm of thickness versus projectile
residual speed
type S. These dots are close to those obtained in the composites
with three layers of glass fibers type E. The laminate that absorbed
most energy was the laminate manufactured with two plies of
glass fibers type S. It is also noticeable that the energy absorbed
per mm of thickness of the carbon laminate was constant between
the ballistic limit and 250 m/s. On the other hand, the hybrid lami-
higher than those observed in the rest of the hybrid laminates.
This is important, given that this behavior appears in the laminates
manufactured with E glass fibers and S glass fibers alike.
According to Fig. 8, it seems that the position of the most flexi-
ble plies of glass fibers is more important than the amount of
hybridization. The glass fiber plies closest to the middle of the
sample might not contribute to the sample impact strength and,
due to their distant position, are not able to spread the damaged
inflicted by the projectile, this is what happens in samples H-18/
21S and H-22/15E. Conversely, the glass fiber plies that are near
the free surfaces of the sample are capable of distributing the dam-
age to the outer plies and, instead of breaking these plies, massive
delamination appears near the glass fiber plies. To check this hy-
pothesis, a closer look at the tested samples was taken.
Figure 9 shows pictures of nonhybrid composites. On the left
part of Fig. 9 a sample tested below 400 m/s is shown. This sam-
ple corresponds to the first trend that appears in Fig. 2. On the
right part of Fig. 9, a sample tested at a higher velocity can be
seen. In these two pictures the damage patterns of the laminate are
similar. There are no delaminated areas, either in the first sample
or in the second sample. The main failure mechanism of the mate-
rial in both tests is crushing in the ply that the projectile impacts
first and shear stresses in the opposite plies.
Fig. 9 C-16/0 samples tested at different velocities. No visible
delamination appears in any sample.
MAY 2013, Vol. 80 / 031803-5
 Fig. 10 Samples H-20/12S tested at different velocities. No
delamination appears in tests over 400 m/s. Delamination in
front of one glass fiber ply appears in tests under 400 m/s.
Fig. 11 Samples H-22/15E tested at different velocities. No
delamination appears in tests over 400 m/s. Delamination in
front of one glass fiber ply appears in tests under 400 m/s.
Fig. 12 Samples H-18/21S tested at different velocities. No
delamination appears in tests over 400 m/s, while delamination
in front of one glass fiber ply appears in tests below 400 m/s.
However, in the hybrid composite samples the failure mechanism
changes. Samples tested under 400 m/s showed massive delamina-
tion in front of one of the glass fiber plies. The glass fiber plies
appear in the samples as white plies in contrast to the black plies of
carbon fibers. The higher flexibility of the glass fiber plies deformed
the ones right behind them. This phenomenon caused stresses that
fractured the interface right above the glass-fiber laminate dividing
the sample in two parts, as shown in Figs. 10, 11, and 12.
The differences between the damage mechanisms of the com-
posites with different amounts of hybridization can be seen by
comparing Fig. 10, where pictures of H-20/12S are offered, with
Figs. 11 and 12, where images of H-18/21S, H-22/15E are shown.
Following the rationale shown previously it would seem that
higher hybridization could imply a better impact resistance. How-
ever, as can be clearly seen in Fig. 8, this is not exact. Thus, some
differences in the damage mechanisms of the composites that
explain such inconsistency should exist. When taking a closer
look at the tested samples, it is clear that delamination appears in
the three composites, as shown in the left parts of Figs. 10, 11,
and 12. However, the interface where the sample has been divided
in two parts, when referring to the glass fiber plies, is similar in
laminates H-18/21S and H-22/15E but different from those
observed in H-20/12S. In samples with two glass-fiber plies, the
fracture of the interface appears in front of the first glass ply of
the part of the sample opposite to the surface where the impact
occurs. As previously explained, the glass-fiber plies allow the
composite to deform and absorb higher amounts of energy by
delaminating the interface between two plies. This mechanism
should take place, though, for the plies not to be broken by the
shear stresses introduced by the projectile. In order to decelerate
the velocity of the projectile, it would seem advisable to have
031803-6 / Vol. 80, MAY 2013
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 13 Sample of C-16/0 after two consecutive impacts sepa-
rated 6.3 mm
higher stiffness and strength in the plies next to the impact
surface; in turn, once the projectile has slowed down the higher
flexibility of the glass-fiber plies allow the delamination of the
interface to appear. Thus, the glass-fiber plies placed near the cen-
ter of the composite, such as those of laminates H-22/15E and H-
18/21S, do not contribute to stopping the projectile as well as the
carbon plies do. Due to the high velocities of the projectile, the
glass-fiber plies are incapable of withstanding the shear stresses
introduced by the projectile and are thus perforated.
The delamination damage mechanism occurs in the first part of
the curves of Figs. 3, 4, and 5, while in the second part of the
curves showed only shear stresses are responsible for damaging
the samples in all three hybridized composites. This can be con-
firmed by observing the penetrated samples shown in the right
parts of Figs. 10, 11, and 12.
To study the damage tolerance of the composites, second
impacts were performed in the tested samples of all the laminates.
They showed no different results from those obtained in the first
impacts. The distance between impacts was always larger than 1.5
times the diameter of the projectile. In the only test that this condi-
tion was not met, the residual velocity was higher than those
obtained in the previous test. The test was performed in C-16/0
laminate and an image of the sample with the two impacts can be
seen in Fig. 13. All these results can be observed in Figs. 2–5.
It is also important to highlight that the second impact tests per-
formed in hybrid laminates were carried out in samples that showed
failure by shear. It was not possible to make the tests in delaminated
samples, given that they were divided as a result of the first impact.
5 Conclusions
It is clear that hybrid composites are capable of absorbing
greater amounts of energy than carbon fibers composites. The
damage mechanism responsible for this increment is interface
delamination. In the tests no major delamination was observed in
carbon fiber laminates.
The position of the glass fiber plies is more important than the
amount of hybridization when subjecting laminates to high strain
rates. The closer the glass fibers are to the rear surface of the sam-
ples, it seems the better is performance of the laminate.
There is no evidence of different behavior of composites rein-
forced with glass fiber of type E and glass fiber S.
All the laminates showed a significantly-high damage tolerance.
Consecutive impacts in the same sample do not affect the impact
behavior of carbon composites. This is also true for nondelami-
nated hybrid composites. Once the sample is delaminated, it is di-
vided in two parts.
Acknowledgment
Authors wish to express their gratitude for funding though pro-
ject no. BIA2011-24445.
Nomenclature
V50 ¼ ballistic limit, velocity of the projectile when stopped by
the sample
Transactions of the ASME
 V0 ¼ impact velocity of the projectile [2] Abrate, S., 1998, Impact on Composite Structures, Cambridge University,
Cambridge, New York.
Vr ¼ residual velocity of the projectile [3] Reid, S. R., and Zhou, G., 2000, Impact Behavior of Fibre-Reinforced Materials
E0 ¼ energy of the system before the impact and Structures, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK.
Ekp ¼ kinetic energy of the projectile after the impact [4] Bartus, S. D., and Vaidya, U. K., 2007, “A Review: Impact Damage of Compos-
Eks ¼ kinetic energy of the sample after the impact ite Materials,” J. Adv. Mater., 39(3), pp. 3–21.
[5] Thanomsilp, C., and Hogg, P. J., 2003, “Penetration Impact Resistance of Hybrid
Eabs ¼ energy absorbed by the sample Composites Based on Commingled Yarn Fabrics,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 63,
mp ¼ mass of the projectile pp. 467–482.
ms ¼ mass of the sample [6] Naik, N. K., Ramsimha, R., Arya, H., Prabhu, S. V., and Shamarao, N.,
v0 ¼ velocity of the projectile before the impact 2001, “Impact Response and Damage Tolerance Characteristics of Glass–
Carbon/Epoxy Hybrid Composite Plates,” Composites, Part B, 32, pp.
vrp ¼ velocity of the projectile after the impact 565–574.
vrs ¼ velocity of the sample after the impact [7] Enfedaque, A., Molina-Aldareguı́a, J. M., Gálvez, F., González, C., and
LLorca, J., 2010, “Effect of Glass Fiber Hybridization on the Behavior Under
Impact of Woven Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Laminates,” J. Compos. Mater., 44,
References pp. 3051–3068.
[1] Cantwell, W. J., and Morton, J., 1991, “The Impact Resistance of Composite [8] Recht, R. F., and Ipson, T. W., 1963, “Ballistic Perforation Dynamics,” ASME J.
Materials a Review,” Composites, 22, pp. 347–362. Appl. Mech., 30, pp. 384–390.

Journal of Applied Mechanics MAY 2013, Vol. 80 / 031803-7

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms