t

Impact Energy Absorption of

Continuous Fiber Composite Tubes
D. W. Schmueser This paper presents the results of an impact testing program that was conducted to
characterize the energy absorption and failure characteristics of selected composite
material systems and to compare the results with aluminum and steel. Composite
L. E. Wickliffe tube specimens were constructed using graphite/epoxy (Gr/Ep), Kevlar/epoxy
(K/Ep), and glass/epoxy (Gl/Ep) prepreg tape and were autoclave cured. Vertical
Engineering Mechanics Department, impact and static compression tests were performed on 56 tubes. Tests results for
General Motors Research Laboratories, energy absorption varied significantly as a function of lay-up angle and material
Warren, Ml 48090 type. In general, the Gr/Ep tubes had specific energy absorption values that were
greater than those for K/Ep and Gl/Ep tubes having the same ply construction.
Angle-ply Gr/Ep and K/Ep tubes had specific energy absorption values that were
greater than those for 1024 steel tubes. Gr/Ep and Gl/Ep angle-ply tubes exhibited
brittle failure modes consisting of fiber splitting and ply delamination, whereas the
K/Ep angle-ply tubes collapsed in an accordian buckling mode similar to that ob-
tained for metal tubes.

Introduction
The efficient use of materials to absorb kinetic energy in
automotive structures subjected to impact loads has been
receiving increased attention because material based energy
absorbing devices can be fabricated using relatively simple
designs compared to devices based on pneumatic or hydraulic
principles [1]. While a wealth of data has been accumulated
with regard to the behavior of mild steel and aluminum under
dynamic loading conditions [2], only a limited data base exists
for high performance, lightweight materials such as con-
tinuous fiber composites. As the use of continuous fiber com-
posites in automotive structures increases, the need to
establish the energy absorption characteristics of these
materials becomes significant.
Previous work on the axial crushing of fiber reinforced
composite cylinders has indicated that signficant energy ab-
sorption can be obtained from these materials. Cronkhite et
al. [3] investigated the energy absorption of ( + - 4 5 )
glass/epoxy ( G l / E p ) , K e v l a r / e p o x y ( K / E p ) , and
graphite/epoxy (Gr/Ep) tubes. The tubes were statically com-
pressed with conically shaped or flat loading heads. The cone
angle varied from 0 (flat) to 45 degrees. The highest sustained
compressive loads were obtained from tests with flat loading
heads. The Gr/Ep tubes absorbed more energy than the K/Ep
or Gl/Ep tubes. Foye et al. [4, 5] measured the energy absorp-
tion of stiffened and honeycomb-core sandwich cylinders
fabricated from aluminum and composite materials. All the
cylinders were designed to equal stiffness and strength values
and were tested under static compressive loads. Energy ab-
sorption characteristics of the designs were investigated, but
specific energy absorption values of the base materials were
Contributed by the Materials Division and presented at the Winter Annual
Meeting, Miami Beach, Fla., November 17-22, 1986 of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY
OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the Materials Division,
November 1985. Paper No. 85-WA/Mats-ll.
not determined. Foye determined that the aluminum cylinders
were more efficient energy absorbers than the composite
cylinders. Of the composite cylinders tested, the Gr/Ep
specimens absorbed the most energy but exhibited brittle
failure modes with low post-collapse load levels. Thornton [6]
examined the energy absorption of statically compressed,
small diameter Gl/Ep, K/Ep, and Gr/Ep tubes. Prepreg
fabric laminated in a (0/90) sequence was tested. Specific
energy absorption for the Gr/Ep tubes exceeded that of
6061-T6 aluminum and mild steel. Gr/Ep and Gl/Ep tubes
had brittle failure modes dominated by interlaminar shear
failures and fiber fracture. Farley [7] conducted a study on the
energy absorption characteristics of selected composite
material systems and aluminum. Static compression tests were
conducted with both tape and woven Gr/Ep, K/Ep materials
using a lay-up sequence (0/ + - a) 9 , with a ranging from 15 to
90 degrees. Farley's Gr/Ep tubes absorbed more energy than
the Gl/Ep or K/Ep tubes for the same ply orientation. Specific
energy absorption values for the Gl/Ep and K/Ep materials
were approximately equal. The Gr/Ep and Gl/Ep tubes failed
in a brittle manner, whereas the K/Ep tubes failed in an accor-
dian buckling mode.
The objective of the present study was to characterize the
energy absorption and post-crushing integrity of continuous
fiber composite materials. The recent work previously cited
has dealt exclusively with static crush behavior of composites.
This study is directed almost exclusively at the axial impact
behavior of these materials. A limited number of static crush
tests were conducted to compare with the dynamic test results.
The present study uses specific energy absorption to compare
the impact response of T-300 Graphite/Epoxy, Kevlar
49/Epoxy, and S-Glass/Epoxy materials. The energy absorp-
tion characteristics and failure modes for these composites are
compared to corresponding data for 1024 steel and 6004-T6
aluminum alloy.

72/ Vol. 109, JANUARY 1987 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1987 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Composite Tube Fabrication
Whitney, Pagano, and Pipes [8] developed a technique for
fabricating cylindrical composite specimens. They used a four-
segment mold that, when assembled, formed a female cylin-
drical cavity. The composite lay-up segments and associated
materials are wrapped around a steel mandrel/inflatable rub-
ber bladder assembly. The mandrel/bladder assembly restricts
heat flow from the inside of the mold and only allows heat to
be applied through the mold during composite cure.
The fabrication technique employed for the present study
uses the segmented, external cavity mold described above but
uses a different mandrel and lay-up procedure. The lamina-
tion procedure is initiated by wrapping a sheet of nylon film
around the steel mandrel and sealing the two longitudinal film
edges with sealant tape. The lay-up procedure is accomplished
by rotating the mandrel on a motor driven belt at the end of a
build-up table. The second material wrapped onto the mandrel
is one or more layers of bleeder ply that is used to absorb ex-
cess resin from the composite prepreg. The bleeder ply is
covered with a layer of peel ply, a perforated film which
allows resin and gas to pass through to the bleeder ply
material. In order to insure the composite tube will be
fabricated to a proper size to fit the mold cavity, five 12-mm
wide strips to prepreg material are wrapped onto the mandrel
surface. These strips also hold the initial lamina into place un-
til subsequent laminae create a stable uncured tube surface.
After all the laminae have been wrapped onto the mandrel
at prescribed angles, the composite assembly is covered with a
release ply or thin teflon film. Sealant tape is then wrapped
around each end of the mandrel/tube to seal the mold ends. A
thermocouple is inserted through the sealant tape into the edge
of the prepreg material to monitor temperature during the cur-
ing cycle. The mold is then assembled to the mandrel and a
vacuum is applied to the mold assembly. This draws the
bag/tube assembly away from the mandrel. Upon drawing the
vacuum on the mold, the mandrel is removed from the mold.
The remaining assembly is then placed into an autoclave to
cure the composite tube. .
The prepreg materials used to fabricate the composite
specimens were: T-300/5208 unidirectional tape, Kevlar
49/5208 unidirectional tape, and S-Glass/5208 unidirectional
tape. Nominal cured ply thicknesses for these materials are
listed in Table 1. The 5208 matrix material used for this study
is compatible with the epoxide-based 934 matrix material used
by Farley [7]. Each of the drop specimens was fabricated with
an 8-ply lamination sequence of (0 2 / + - ex)" with ex equal to
0, 30, 45, 60, and 90 degrees with respect to the cylinder axis.
Only the lay-up angle, ex, was varied for this study. The effect
of changing the laminate stacking sequence was not con-
sidered. A summary of the laminate ply orientations and wall
thicknesses is given in Table 2.
Drop Tower and Static Crush Test Procedures
The GMR drop test facility is shown in Fig. 1 and consists
of a 930 mm x 930 mm drop platform weighing 145 kg with
an attached test specimen. The test specimen is secured with
hot-melt adhesive into the machined grooves of a mounting
plate which is bolted to the underside of the drop platform.
The platform is guided during free-fall by four (ension cables
which are located at each platform corner. The platform can
be raised to a maximum height of 8.7 m.
For the present test program, the drop platform was raised
to a predetermined height which gave an impact velocity of 5.5
m/sec. The platform was released with a grip latch pin
mechanism that was extracted with two manually-activated
electronic solenoids. The impact tests were filmed with a high-
speed Redlake Hycam-2 movie camera at a filming rate of
6000 frames per second in full-frame operating mode.
After a series of drop tests are completed, digitized data
representing the force-time and velocity-time histories of the
impact events are numerically processed to determine the
force-deflection response for each test. Signals from three
load cells located beneath an impact plate (Fig. 1) are summed
and amplified to give the force-time history. Force-time
histories from four GlIFp tubes are shown in Fig. 2. Velocity-
time histories are obtained from square-wave pulses output
from a magnetic pick-up device which follows a finely ma-
chined slotted strip as the drop tower falls. Discrete velocity
points obtained from analyzing the square wave data are fitted
with a least square spline curve, as shown in Fig. 3. The spline
curve is then numerically integrated to obtain the deflection-
time history (Fig. 3).
The resulting force-deflection response, F( 0), is used to
compute specific energy absorption values for drop
specimens. Representative force-deflection curves for com-
Fig. 1 Drop tower test facility
Table 1 Composite prepreg materials
Nominal cured ply Material
Fiber/matrix thickness, mm type
T300/5208 0.175 Tape
Kevlar 49/5208 0.197 Tape
S-Glass/5208 0.158 Tape

Table 2 Composite tube data

Graphite/Epoxy Kevlar/Epoxy Glass/Epoxy
Number Wall Number Wall Number Wall
Laminate of thickness, of thickness of thickness
construction plys mm plys mm plys mm
---
(0°)8 8 1.27 8 1.57 8 1.32
(90°)8 8 1.27 8 1.57 8 1.32
(0 2/ ±300), 8 1.40 8 1.65 8 1.38
(0 2/ ±45°), 8 1.40 8 1.65 8 1.38
(0 2/ ±600), 8 1.40 8 1.65 8 1.38
(0 2/ ±902), 8 1.40 8 1.65 8 1.38

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology JANUARY 1987, Vol. 109173

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SOJO -
72.0 - iM€S end SVfc«3lS
e*ja - - TWNaAMSB
56.0 - Tsj<t to B.TO53

48.0 -
400 -
3Z0 |-

»a
ao
OX) 0.0 ao 10.0 XLO
Time (Jns)

Fig. 2 Force-time histories for (O 2 /90 2 ) glass/epoxy tubes

UNES end SYMBOLS

= &aphUe-Epo»y ( 0 / + - 6 0 ) s
- Kevtor-Epoxy ( 0 / + - 6 0 / ,
= Oosa-EpOKy ( 0 / 4 - 6 0 ) 3

20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 90.0

Crush Distance (mm)

Fig. A Force-deflection response for impacted composite and metal

00 2.5 5.0 75 10.0 12.5 B.O 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27 5 30.0 323
Time (ms)
tubes

Fig. 3 Velocity-time and computed displacement-time history for

(O2/902)2 glass/epoxy tube
F(5)ds
c
E ,=- (1)
8c-As-p
posite and metallic tubes are illustrated in Fig. 4. Specific
energy is defined by Equation (1) as the ratio of the energy In Equation (1), 5C is the tube crush, As is the cross-
dissipated during impact to the crushed tube weight. sectional area, and p is the material density. Previous in-

74/ Vol. 109, JANUARY 1987 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 vestigators have used the mean collapse load, Pm' to approx-
imate the specific energy absorption by the following
equation.
EC=~
s As.p
The present study uses numerical spline integration to more
accurately compute the specific energy defined by Equation
(1).
Six static crush tests were performed on the 31.0 kN capac-
ity hydraulic loading machine shown in Fig. 5. GriEp, K/Ep,
and Gl/Ep tubes fabricated using a (0 2 1 ±45), lay-up sequence
were tested. Two replica tests for each material were per-
formed. All the tubes were compressed at a rate equal to 0.1
cm/min. The force-deflection response for one of the K/Ep
tubes is given in Fig. 6.
Axial Impact Test Results
Fifty impact tests of composite tubes were completed. Each
of the unidirectional tubes listed in Table 2 was tested once
because of their relatively low energy absorption. Tests for the
angle-ply Gl/Ep and K/Ep tubes were each repeated four
times, while tests for the angle-ply GriEp tubes were each
repeated three times. Impact data for two (0 2 1 + - 45), Gl/Ep
tubes was disregarded because of instrumentation failure.
Specific energy results computed form the force-deflection
Fig. 5 Static compression test facility
curves of all the (0 2 1 + -a), tubes are shown in Fig. 7. The
results varied significantly as a function of material type and
ply orientation. For each type of continuous fiber composite,
a dramatic increase in specific energy absorption is achieved as
(2) the laminate ply orientation is varied from unidirectional to
angle-ply. The GriEp and K/Ep materials exhibited maximum
specific energy absorption values for the (0 2 1 + - 60),
laminates, while the Gl/Ep material had maximum energy ab-
sorption for the (0 2 /90 2 ), laminate. The angle-ply GriEp
tubes absorbed more energy than the K/Ep or Gl/Ep tubes.
This result is in agreement with the findings of Cronkhite [3]
and Farley [7]. The present results show the K/Ep material to
have significantly greater specific energy absorption than the
Gl/Ep material for a values of 30-60 degrees. Farley found
the static energy absorption of the K/Ep and Gl/Ep materials
to be similar for all his ply orientations.
The specific energy absorption values were analyzed
statistically to determine the scatter for the experimental data.
The confidence intervals shown in Table 3 represent relative
amounts of scatter in the data. The confidence interval is
defined by
_ [ (Std.Dev)2 ] 1/2
C.l. - tv (3)
n
where t is the value of the students t-distribution for the
number of degrees of freedom at a 95 percent confidence in-
terval, and n is the number of test samples. Table 3 shows that
the scatter for the (0 2 1 + - 45), K/Ep and GriEp tubes was
significantly less than that for the other laminations.
However, since only two (0 2 1 + -45), Gl/Ep specimens were
tested, a conclusion regarding scatter for the glass tubes could
not be made. Therefore, a weighted least squares regression
analysis [9] was completed to take into account the differences
in sample size among the test groups. The results of the least
squares analysis, as summarized in Table 4, show that data
scatter is minimum for the 45 degree tubes and maximum for
the 90 degree tubes for each of the three types of composites.
Figure 8 compares mean dynamic specific energy absorption
values for mild steel, high strength steel, and 6009-T6
aluminum alloy to maximum values for the composite tubes.
The bar graph shows that the (0 2 1 + - 60), GriEp tubes
displayed specific energy absorption values that were 2.1, lA,
and 1.2 times that of mild steel, high strength steel, and
aluminum alloy, respectively. The energy absorption value for

60.0

50.0

40.0

~
] 30.0

iii
b
20.0

10.0

l...-_---'_ _- - l_ _--'-_ _.-L_ _...L._ _- ' - -'--_ _L - - _ - J

0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 90.0
Crush Distance (mm)
Fig. 6 Force·deflection response for statically crushed (02/±45/.
Kevlar/epoxy tube

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology JANUARY 1987, Vol. 109/75

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SPEOFC ENERGY ABSORP110N Table 3 Summary of statistical data for drop tests
LAMINATED COMPOSITE TUBES 95 Percent C.r.
'l: ~O
Angle Sample Mean value for mean value
42.5 Material (deg) size (n) (N-m/Kg) (N-m/Kg)
Glass 30 4 7,271 ± 379
40.0 Glass 45 2 8,896 ± 947
Glass 60 4 11,571 ± 569
SIb Glass 90 4 19,937 ± 2301
Kevlar 30 4 12,937 ± 2209
35.0
Kevlar 45 4 13,823 ± 1145
32.5 Kevlar 60 4 18,953 ± 3133
Kevlar 90 4 15,184 ± 3411
30.0 Graphite 30 3 21,846 ± 15653

1 Graphite 45 3 26,060 ± 1721

Vb \ Graphite 60 3 27,820 ± 16107
Graphite - Epoxy Graphite 90 3 26,986 ± 7178
6- 2.5.0
Table 4 Summary of weighted least squares regression
! 22.5

20.0
analysis
Predicted least 95 Percent C.r.

i 17.5

1M
Material
Glass
Glass
Angle
(deg)
30
45
squares value
(N-m/Kg)
6,864
9,129
for predicted value
(N-m/Kg)
± 345
± 205
12.5 Glass 60 11,393 ± 408
Glass 90 15,921 ±1009
10.0 Kevlar 30 13,285 ±1433
7.5
Kevlar 45 14,109 ±1001
Kevlar 60 14,932 ±1269
5.0 Kevlar 90 16,579 ±2792
Graphite 30 25,126 ± 1680
2.5 Graphite 45 25,949 ± 1316
Graphite 60 26,773 ± 1515
Graphite 90 28,410 ±2898
15.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 75.0 90.0
Lay-lJp An<je (Deg)
Fig. 7 Elfect of laminate construction on dynamic specitic energy
absorption

40

Glal r
35.
"':=:
~ 30.
¥
3
c: 25
0

~
&?
.0
« 20
>.
E'
'"
Iii
30"'7 B
15 '1 •
u
Gr~phitel[po

'i
Vl Flg.9 Failure modes for Impacted (02/:1:60)s tubes
10

Representative curves for impact force as a function of

crush distance are illustrated in Fig. 4 for (0 2 1 + - 60), com-
posites, mild steel, and aluminum alloy. Figure 4 shows the
Mild H. S. Aluminum Graphite- Kevlar- Glass- post-peak force levels for GriEp to be significantly greater
1024 4340 6009-16 Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy
Steel Steel (02 /60 )s (02 /6O )s (02/9O)s
than the Gl/Ep and K/Ep materials. The post-peak force
levels for the (0 2 1 + - 60), GriEp laminates are shown to be
Fig. 8 Comparison of mean dynamic energy absorption for metals and less than the corresponding values for mild steel and greater
composites
than the corresponding values for aluminum sheet alloys.
Failure modes for the (0 2 1 + - 60), composite tubes are
the (0 2 1 + - 60), K/Ep tubes were approximately equal to shown in Fig. 9. The GriEp and Gl/Ep tubes exhibited brittle
that of the aluminum alloy, while the (0 2 /90 2 ), Gl/Ep tubes modes of failure that consisted of extensive fiber splitting and
exhibited energy values that were equivalent to that for high ply delamination. The K/Ep tubes, on the other hand, failed
strength steel. in an accordion buckling mode similar to that obtained for

76/ Vol. 109, JANUARY 1987 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 for the GriEp, K/Ep, and Gl/Ep materials, respectively. The
36 failure modes for the statically compressed tubes, shown in
Fig. 11, are similar to the failure modes of the impacted tubes.
32 The results for the static tests are significant because static
c::J Dynamic tests have been used almost exclusively by other researchers to
28
rss:sl static characterize the energy absorption of composite materials.
«"':=:
This study shows that static crush tests can over-estimate the
24 energy absorption levels obtained from impact crush tests by
g up to 30 percent. Since the failure modes of the composite
~ 20 tubes were governed by ply delamination, the difference be-
~
tween the static and dynamic results could be related to sen-
~ 16 sitivity of interlaminar fracture toughness to loading rate.
~
.5
12
u Conclusions
.~
V> This investigation has shown that for axial crush deforma-
tion modes, the specific energy absorption of angle-ply com-
posites is significantly greater than that for unidirectional
composites. The angle-ply tubes were shown to absorb energy
without catastrophic failure. The energy absorbing
Glass/Epoxy Kevlar/Epoxy Graph lIe/Epoxy characteristics of the tubes were shown to be greatly influ-
Materials enced by ply orientation and constitutive material properties.
Fig. 10 Comparison of mean stalic and dynamic test results for Both the GriEp and K/Ep angle-ply laminates exhibited
(02/±45)s tubes specific energy absorption values that were greater than or
equal to corresponding values for steel and aluminum
materials.
While the present work has shown that GriEp and K/Ep
continuous fiber composite materials are most applicable for
automotive structural components that are subjected to
significant impact loads, the application of each of these
materials individually would not be sufficient to meet
necessary design criteria. The GriEp material exhibits high
specific energy absorption and stiffness. However, its brittle
failure modes are difficult to predict and control. The failure
modes for the K/Ep material are more stable than those for
Kevlaflfpo,y the GriEp, but the compressive stiffness and strength of the
Kevlar material are significantly less than the stiffness and
strength values for graphite, mild steel, and aluminum
materials. Ply-by-ply hybridization of the composite materials
could possibly yield designs having adequate energy absorp-
tion, failure behavior, and stiffness. It also should be realized
that only one deformation mode, axial crush, has been
characterized by the study. Favorable energy absorption levels
for axial deformation do not ncessarily imply favorable levels
for bending deformation. Further research is needed to
characterize the impact bending response of composites.

Graphitelfpo.y
Fig. 11 Failure modes for statically crushed (02/±45)s tubes
metal tubes [2]. Since a common matrix material was
employed for all the drop tests, the differences in failure
modes are directly related to the fiber failure characteristics.
The graphite and glass fibers exhibited brittle fracture and
splitting, while the Kevlar fibers had a more inelastic response
with little fiber splitting.
Static Crush Test Results
A limited number of static crush tests were completed for
tubes having a (0 2 1 + - 45), lay-up sequence. Two replica
tests were conducted for each type of composite material.
Averaged results for the specific energy absorption values ob-
tained from the static tests are compared in Fig. 10 to cor-
responding values for the drop tower tests. The bar graph
shows that the static compression test results are 1.2, 1.3, and
1.1 times the energy values determined from the impact tests
References
1 Coppa, A. P., "New Ways to Soften Shock," Machine Design, Vol. 40,
Mar. 1968, pp. 130-140.
2 Schmuesser, David W., and Wickliffe, LeRoy E., "Energy Absorption of
Sheet and Extruded Aluminum Tubes Subjected to Axial Impact Loads,"
General Motors Research Report EM-580, May 1984.
3 Cronkhite, J. D., Haas, T. J., Berry, V. L., and Winter, R., "Investigation
of the Crash Impact Characteristics of Advanced Airframe Structure,"
USARTL-TR-79-11, Sept. 1979.
4 Foye, R. L., Swindlehurst, C. W., and Hodges, W. T., "A Crash-
worthiness Test for Composite Fuselage Structure," Fibrous Composites in
Structural Design, E. M. Lenoe, D. N. Oplinger, and J. J. Burke, eds., Plenum
Press, New York, 1980, pp. 241-258.
5 Foye, R. L., and Hodges, W. T., "Some Results from a Crash Energy Ab-
sorption Test for Evaluating Composite Fuselage Construction," 37th Annual
Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 1981.
6 Thornton, P. M., "Energy Absorption in Composite Structure," Journal
of Composite Materials, Vol. 13, 1979, pp. 247-262.
7 Farley, Gary L., "Energy Absorption of Composite Materials," Journal of
Composite Materials, Vol. 17, 1983, pp. 267-279.
8 Whitney, J. M., Pagano, N. J., and Pipes, R. B., "Design and Fabrica-
tion of Tubular Specimens for Composite Characterization," Composite
Materials Testing and Design ASTM STP 497, American Society of Testing and
Materials, 1971, pp. 52-67.
9 Draper, N., and Smith, H., Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley, New
York, 1981, pp. 108-114.

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology JANUARY 1987, Vol. 109/77

Downloaded From: http://materialstechnology.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use