See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267597955

Dynamic Analysis of Thin Glass Under Ball Drop Impact With New Metrics

Conference Paper · July 2013

DOI: 10.1115/IPACK2013-73291

CITATIONS READS
17 6,464

6 authors, including:

Hohyung Lee Da Yu
Binghamton University Binghamton University
25 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   357 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seungbae Park
Binghamton University
189 PUBLICATIONS   3,777 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

random vibration View project

Moisture Diffusion and Hygroscopic Swelling Simulation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Da Yu on 08 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Technical Conference and Exhibition on
Packaging and Integration of Electronic and Photonic Microsystems
InterPACK2013
July 16-18, 2013, Burlingame, CA, USA

IPACK2013-73291

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THIN GLASS UNDER BALL DROP IMPACT WITH NEW METRICS

Liang Xue Claire R. Coble Hohyung Lee

Binghamton University Binghamton Unversiy Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY, USA Binghamton, NY, USA Binghamton, NY, USA

Da Yu1 Satish Chaparala Seungbae Park2

Binghamton University Corning Incorporated Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY, USA Corning, NY, USA Binghamton, NY, USA

ABSTRACT
Response of brittle plate to impact loads has been the
subject of many research studies [1-7]. Specifically, glass
presents a wide variety of applications in daily life, and helps to
protect the displays of smartphones, tablets, PCs, and TVs from
everyday wear and tear. Therefore, the necessity of glass to
resist scratches, drop impacts, and bumps from everyday use
leads to the importance of investigation of the glass response
under dynamic impact loading. The ball drop test has been
applied in the past, specifying an energy threshold as a
prediction metric. Use of energy as the key parameter in impact
testing is limited, since it does not account for the time spent in
contact during the impact event. This study attempts to
establish a reliable metric for impact testing based on a
momentum change threshold. The deformation and the strain of
the glass will be obtained by the Digital Image Correlation
(DIC) system, while the rebound velocity will be measured
with the high speed cameras. The global and local
measurements are conducted to verify the accuracy of the
experimental results. Finally, the FEA model is developed
using ANSYS/LS-DYNA to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the dynamic response of the glass. Excellent
correlation in deflection is obtained between the measurements
and predictions.
KEYWORDS
Glass, Impact test, Digital Image Correlation (DIC), Finite
element analysis (FEA), Energy level, Momentum change
INTRODUCTION
As the demand for touch screen technology increases, there
has been a growing interest, particularly in the few last decades,
in the resistance of glass to drop impact as covers of displays
for smartphones, tablets, PCs, and TVs. It warrants harder,
stronger, yet thinner glass that resists scratches, and survives in
drop impacts. Their behavior under impact loading is one of the
major concerns [1], since impacts do occur during manufacture,
normal operations, maintenance and so on. Consequently, the
impact behavior of glass under impact loading is an important
phenomenon to be investigated.
Similar studies have been done in the past by several
researchers [2-8]. However, all the results presented in the
literature are related to the laminated or thick glass, instead of
one thin layer of glass used to protect the displays for
smartphones, tablets, PCs, and TVs nowadays. Additionally,
the first principal strain results and the influence of the
momentum change are not discussed in their studies.
The objective of this article consists in investigating the
dynamic analysis of glass under ball drop impact based on
energy level. In this study, the effects of the equal impact
energy (0.5 J) and equal size steel ball (2 in diameter) on the
deflection, contact time, first principal strain and momentum
change are examined, experimentally and numerically. Then
equal impact energy remained constant by changing the size of
the steel balls. Three different impact energies, 0.5 J, 1 J, and
2 J, and three steel balls size, 0.75 in, 1 in and 2 in diameter are
chosen. Experiments are performed using DIC to measure the

1
Currently with Apple Inc., Cupertino, California. USA.
2
Address all correspondence to this author. Email: sbpark@binghamton.edu.

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 deformation, and strain of glass panel under ball impact. The with accuracy of up to one hundredth of a pixel. Then, using
numerical analysis is done by using ANSYS/LS-DYNA finite the principles of photogrammetry, the coordinates of each facet
element code, which successfully validates experimental are determined for each set of images. The results are the 3D
dynamic response of the glass during impact. surface profile of the component, the displacements, and the
strains. Rigid body motion can first be quantified and then
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY removed to reveal relative deformations [9]. Compared with
In this study, the steel balls with different diameters impact using strain gauge, the non-contact method gives higher
the glass panels attached to a rigid metallic frame from resolution and a smaller data collection area.
different heights (different potential energy). Glass impact test
setup is shown in Fig. 1. Fishing line and black tape are used to
connect the steel ball to the pendulum swing tower. The weight
effect from the fishing line and black tape is negligible
compared to the weight of the steel ball. The pendulum swing
can be manually adjusted to the desired length. The impact
orientation is a critical factor affecting the impact responses of
glass. To eliminate any initial disturbance when releasing the
steel ball, a magnetic switch is applied to ensure the
repeatability of impact orientation. The glass panel is mounted
to the aluminum frame, which can be adjusted according to the
glass panel size. High-speed digital cameras have been set up to
capture pictures of the glass panel surface during impact frame
by frame.

FIGURE 2. HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL IMAGE CORRELATION

Five major experiments are performed for different steel

balls sizes and impact energies. Each experiment is repeated
five times with same sample. The repeatability of the
experiment with different samples is quite well. The values of
the impact velocity depending on the ball size and energy are
presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. THE FIVE MAJOR CASES PERFORMED WITH

DIFFERENT BALL SIZE AND IMPACT ENERGY

Ball size Ball mass Energy Impact velocity

(in) (g) (J) (m/s)
FIGURE 1. GLASS IMPACT TEST SETUP
0.75 28.2 0.5 5.953
1 66.8 0.5 3.867
Six halogen lights provide the same light intensity for
2 535 0.5 1.367
exposure time less than 10 µs. Pre- and Post-impact portions of
2 535 1 1.933
the impact are extracted in the form of series of images. These
images are then exported to ARAMIS for solving the full-field 2 535 2 2.734
deformations, 3D profile, and the strain of glass panel.
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL IMAGE CORRELATION
Digital image correlation is a full field optical Effect of Initial Potential Energy
measurement technique of which both the in-plane and out-of- A 2-inch steel ball is used to perform impact test for
plane deformations and strains can be computed by comparing 40-inch (diagonal length) glass under 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 J
the pictures of the target object at initial and deformed stages potential energy condition. Time history results of impact
(Fig. 2). Thousands of unique correlation areas (known as responses can be easily obtained at any point of interest. In this
subsets) are defined across the entire imaging area. These work, the center of impact area is the point of interest where the
subset centers are tracked, in each successive pair of images, maximum deformation occurs (example shown as Fig. 3). As

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 the potential energy increases, the maximum out-of-plane profile and the time spent in contact with the target surface.
deformation increases accordingly. Figure 4 shows the This paper proposes momentum change as such a parameter.
deformation oscillations occur at a higher frequency with The rebound velocity must be extracted from experimental
increasing initial potential energy. results to establish momentum change.

16

Maximum Deformation (mm)

12

2.0in
8

4 1.0in
0.75in

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
FIGURE 3. GLOBAL DEFORMATION OF 2-INCH BALL AT 0.5 J Potential Energy (Joule)
FOR 40-INCH GLASS

FIGURE 5. NONLINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE

MAXIMUM DEFORMATION AND THE DROP ENERGY
12
0.5J
10 1J Rebound Test
Out-of-plane deformation (mm)

8 1.5J Before investigating the effect of impact ball size, the

2J
6
rebound test is performed to obtain the impact velocity and
rebound velocity of steel balls with different sizes to calculate
4
the energy loss and the momentum change during the impact
2 event.
0
-2
-4
-6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time (ms)

FIGURE 4. OUT-OF-PLANE DEFORMATION RESPONSES OF

2-INCH BALL AT DIFFERENT POTENTIAL ENERGY FOR
40-INCH GLASS
FIGURE 6. REBOUND TEST SET-UP
According to the results (Fig. 4), the impact test results for
In the rebound test ( potential energy range of 0.5 J to 4 J),
the 2-inch ball show an increasing maximum deformation with
one high-speed camera (Photron Fastcam APX Rs) is placed
more potential energy. Also, the different ball sizes (0.75, 1,
perpendicular to the side of the sample glass with the frame rate
and 2 in), set at heights to have identical potential energies,
set at 10000 fps (Fig. 6). The experimental velocity is
result in nonlinear maximum deformations, as seen in Fig. 5. It
calculated by comparing pictures taken by the high-speed
would be expected that for equivalent input energies, the
camera. The relative distance traveled by the ball center
resulting deformation would be closely matched; however, the
between sequential frames is averaged over 3 trials of ball
2-inch ball deforms the glass 141% more than the 0.75-inch
drops for each test case.
ball. Energy, as a parameter for impact failure metrics, should
The measured impact velocity is slightly smaller than the
be replaced with a parameter that will produce a relationship
calculated impact velocity due to friction. See Table 2 for
with the deformation that accounts for the ball geometrical
experimental results. As the impact ball size decreases, the

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 energy loss during impact increases, comparing the 2 inch ball as steel ball size decreases (see Fig. 8). Then there is more
to the 0.75 and 1 inch ball. Both the energy loss and momentum noise for smaller ball.
change increase, according to increasing input energy.
According to the rebound test, the steel ball detaches from the
glass panel after 4, 8, and 40 ms for 0.75-, 1-, and 2-inch steel
ball respectively (Fig. 7). As the steel ball size increases, the
momentum change for steel ball increases, which explains the
longer time for the large size steel ball to detach from the glass
panel after impact. It has the same conclusion as other
researchers’ results [10].

TABLE 2. REBOUND TEST RESULTS FROM EXPERIMENT FIGURE 8. MAXIMUM OUT-OF-PLANE DEFORMATION FOR
IMPACT BALL OF DIFFERENT SIZE
Theoretical
J 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2 3 4 It is clearly shown that the maximum out-of-plane
Energy
Impact Ball deformation (Fig. 9) is related to momentum change of impact
in 0.75 1 2 2 2 2 2
Diameter ball rather than its initial potential energy (Fig. 5). The
Calculated relationship has a high linear correlation (r=0.9978). As shown
m/s 5.96 3.87 1.37 1.93 2.73 3.35 3.87
Impact Velocity
here, the deformation of the contacted glass depends on a
Experimental
Impact Velocity
m/s 5.66 3.77 1.35 1.87 2.65 3.27 3.79 combination of factors: the ball diameter and velocity, as well
Experimental as the contact response of the glass. With this relation, one
m/s 0.98 0.68 0.65 0.81 1.00 1.15 1.24 could reasonably predict maximum deformation results for
Rebound Velocity
Energy other cases. The relation is linear because the momentum
J 0.44 0.46 0.38 0.76 1.61 2.51 3.42
Loss change is directly related to the impulse force which is
Experimental transferred to flex the glass to the point of maximum deflection.
kg m/s 0.19 0.30 1.07 1.43 1.95 2.36 2.69
Momentum Change
There is some momentum transferred to cause oscillations in
the glass plate, thus the deformation to momentum ratio does
not pass through the origin. The maximum deformation can be
used to predict a fracture criterion for other sample cases.

16
Max Deformation
Linear Fit of Max Deformation

12
Max Deformation (mm)

8
Equation y = a + b*x
Adj. R-Squar 0.99556
Value Std Error
Max Deforma Intercept 2.5203 0.20435
4 tion 2
Max Deforma Slope 4.4438 0.12109
tion

0 1 2 3
FIGURE 7. EFFECT OF IMPACT BALL SIZE Momentum Change (kg m/s)

Effect of Impact Ball Size FIGURE 9. LINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUT-OF-

Three steel balls of different size are used to investigate the
effect of impact ball size on the dynamic responses of glass
panel during impact under same 0.5 J potential energy. It is
clearly shown in Fig. 7 that larger steel ball leads to higher
glass deformation due to the higher momentum change (see
Table 3). It is interesting to notice that the oscillation of glass
panel around the impact point is excited at a higher frequency
PLANE DEFORMATION AND MOMENTUM CHANGE
DIC Global Measurement vs. Local Measurement
The frame rate of global measurement is only 3,000 fps,
which means only 3,000 pictures are captured during 1 second.
In order to get more detail information of the dynamic response
at impact area, local measurement with 30,000 fps is applied to

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 record the impact event. Good repeatability is shown in the caution, because the algorithm assumes the deformed body is
comparisons between global and local measurement in all cases continuous. Only the in-plane strains in the 11 and 22
for 40-inch glass (Fig. 10). directions are computed from the displacement field. The strain
in the 33 (out-of-plane) direction is calculated by plane stress or
plane strain models. Incompressibility of the solid body is
assumed [11].
4 Strain gauges are commonly used in this kind of
Out-of-plane deformation(mm)

measurement. But it could potentially introduce flaws during

3 attachment and change the results. Strain gauges provide only
localized information while global deformation map could be
2 gotten with high speed DIC method.

1
8 0.30
Global measurement

Out-of-plane deformation(mm)
0 Local measurement
0.25

First principal strain(%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 6
Time(ms) 0.20
(a) 0.75 inch, 0.5 J 4
0.15
6
2 0.10
5
Out-of-plane deformation (mm)

0.05
4 0
3 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
Time(ms)
1 Global measurement
Local measurement FIGURE 11. STRAIN AND DEFLECTION RESPONSES OF 2
0
INCH BALL WITH 0.5J
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms) The result (Fig. 11) shows that the first peak of strain at hit
(b) 1 inch, 0.5 J point appears earlier than that of out-of-plane deformation. The
reason is probably due to that when the ball just hit the glass,
9
the glass will deform larger locally (see Fig. 12). And non-zero
8
Out-of-plane deformation(mm)

strains are only in the in-plane directions based on plate theory.

7
Fig. 12 shows the behavior of one point during the glass
6
deflection, the change of the in-plane deformation is larger at
5 first and then the total strain reaches its peak first. After that,
4 the glass continues deflecting until it gets to the peak of out-of-
3 plane displacement.
2 Global measurement Additionally, the glass will push the ball back after it
1 Local measurement reaches to the maximum deformation for 2 inch ball size case.
0 Then the strain has two peaks.
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(ms)

(c) 2 inch, 0.5 J

FIGURE 10. COMPARISONS BETWEEN GLOBAL AND LOCAL

MEASUREMENT OF DIFFERENT SIZE BALLS AT 0.5 J

Strain Measurement
The software has a built-in algorithm to compute the strain FIGURE 12. SKETCH OF THE GLASS DEFLECTION
field. However, the strain calculation should be used with

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Simulation Deformation and Strain Results
0.40 1inch0.5J
As the following graphs (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16) show, good
0.35 2inch0.5J
correlation is obtained in both deflection and strain. The
First principal strain(%)

0.30 validated FEA models will be used in fracture model to obtain

0.25 the strain response.
0.20

2inch0.5J out-of-plane deformation(mm)

0.15
8 Exp.
0.10 Sim.
6
0.05
0.00 4

-0.05 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
Time(ms)
FIGURE 13. STRAIN RESPONSES OF IMPACT BALL WITH -2
DIFFERENT SIZE
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
According to Fig. 13, higher strain is induced to a small Time(ms)
size impact ball due to the smaller size of contact area.
(a) 2 inch, 0.5 J
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL VERIFICATION 5

1inch0.5J out-of-plane deformation(mm)

The FEA model is built using ANSYS/LS-DYNA. Due to Exp.
Sim.
symmetry, only a quarter of the glass (472mm × 293mm, 4
40-inch glass) and steel ball are modeled. This model consists
of Gorilla glass, tape, and steel ball (see Fig. 14). The bottom 3
surface of tape is constrained in all DOF and Tied Surface to
Surface contact (TDSS) is defined to connect glass panel to 2

tape. Auto Surface to Surface contact (ASTS) is defined

1
between steel ball surface and glass panel surface to simulate
their interaction during the impact. Impact velocity is applied to 0
the steel ball and gravity field is applied to the whole system.
0 5 10 15 20
Time(ms)

(b) 1 inch, 0.5 J

0.75inch 0.5J out-of-plane deformation(mm)

3.5
Exp.
3.0 Sim.

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
FIGURE 14. DETAIL OF FEA MODEL AND BOUNDARY 0.5
CONDITIONS
0.0

Linear elastic material is applied to all components (see -0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25
Table 3). Solid164 element is used for the tape, steel ball and Time(ms)
Solid 168 for the glass in ANSYS/LS-DYNA.
(c) 0.75 inch, 0.5 J
TABLE 3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
FIGURE 15. OUT-OF-PLANE DEFORMATION RESPONSE
ρ (kg/m3) E (GPa) Poisson’s ratio COMPARISONS BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AND FEA MODELS
Glass 2440 71.7 0.21 WITH DIFFERENT BALLS AT 0.5 J
Steel ball 8000 200 0.29
Tape 840 1.0 0.49

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 energies, are as much as 11 (experiment) to 15.7 (simulation)
0.35 times greater for a ball with a 0.75-inch diameter compared to a
Exp.
2-inch diameter ball. The strain rate is directly affected by the
2inch0.5J First principal strain(%)

0.30 Sim.
ball diameter, as the impact contact area is much smaller.
0.25

0.20 TABLE 4. CORRESPONDING MEASURED AND PREDICTED

FIRST PRINCIPAL STRAIN OF 40 INCH GLASS PANEL WITH
0.15 DIFFERENT BALLS AT 0.5 J
0.10
Case Experiment Results Simulation Results
0.05 Max. Time to Strain Rate Max. Time to Strain Rate
Strain Max. Strain (10-4/ms) Strain Max. Strain (10-4/ms)
0.00 2 in 0.28% 4.10ms 6.8 0.30% 4.0ms 7.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 in 0.37% 1.03ms 35.9 0.48% 0.9ms 53.3
0.75 in 0.36% 0.47ms 76.6 0.59% 0.5ms 118.0
Time(ms)
(a) 2 inch, 0.5 J
Simulation Rebound Velocity and Momentum Change
0.6
Exp. Results
1inch0.5J First principal strain(%)

Sim.
0.5
TABLE 5. SIMULATION RESULTS FOR REBOUND VELOCITY
0.4 AND MOMENTUM CHANGE

0.3 Theoretical
J 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1
Energy
0.2
Impact Ball
in 0.75 1 1 2 2
Diameter
0.1
Measured
m/s 5.66 3.77 5.30 1.35 1.87
0.0 Impact Velocity
Rebound
m/s 0.80 0.61 0.91 0.65 1.04
0 5 10 15 20 Velocity
Time(ms) Energy
J 0.44 0.46 0.91 0.37 0.65
Loss
(b) 1 inch, 0.5 J Simulation
kg m/s 0.18 0.29 0.42 1.07 1.56
Momentum Change
0.8 Experimental
kg m/s 0.19 0.30 0.42 1.07 1.43
Exp. Momentum Change
0.75inch First principal strian(%)

0.7 Sim. Difference in

% -2.70 -0.50 -1.00 0.50 8.50
0.6 Momentum Change
0.5
The simulation results are within 8.5% to -2.7% of the
0.4
experiment momentum change results. The rebound velocity
0.3 was most consistent at the smallest momentum change, and the
0.2 highest strain rate results. Excellent correlation in deflection
0.1 was obtained between the measurements and predictions.
0.0
Correlation in strain magnitudes vary in different cases. The
reason could be that there is more noise for smaller ball, the
0 5 10 15 20 noise filter in the software reduces the strain value.
Time(ms)
(c) 0.75 inch, 0.5 J CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
1. We demonstrated the capability of DIC optical
FIGURE 16. CORRESPONDING STRAIN RESPONSE technique to be used in glass product development. Normally, a
COMPARISONS BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AND FEA MODELS strain gauge is used to do this kind of analysis and this new
WITH DIFFERENT BALLS AT 0.5 J
technique would provide additional advantages. Among the
advantages are non-contact of the specimen, ability to calculate
The strain rate in the case of 0.5 J, is defined by the
strain measurements directly and the ability to capture the
maximum strain of the test divided by the time to the maximum
dynamic impact response at a very high frequency. Also, high
strain, shows a significant difference between the ball sizes.
resolution over a small area is possible due to DIC techniques.
The highest strain rates are experienced by the glass hit with
2. The DIC is used to measure the deflection and strain
the smallest diameter ball. The strain rates, at equivalent
during the ball drop impact test on the glass panels. Excellent

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 correlation in maximum deformation was obtained between the
measurements and predictions. Correlation in strain magnitudes
vary in different cases. The reason could be that there is more
noise for smaller ball, the noise filter in the software reduces
the strain value.
3. Out-of-plane deformation is related to momentum
change of impact ball rather than its initial potential energy.
Momentum change is linearly related to the maximum
deformation of the glass due to the transfer of momentum into
the flexure of the glass. There is some in-plane momentum loss
due to oscillations in the glass plate, thus the deformation to
momentum ratio does not pass through the origin.
The momentum change accounts for the time spent in
contact with the glass and the contact area. The larger the ball
size, the greater the time spent in contacts with the glass, the
larger the momentum change. Whereas, an energy parameter
does not account for the geometry of the ball, nor the time in
contact, momentum change is better suited to predict maximum
deformation.
4. The strain rate is inversely proportional to the ball
diameter. The strain rate has an effect upon the glass
vibrational response, resulting in high oscillations in the local
impact area. The smaller strain rates, with the larger ball
diameters, result in a lower frequency vibrational response.
5. The time at which the maximum principal strain occurs
is shorter than the time at which the maximum deformation
occurs. This could be due to the maximum strain occurring
locally, while the maximum deformation is a result of a global
momentum transfer.
6. Momentum transfer is a suitable parameter for
predicting maximum deformation, which takes into account
more variables during the dynamic impact event.
Simulation and Experimental Validation of TFT-LCD
Monitors,” Proc EPTC, pp.269-274.
[7] Flocker, F W., and Dharani, L R., 1997, “Stresses in
Laminated Glass Subjected to Low Velocity Impact,”
Engineering Structures, 19 (10), pp. 851-856.
[8] Flocker, F W., and Dharani, L R., 1997, “Stresses in
Laminated Glass Subjected to Low Velocity Impact,”
Engineering Structures, 19 (10), pp. 851-856.
[9] Yu, D., Kwak, J. B., and Park, S. B., 2010, “Dynamic
responses of PCB under product-level free drop impact,”
Microelectronics Reliability, 50, pp.1028–1038
[10] Park, S. B., Shah, C., Kwak J. B, Jang, C., Chung, S., and
Pitarresi J. M., 2008, “Measurement of transient dynamic
response of circuit boards of a hand-held device during
drop using 3D digital image correlation,” J Electron
Packag, 130(4), pp. 0445021–23.
[11] Karakuzu, R., and Erbil, E., 2010, “Impact
characterization of glass/epoxy composite plates: An
experimental and numerical study,” Composites: Part B,
41, pp. 388–395
[12] Jian H. Yu and Peter G, 2010, “Dynamic Impact
Deformation Analysis Using High-speed Cameras and
ARAMIS Photogrammetry Software,” Dehmer, June
2010
[13] ANSYS, Inc., 2012, “ANSYS Mechanical APDL and
Mechanical Applications Theory Reference,” Release
13.0. See also URL
http://www1.ansys.com/customer/content/documentation
/130/ans_thry.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the financial support from Corning
Incorporated.

REFERENCES
[1] Glathart, J L., and Preston, F W., 1968, “The Behavior of
Glass under Impact: Theoritical Considerations,” Glass
Technology, 9 (4), pp. 89-100.
[2] Bouzid, S., Nyoungue, A., Azari Z., Bouaouadja, N., and
Pluvinage, G., 2001, “Fracture criterion for glass under
impact loading,” International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 25, pp. 831-845.
[3] Chung, S.-W., and Jeong, J.-W., 2011, “Drop Reliability
of Glass Panel for LCD,” Proc ECTC.
[4] Ball, A., and McKenzje, H W., 1994, “On the Low
Velocity Impact Behavior of Glass Plates,” Journal De
Physique IV, Colloque C8, Supplement au Journal de
Physique III, 4, pp. 783-788.
[5] Mathivanan, N. R., Jerald, J., 2010, “Experimental
investigation of low-velocity impact characteristics of
woven glass fiber epoxy matrix composite laminates of
EP3 grade,” Materials and Design, 31 , pp. 4553–4560.
[6] Pan, M. C., Chen P. C., and Ho J., 2003, “Drop

8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms