Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part A
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

On the improved ballistic performance of bio-inspired composites T

1 1
M.R. Abir , T.E. Tay , H.P. Lee
⁎

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117575, Singapore

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this study, the underlying mechanism leading to improved impact resistance and energy absorption in bio-
Laminates inspired composite is investigated through numerical modelling. The bio-inspired composite is inspired from the
Impact behaviour endocuticle of stomatopods, which is composed of mineralized helicoidal arrangement of fiber layers capable of
Damage mechanics withstanding high velocity impact. It is shown that the helicoidal architecture gives rise to a unique through-
Computational modelling
thickness spiralling damage which is in contrast to the damage pattern typically seen in conventional laminates.
As a result of the combined effect of the deformation and failure mechanism, the helicoidal laminate can absorb
more energy before complete penetration leading to higher ballistic limits. For a 37-ply composite laminate, the
ballistic limit of the helicoidal arrangement (151 m/s) is found to be about 8 and 15 percent higher as compared
to cross-ply (140 m/s) and quasi-isotropic laminates (130 m/s) respectively. These findings have implications in
the design of armours, aerospace and automotive structures.

1. Introduction
Biology has incredibly diversity, it can be a source of inspiration for
the next generation of advanced materials for lightweight automotive,
aerospace and structural applications. The exoskeleton of many natu-
rally occurring crustaceans exhibit superior mechanical properties, in-
cluding high strength and toughness while being light weight. For ex-
ample, the feeding strike of the mantis shrimp is one of the fastest
movement in the animal kingdom. It is an incredibly powerful move-
ment, the limbs extends out while the body flexes backwards, gen-
erating speeds of more than 45 mph (72.42 kph) in water. The mantis
shrimp breaks down tough biocomposites of its prey while maintaining
the integrity of its limbs [1]. A closer look at the inner-structure of its
limbs (Fig. 1) reveal that the endocuticle is composed of fibrous chitin
layers that are rotated by small angles with respect to the layer above,
commonly referred to as ’helicoidal arrangement’.
Conventional composites have large angle of mismatch, whereas in
the helicoidal architecture there is a gradual rotation of fiber layers
leading to very small angles of mismatch. Biomimicry of such naturally
occurring micro-structures can lead to more efficient structure design
[2–5]. Investigation of insect cuticle by Chen et al. [6] has revealed the
existence of chitin-fiber layers that is composed of both crossed and
helicoidal architectures. The pull-out energy of the helicoidal structure
was found to be much greater in comparison to conventional 00 layer
composite. Cheng et al. [7] manufactured composite laminates with a
helicoidal layup and found their flexural stiffness and strength to be
much higher in comparison to conventional lay-ups. Quasi-static in-
dentation tests have revealed that their peak loads can be as much as 30
percent higher [3,4].
Protection against impact damage is one of the key structural re-
quirements [8,9]. For most part of the past two decades, impact re-
search has been mainly focused on utilising conventional, easy to
manufacture layups such as: quasi-isotropic and cross-ply laminates.
Aymerich et al. [10–12] carried out a series of experimental and nu-
merical low-velocity impact studies to map the through-thickness da-
mage state in blocked and dispersed cross-ply laminates. The damage
induced in cross-plies were distributed over many interfaces whereas in
blocked plies it is concentrated within a few plies. Other work have also
reported similar findings [13,14]. Quasi-isotropic specimens can show
considerable variation in damage due to a change in ply stacking se-
quence [15–17]. For a greater residual strength after impact, it is es-
sential to reduce damage size during impact [18,19]. Optimizing
structural design needs further exploration of the design space. The
advent of novel manufacturing techniques such as: 3D printing and
automated fiber placement technology means that the manufacture of
composite laminates with complex layups are becoming a reality.
The promising nature of helicoidal composites in damage resistance
have generated much interest among researchers to investigate their
low velocity impact behaviour and damage tolerance. Hazzard et al.
[20] found that the out-of-plane deformation is dependent on the fiber

⁎
Corresponding author at: Block EA, # 02-21, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore.
E-mail address: abir@u.nus.edu (M.R. Abir).
1
Address: Block EA, # 02-21, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.04.021
Received 20 December 2018; Received in revised form 23 March 2019; Accepted 16 April 2019
Available online 25 April 2019
1359-835X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of crustacean cuticle, based on the American lobster Homarus americanus [41].

Fig. 2. (a) Helicoidal specimen (b) Setup used for the ballistic impact experiment. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1 orientation. The Back Face Deflection(BFD) in helicoidal composite is

Comparison of specimen characteristics and ballistic limit [23]. reduced by as much as 50 percent as compared to cross-plies. A re-
Layup Ply thickness Overall thickness Ballistic limit duction in BFD is important for armour applications. Grunenfelder et al.
(mm) (mm) (m/s) [21] carried out impact tests on three different layups: small angle
(7.8), medium angle (16.3) and large-angle (25.7) helicoidal layups,
0.08 2.96 120
[(0/90/45/ 45)9/0] each made of the same number of plies. Although the delamination size
[(0/90)18/0] 0.08 2.96 140.5
was greater in comparison to quasi-isotropic laminates, it was shown
[0/ 5/ 10/…/ 180] 0.08 2.96 150.5
that the through-thickness damage propagation was reduced in the
helicoidal arrangement. This resulted in about 17 percent improvement

60
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 3. Modelling approach. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 4. Mesh construction (a) Aligned mesh and embedded cohesive elements in the damage region for 00, n0 (any angle between 5° to 180° ) and 90° (b) Cohesive
interaction between plies for modelling delamination and contact. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

in residual strength. Similar findings were also reported by Sebaey et al.
[22], whereby a decrease in mismatch angle resulted in an increase in
the overall projected delamination area and residual strength.
Although there are some experimental work on low velocity impact
available in literature, the behaviour of helicoidal composites under
high strain rate loadings have not been investigated. In this work, the
damage mechanisms, ballistic performance and energy absorption
capabilities of biologically inspired helicoidal composites are studied
and comparisons are drawn with conventional cross-ply and quasi-
isotropic laminate. An improved finite element model is proposed
whereby explicit matrix cracking is modelled using embedded cohesive
elements throughout the damaged region. The capabilities of the
computational model is validated with experiments. The mechanisms
that lead to improvement in the ballistic performance of helicoidal
composite is reported.
2. Experiment
The experimental results has been presented in detail in [23] and
only key features of the test setup, specimen and damage mechanism

61
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Table 2
Material properties of T700/2510 [3,4,34,35].
Property Values

E11 Young’s modulus in the fiber direction 107 GPa

E22 Transverse young’s modulus 7.99 GPa
G12 Shear modulus 4.0 GPa
12 Poisson’s ratio 0.32
YT Transverse tensile strength 45.1 MPa
YC Transverse compressive strength 141 MPa
S12 In-plane shear strength 100 MPa
Gft Fracture toughness for mode I in traction 80 N/mm
Gfc Fracture toughness for in mode I in compression 80 N/mm
XT Longitudinal tensile strength 1650 MPa
Xc Longitudinal compressive strength 1250 MPa
Gnc Mode I matrix/interfacial fracture toughness 0.258 N/mm
Gsc Mode II matrix/interfacial fracture toughness 0.723 N/mm
Power-law exponent for mixed-mode fracture 1.75 (assumed)

Fig. 5. Comparison of delamination area against matrix spacing.

3. Modelling approach

are reported here. A representative specimen and setup used for the
ballistic impact is shown in Fig. 2. T700/2510 carbon/epoxy uni-
directional prepregs were used to manufacture helicoidal and cross
plies. The specimens were simply supported on a 75 mm diameter cir-
cular support and impacted using a gas gun at increasing speeds until
the ballistic limit was reached(Fig. 2). In this work, the ballistic limit is
defined as the projectile velocity at which complete perforation of the
composite plate is achieved. The residual velocity is generally small or
negligible. The impactor had a mass of 7 g and diameter of 12 mm. The
layup sequence, thickness and ballistic limit is reported in Table 1. It is
important to note that the specimens all had the same ply number and
overall thickness.
Failure in composites is characterized by a complex interaction of
fiber breakage and pull-out, matrix cracks and delamination. Simplified
models previously developed for helicoidal composites did not consider
delamination [21], prediction of the complex network of damage might
not be possible. The modelling approach used in this work is shown in
Fig. 3. The experiments carried out on helicoidal composites indicate
that there is extensive ply-splitting at the back face of the laminate
[22]. To model such splits cohesive elements are embedded within each
ply. In the failure modelling strategy used in this work, the fiber da-
mage is initiated based on the maximum stress criterion. The matrix
and fiber damage progression are modelled by energy-based bilinear
traction separation law. The damage model is implemented in an

Fig. 6. Comparison of deformation profiles with varying crack spacing (a) 1.4 mm spacing (b) 1 mm spacing. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

62
M.R. Abir, et al.
Fig. 7. The finite element model. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and numerical ballistic limit. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
Abaqus/Explicit VUMAT user-subroutine. Cohesive interaction avail-
able in Abaqus/Explicit is used to model delamination [24]. The fun-
damental principle used in this modelling approach is to ensure that the
energy dissipated in the FE model is consistent with the experimentally
determined critical energy release rates [18].
3.1. Intra-laminar failure
The intra-laminar damage modes are: fiber and matrix damage. A
Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) approach is used to model fiber
damage. The CDM approach models damage as distributed and dif-
fused, which may be modelled through the material constitutive law.
Matrix cracking is captured by the embedded cohesive elements within
each ply. An energy-based evolution criterion is used for propagation of
damage.
63
Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70
3.1.1. Fiber damage
Fiber damage is attributed to longitudinal tensile or compressive
stresses. The maximum stress criteria has been employed previously in
high velocity [25] and low velocity impact [26,27] problems for ac-
curate prediction of fiber breakage. In either tension or compression,
fiber damage is initiated based on the following max-stress criterion
[18]:
If 11 0, then
11
=1
Xt (1)
If 11<0, then
11
=1
Xc (2)
where 11, X t , X c are stress in the fiber direction, ply tensile strength
and ply compressive strength respectively. After fiber damage is in-
itiated, failure propagation is modelled using a linear softening law
whereby the stiffness of the element (E11) as well as the Poisson’s ratio
(v12 ) is degraded linearly until the fiber damage variable, df , reaches
0.999999. The degradation of the Poisson’s ratio with damage pro-
gression is consistent with experimental observations and is necessary
to maintain a positive definite elastic tensor [28,29]. The strain energy
dissipated during this process is taken to be equal to the critical energy
release rate, or the fracture toughness (Gft and Gfc for tensile and
compressive fracture toughness respectively) of the material. The strain
energy released by the element can be determined by the area under the
stress-strain curve, multiplied by the characteristic element length, lc .
This can be written as:
0
11 d ( 11 lc ) = Gf (3)
where Gf is the fracture toughness either in tension (Gft ) or compression
(Gfc ). Eq. (3) is used to model damage progression after initiation. From
the fracture toughness, the final strain at failure, f can be obtained by:
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 9. Damage mechanisms for (a) Cross-ply(CP37) and (b) Helicoidal(SH37) impacted at 140 m/s. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

f
2Gf damage. While this may be true for a concentrated damage, given that
= 0l
c (4) matrix damage spreads over a large region in a helicoidal layup, a more
accurate representation would be to use cohesive elements throughout
where 0 refers to material strength. The damage variable for fiber, df ,
the damaged region. The damage initiation and linear-softening laws
is then given by:
for matrix failure follows the constitutive equation defined above for
f ( 0) cohesive elements. A quadratic traction-separation law is used for da-
df = max [0, min [ ]] mage initiation, in which a combination of shear and normal tractions
( f 0)
(5)
are considered [24]:
where 0, f,
and are the strain at damage initiation, final strain and
strain at the computed step respectively. At final failure, is equal f . tn 2 t2 t2
+ s2 + t2 = 1
This equation holds both for compression and tension. N 2 S S (6)

where tn, ts and tt , N , S are normal traction, shear traction, interface

3.1.2. Matrix cracking normal strength and interface shear strength respectively. After failure
To model matrix cracking, a meshing strategy was adopted in which is initiated, propagation is through the mixed-mode fracture criterion
each ply mesh was aligned in the fiber direction, while at the same time developed by Benzeggagh and Kenane [32]:
maintaining the square shape of the elements (Fig. 4). Cohesive ele-
Gm = Gnc + (Gsc Gnc ) B (7)
ments were inserted throughout the damaged region for capturing
matrix splits commonly observed in highly-oriented layups. The da- where
mage region is a square of 53 mm which is chosen to be large enough to
Gs
encompass all potential damage in this region. The crack spacing was B=
varied between 1 mm, 1.4 mm and 2.1 mm (Fig. 5). There was no sig- GN + GS
nificant variation in the delamination area (less than 5 percent). The 1 1
mechanical response of the laminate were seen to remain similar within GN = 22 22 lc , GS = 12 12 l c
2 2
this crack spacing range (Fig. 6) as indicated by similar deformation
profiles. To achieve a balance between fidelity and computational ef- Gm refers to the mixed-mode fracture toughness or critical energy re-
ficiency, a crack spacing of 1.4 mm was used in the final model. This lease rate. Gsc , Gnc , are critical fracture toughness in Mode II , critical
strategy results in an improved model over existing ones in two ways. fracture toughness in Mode I and material property parameter respec-
Firstly, Rivallant et al. [30] developed a model in which cohesive ele- tively.
ments were inserted in 0, 90, 45 and −45° plies. The 0 and 90° plies
were meshed with square elements, however parallelogram shaped 3.2. Interlaminar failure (delamination)
elements had to be used for 45 and −45° plies to ensure nodes coincide
in the neighbouring elements. By using cohesive interaction in our The cohesive surface interaction function available in Abaqus/
model (Fig. 4), there is no need for coinciding nodes. The use of par- Explicit is used for inter-laminar failure. The laws that govern cohesive
allelogram shaped elements might result in element aspect ratios that surface behaviour are very similar to those used for cohesive elements.
are much greater than 1, resulting in inaccurate determination of the However, the definition of traction and separation are slightly different
characteristic element length [18] and energy release rates. Secondly, [24]. In cohesive elements the separation is defined as the fraction of
Sun et al. [31] developed a model without considering fiber damage. relative displacement ( ) between the top and bottom cohesive layer
Cohesive elements were embedded in quasi-isotropic laminates for over the initial thickness, whereas in cohesive surfaces it is given by the
modelling matrix cracks, in which it was concluded that six in- separation distance, . The traction in cohesive element is the nominal
tralaminar split was sufficient for capturing the network of matrix stress. In the cohesive surface, traction is defined as the contact stress

64
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 10. Damage propagation in (a) Cross-ply at 140 m/s (b) Quasi-isotropic at 130 m/s(c) Helicoidal composite at 151 m/s. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

given by contact force over contact area. Cohesive surfaces are com-
putationally more efficient [24] and eliminates the need to use tie
constraints, which are generally required if cohesive elements are used.
4. Finite element model
The finite element (FE) model was developed in Abaqus/Explicit.
Continuum shell elements are computationally efficient in comparison
to solid elements and are generally capable in capturing impact-induced
bending deformation accurately [33,27,26]. Each ply was meshed with
3D continuum shell elements with aligned mesh and embedded cohe-
sive elements (Fig. 4). There is one element in the through-thickness
direction for each ply. The properties of T700/2510 used in the FE
analysis are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that these properties
are obtained from standardized tests [3,4,34,35]. There are usually
some effects of strain rates on mechanical properties [36–38] but have
not been considered in this work. Further tests and verification are
necessary to implement strain rate dependent material properties. Co-
hesive interaction behaviour was used to model contact and delami-
nation between plies. The FE model is shown in Fig. 7. Based on a mesh
refinement study, the element size in the inner region where the da-
mage is expected to occur was kept to 0.7 mm. An element size of 1 mm
was used in the outer region. The impactor of diameter 12 mm was
modelled as a rigid body. A predefined velocity is assigned to the im-
pactor in the initial step. The plate was simply-supported along the
circular-edge (U1 = U2 = U3 = 0). The dimensions and thickness of
the plate is the same as experiment and has been mentioned in Table 1.
A general contact algorithm available in Abaqus/Explicit was used to

65
M.R. Abir, et al.
Fig. 11. Variation of projectile velocity vs time. (For interpretation of the re-
ferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
model all the contact scenarios which includes impactor-plate contact,
contact between plies and contact between newly created surfaces
(essential for preventing interpenetration). To model large deformation,
non-linear geometric analysis was performed. A stable time increment
of 5e−09 s was achieved with selective mass scaling, the increase in
mass was kept below 5 percent. Each simulation took about 6–8 h with
23 cores of CPU. The velocity of the impactor is increased at 1 m/s
intervals until the ballistic limit is obtained.
4.1. Element deletion
Excessive element distortion can cause the simulation to stop pre-
maturely. In ballistic impact, the element deletion criterion is important
to remove highly distorted elements and to ensure the correct simula-
tion of the kinematics of impact from damage initiation to penetration.
The element removal criteria used in this work is based on those used in
previous studies of high velocity impact [25,39,40]
An effective strategy for element removal is to track the determinant
of the Jacobian (det J) and delete elements approaching a value close to
zero. Since Ababqus does not directly output the value of the Jacobian,
a more efficient strategy is to determine the determinant of the de-
formation gradient, which is available directly in Abaqus VUMAT. The
determinant of the deformation gradient, detF, is simply the ratio of the
deformed volume (V) over undeformed (V0 ) volume:
Fig. 12. impact and residual velocity curves for quasi-isotropic, cross-ply and helicoidal composite. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
66
Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70
Fig. 13. Absorbed energy at penetration for quasi-isotropic, cross-ply and he-
licoidal configurations. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
detF =
V
V0 (8)
Apart from the deformation gradient, the elements were also de-
leted when the fiber damage variable, df , reaches a value of 0.999999.
In summary, the following criteria are used:
Delete elements if
detF < 0.9 or detF > 1.6 (9)
df 0.999999 (10)
1,2 < 1 (11)
Eq. (11) essentially states that the element is deleted when the strain
in the fiber ( 11) or transverse ( 22 ) direction reaches −1.
5. Results and discussion
The numerical ballistic limit of the helicoidal layup was found to be
151 m/s whereas for cross-ply and quasi-isotropic laminate it was
140 m/s and 130 m/s respectively. Fig. 8 shows a comparison between
numerical and experimentally obtained ballistic limit. The numerical
values are in good agreement with experimental ballistic limit. The
helicoidal architecture leads to an improvement in ballistic perfor-
mance as compared to cross-plies and quasi-isotropic laminate com-
posed of the same thickness and material. It can be seen that the bal-
listic limit of the helicoidal composite is about 8 and 15 percent higher
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 14. Comparison of surface damage distribution between simulation and experiment (obtained from CT scans) [23] (a) Cross-ply (b) Helicoidal and (c) Quasi-
isotropic specimen. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 15. Matrix split at the back face of the specimen (a) Experiment [23] (b) Simulation. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

than cross-ply and quasi-isotropic layups.
5.1. Damage propagation
A comparison of the damage mechanisms in helicoidal and cross-ply
laminates at the same impact energy of 68.6 J is shown in Fig. 9. At this
impact energy, the cross-ply is penetrated completely whereas the he-
licoidal laminate is non-perforated. The formation of a large delami-
nation in the helicoidal laminate is a form of energy dissipation that
resulted in the impactor to be embedded in the laminate. In contrast, at
this energy level, the cross-ply is completely penetrated due to con-
centrated damage.
Fig. 10 shows the deformation and damage propagation of different
configuration at their penetration velocities. The quasi-isotropic, cross-
ply and helicoidal laminate suffered complete perforation at 130 m/s,
140 m/s and 151 m/s respectively. The same trend in damage as seen in
Fig. 9 is observed. The conventional layups (cross-ply and quasi-iso-
tropic laminates) experience localized damage and penetration. In
contrast, the damage in helicoidal laminate is marked by large dela-
minations that sets in early into the impact process. This essentially
allows for damage to spread out over a large area. A similar observation
is made for low velocity impact experiments carried out in [21] where
helicoidal laminates exhibit a larger delamination size in comparison to
quasi-isotropic laminates.

67
M.R. Abir, et al. Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70

Fig. 16. Through-thickness damage distribution in (a) Cross-ply (b) Quasi-isotropic and (b) Helicoidal laminate. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 17. Distribution of delamination showing (a) spiralling delamination in helicoidal composite (SH37) (b) Cross-shaped delamination in cross-ply(CP37) (c) lobe
shaped delamination in quasi-isotropic laminates. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

5.2. Energy absorption
The variation of kinetic energy of the impactor vs time is shown in
Fig. 11. Small impactor residual velocities indicate that the impact
velocity corresponds to the ballistic limit. Impact and residual velocity
curves for quasi-isotropic, cross-ply and helicoidal laminate is shown in
Fig. 12. During impact, the kinetic energy of the impactor is converted
to absorbed energy of the laminate. Fig. 13 shows a comparison of the
absorbed energy at penetration for quasi-isotropic, cross-ply and heli-
coidal layup at 130 m/s, 140 m/s and 151 m/s respectively. The

68
M.R. Abir, et al.
Fig. 18. Comparison of delamination size in quasi-isotropic, cross-ply and he-
licoidal layup. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure le-
gend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
helicoidal layup absorbs more energy in comparison to quasi-isotropic
and cross-plies at complete penetration.
5.3. Failure mechanism
Highly-oriented layups such as helicoidal composites fail very dif-
ferently as compared to conventional layups. Fig. 14 shows both ex-
perimental and numerical surface damage patterns. A closer look at the
surface damage distribution shows contrasting differences between the
three specimens. The surface damage in the helicoidal specimen is
marked by a spiralling damage pattern. This spiralling nature is not
pronounced in the quasi-isotropic specimen(Fig. 14). Failure in cross-
ply is characterized by two major matrix cracks (Fig. 14). As the mis-
match angle increases, the damage transitions from a helical pattern to
a simple cross-shaped damage. Matrix-splitting is observed at the back
Fig. 19. Back Face Deflection along the path line (a) 5e−05 s (b) 7e−05 s. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
69
Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70
face of the helicoidal laminate, a comparison of the split observed in
experiment and simulation is shown in Fig. 15.
In cross-ply laminates, the fibers are distributed in the 0° and 90°
directions. The cross-shaped matrix crack opens up the laminate easily,
allowing penetration of the impactor. In the helicoidal layup, the fibers
are arranged in many different angles. Consequently, the fiber and
matrix damage are distributed across different directions. This results in
a spiralling damage in the through-thickness direction resulting in
greater damage resistance in comparison to a typical cross-shaped da-
mage in cross-plies. Quasi-isotropic laminates are somewhere in be-
tween. The 3D cut-section of both helicoidal and cross-plies is shown in
Fig. 16.
A plot of the through-thickness delamination at different interfaces
for helicoidal, cross-ply and quasi-isotropic laminate is shown in
Fig. 17. The helicoidal layup undergoes a spiralling delamination
failure whereas a cross-shaped delamination is observed in the cross-ply
configuration. The quasi-isotropic laminate exhibits typical delamina-
tion pattern. Delamination size in the helicoidal layup is much greater.
The delamination area of helicoidal layup is 2.4 times and 1.8 times
larger in comparison to cross-ply and quasi-isotropic laminates
(Fig. 18).
5.4. Back Face Deflection (BFD)
Deformation is another important mechanism through which energy
is dissipated. A comparison of the Back Face Defection(BFD) for the
three models is shown in Fig. 19. The BFD is taken at the mid-plane of
the laminates indicated by the pathline and considers both the vertical
deflection and the deformation spread (Fig. 19). The out-of-plane de-
flection of cross-ply is the maximum, followed by the helicoidal and
quasi-isotropic laminate. The BFD of the helicoidal laminate is about 20
percent reduced in comparison to the cross-ply laminate and slightly
higher (about 8 percent) than quasi-isotropic laminate. This deflection
trend is similar to experimental observations made in [20]. It is also
important to note the deformation spread. It can be seen that the spread
in deformation is the maximum for helicoidal specimen, whereas it is
more localized quasi-isotropic laminates and cross-plies.
M.R. Abir, et al.
As a result of the combined effect of deformation and failure, the
helicoidal laminate is able to absorb more energy before complete pe-
netration.
6. Conclusion
An improved FE model is proposed for prediction of ballistic per-
formance of bio-inspired helicoidal composites. The FE model is able to
predict the ballistic limit of the helicoidal, quasi-isotropic and cross-ply
layup accurately. The key damage and deformation mechanisms
leading to improvements in ballistic performance have been explained.
For a 37-ply composite made of the same material system and thickness,
the helicoidal architecture results in an 8 percent and 15 percent im-
provement of the ballistic performance over cross-ply and quasi-iso-
tropic laminates respectively. Based on observations made from the
numerical model, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(a) Damage propagation in helicoidal composite is marked by large
delaminations, allowing for the damage to spread. In quasi-iso-
tropic and cross-plies, damage is more concentrated.
(b) In cross-ply, damage is in the form of cross-shaped cracks whereas
helicoidal composite undergoes a unique spiralling damage pattern
resulting in greater damage resistance. Quasi-isotropic laminates
are somewhere in between.
(c) The increase in ballistic limit with a helicoidal configuration is a
result of a change in failure mechanism as well as the deformation
that allows for greater energy absorption during impact. The higher
energy absorption results in greater ballistic limit.
In the future, this understanding can be used to design alternative
failure pathways that enables further energy absorption resulting in a
much greater ballistic limit. Various different helicoidal configurations
can be explored to see whether greater improvement in ballistic limit is
possible.
Acknowledgement
The support in the form of research scholarship for the first author
and resources from Grant No. R 265000523646 from NUS is gratefully
acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.04.021.
References
[1] Weaver JC, Milliron GW, Miserez A, Evans-Lutterodt K, Herrera S, Gallana I, et al.
The stomatopod dactyl club: a formidable damage-tolerant biological hammer.
Science 2012;336(6086):1275–80.
[2] Suksangpanya N, Yaraghi NA, Pipes RB, Kisailus D, Zavattieri P. Crack twisting and
toughening strategies in bouligand architectures. Int J Solids Struct
2018;150:83–106.
[3] Liu J, Lee H, Tan V. Failure mechanisms in bioinspired helicoidal laminates.
Compos Sci Technol 2018;157:99–106.
[4] Shang J, Ngern NH, Tan VB. Crustacean-inspired helicoidal laminates. Compos Sci
Technol 2016;128:222–32.
[5] Yaraghi NA, Kisailus D. Biomimetic structural materials: inspiration from design
and assembly. Annu Rev Phys Chem 2018;69:23–57.
[6] Chen B, Peng X, Cai C, Niu H, Wu X. Helicoidal microstructure of scarabaei cuticle
and biomimetic research. Mater Sci Eng: A 2006;423(1-2):237–42.
[7] Cheng L, Thomas A, Glancey JL, Karlsson AM. Mechanical behavior of bio-inspired
laminated composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2011;42(2):211–20.
[8] Turner P, Liu T, Zeng X, Brown K. Three-dimensional woven carbon fibre polymer
composite beams and plates under ballistic impact. Compos Struct
2018;185:483–95.
[9] Yang B, Tse KM, Chen N, Tan LB, Zheng QQ, Yang HM, et al. Development of a finite
element head model for the study of impact head injury. BioMed Res Int 2014:2014.
[10] Aymerich F, Dore F, Priolo P. Prediction of impact-induced delamination in cross-
ply composite laminates using cohesive interface elements. Compos Sci Technol
70
Composites Part A 123 (2019) 59–70
2008;68(12):2383–90.
[11] Aymerich F, Dore F, Priolo P. Simulation of multiple delaminations in impacted
cross-ply laminates using a finite element model based on cohesive interface ele-
ments. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69(11):1699–709.
[12] Aymerich F, Pani C, Priolo P. Damage response of stitched cross-ply laminates
under impact loadings. Eng Fract Mech 2007;74(4):500–14.
[13] González E, Maimí P, Camanho P, Lopes C, Blanco N. Effects of ply clustering in
laminated composite plates under low-velocity impact loading. Compos Sci Technol
2011;71(6):805–17.
[14] Sebaey T, González E, Lopes C, Blanco N, Costa J. Damage resistance and damage
tolerance of dispersed cfrp laminates: effect of ply clustering. Compos Struct
2013;106:96–103.
[15] Hongkarnjanakul N, Bouvet C, Rivallant S. Validation of low velocity impact
modelling on different stacking sequences of cfrp laminates and influence of fibre
failure. Compos Struct 2013;106:549–59.
[16] Wisnom M. The role of delamination in failure of fibre-reinforced composites. Phil
Trans R Soc A 2012;370(1965):1850–70.
[17] Bouvet C, Castanié B, Bizeul M, Barrau JJ. Low velocity impact modelling in la-
minate composite panels with discrete interface elements. Int J Solids Struct
2009;46(14):2809–21.
[18] Abir M, Tay T, Ridha M, Lee H. Modelling damage growth in composites subjected
to impact and compression after impact. Compos Struct 2017;168:13–25.
[19] Abir M, Tay T, Ridha M, Lee H. On the relationship between failure mechanism and
compression after impact (cai) strength in composites. Compos Struct
2017;182:242–50.
[20] Hazzard MK, Hallett S, Curtis PT, Iannucci L, Trask RS. Effect of fibre orientation on
the low velocity impact response of thin dyneema® composite laminates. Int J
Impact Eng 2017;100:35–45.
[21] Grunenfelder L, Suksangpanya N, Salinas C, Milliron G, Yaraghi N, Herrera S, et al.
Bio-inspired impact-resistant composites. Acta Biomater 2014;10(9):3997–4008.
[22] Sebaey T, González E, Lopes C, Blanco N, Maimí P, Costa J. Damage resistance and
damage tolerance of dispersed cfrp laminates: effect of the mismatch angle between
plies. Compos Struct 2013;101:255–64.
[23] Liu J, Woo T, Tan V. Static and ballistic performance of helicoidal, cross-ply and
quasi-isotropic laminates. In: Proceedings of the European conference on composite
materials; 2018.
[24] ABAQUS V. 6.14, online documentation help, theory manual: Dassault systms;
2016.
[25] Higuchi R, Okabe T, Yoshimura A, Tay T. Progressive failure under high-velocity
impact on composite laminates: experiment and phenomenological mesomodeling.
Eng Fract Mech 2017;178:346–61.
[26] Abir M, Tay T, Lee H. Modelling failure mechanisms in composites subjected to
impact and post-impact compression. In: Proceedings of the American Society for
composites: thirty-first technical conference; 2016.
[27] Ridha M, Tay TE, Werner S, Joern P, Tan VBC. Analysis of composite stiffener under
successive impact and bending test. J Reinf Plast Compos 2017;36(17):1225–38.
[28] Van Paepegem W, De Baere I, Lamkanfi E, Degrieck J. Monitoring quasi-static and
cyclic fatigue damage in fibre-reinforced plastics by poissons ratio evolution. Int J
Fatigue 2010;32(1):184–96.
[29] Sjögren A, Krasnikovs A, Varna J. Experimental determination of elastic properties
of impact damage in carbon fibre/epoxy laminates. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf
2001;32(9):1237–42.
[30] Rivallant S, Bouvet C, Hongkarnjanakul N. Failure analysis of cfrp laminates sub-
jected to compression after impact: Fe simulation using discrete interface elements.
Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2013;55:83–93.
[31] Sun X, Wisnom M, Hallett S. Interaction of inter-and intralaminar damage in scaled
quasi-static indentation tests: part 2–numerical simulation. Compos Struct
2016;136:727–42.
[32] Benzeggagh M, Kenane M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture
toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending ap-
paratus. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56(4):439–49.
[33] González E, Maimí P, Camanho P, Turon A, Mayugo J. Simulation of drop-weight
impact and compression after impact tests on composite laminates. Compos Struct
2012;94(11):3364–78.
[34] D7905/D7905M-14 A. Standard test method for determination of the mode ii in-
terlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix
composites; 2014.
[35] D5528-01 A. Standard test method for mode i interlaminar fracture toughness of
unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites; 2007.
[36] Al-Mosawe A, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Engineering properties of cfrp laminate under
high strain rates. Compos Struct 2017;180:9–15.
[37] Zhang X, Hao H, Shi Y, Cui J, Zhang X. Static and dynamic material properties of
cfrp/epoxy laminates. Constr Build Mater 2016;114:638–49.
[38] Yasaee M, Mohamed G, Pellegrino A, Petrinic N, Hallett SR. Strain rate dependence
of mode ii delamination resistance in through thickness reinforced laminated
composites. Int J Impact Eng 2017;107:1–11.
[39] Falcó O, Ávila R, Tijs B, Lopes C. Modelling and simulation methodology for uni-
directional composite laminates in a virtual test lab framework. Compos Struct
2018;190:137–59.
[40] Tan W, Falzon BG, Price M. Predicting the crushing behaviour of composite ma-
terial using high-fidelity finite element modelling. Int J Crashworth
2015;20(1):60–77.
[41] Sachs C, Fabritius H, Raabe D. Hardness and elastic properties of dehydrated cuticle
from the lobster homarus americanus obtained by nanoindentation. J Mater Res
2006;100:1987–95.