3 Deec 52 Eb 452 e 030 Ab

Review
Low velocity impact response of bre-metal laminates A review

Gin Boay Chai
, Periyasamy Manikandan
School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Division of Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 13 August 2013
Keywords:
Low velocity impact
Quasi-static
Fibre-metal laminates
Dynamic response
a b s t r a c t
This contribution hopes to give a comprehensive review of past and current research work published on
the dynamic response of bre-metal laminates subjected to low velocity impact. The historical develop-
ment of bre-metal laminates is rst reviewed in details, and notable researchers and their contributions
are chronologically tabulated and reviewed. Included are also reviews on published experimental,
numerical and analytical work on the low velocity impact of bre-metal laminates. Detailed discussions
on the two main groups of parameters namely geometry and material based parameters that inuenced
the structural response of bre metal laminates to low-velocity impact. The review concludes with
detailed discussions on the future works needed for bre-metal laminates subjected to low velocity
impact loads.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
2. Experimental studies of low velocity impact on fibre-metal laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
2.1. Effect of pre-stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
2.2. Effect of metal constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
2.3. Effect of stacking sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
2.4. Effects of Metal Volume Fraction (MVF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
2.5. Scaling effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
2.6. Effect of post stretching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
3. Simulation of low velocity impact on FMLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
3.1. Details of FE formulations to model FML. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
3.2. Role of commercial FE software on impact behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
3.3. Importance of cohesive elements in FML modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
3.4. Numerical modeling of FML with FE software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
4. Analytical modeling of low velocity impact on FMLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
4.1. Morphology of impact dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
4.2. Solution methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
4.3. Analytical developments in FML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
5. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
1. Introduction
Fibre Metal Laminate (FML) is a family of hybrid composite
structure formed from the combination of metal layers sandwich-
ing a bre-reinforced plastic layer. The metal currently being used
is either aluminium, magnesium or titanium, and the bre-rein-
forced layer is either glass-reinforced, carbon-reinforced or kev-
lar-reinforced composite. In 1950, Fokker Aerostructures of
Netherlands found that such bonded laminated structures success-
fully prevented the rapid fatigue crack growth than the monolithic
materials. On the eve of Second World War, the research was
ceased for a certain period of time, around 1970s rst physical test
was carried out with the bre-reinforced bonded metal laminates.
Later, an optimized FML sheet was developed by the Delft
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.08.003
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 67905756; fax: +65 67924062.

E-mail address: mgbchai@ntu.edu.sg (G.B. Chai).
Composite Structures 107 (2014) 363381
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Composite Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uct
University in the early 1980s called ARALL (Aramid Reinforced
ALuminium Laminate) [1]. It consists of Al 2024-T3/7075T6 plate
with a 0.2 0.4 mm thickness and uni/bi-directional aramid bre
prepeg stacking in between aluminium plates primarily developed
for wing applications. It was found that nearly 20% of weight sav-
ing is possible by using ARALL in place of monolithic aluminium.
ARALL found its rst application in C17 cargo doors. Some of the
other major applications of bre metal laminations in avaiation
industry were found in the Ref [2]. By combining the isotropic,
plastic behavior, durability characteristic, impact resistance, easy
repair of metals and superior strength, stiffness, excellent fatigue,
fracture characteristics of composite materials; FML was devel-
oped as a material having superior fatigue resistance, excellent im-
pact characteristics, having low density and adequate corrosion
resistance property [3,4]. Superior fatigue resistance is due to bre
bridging of fatigue cracks as illustrated in Fig. 2, and having a
favorable residual stress system between aluminium alloy layers
and composite lamina [5] and exceptional corrosion resistance is
because of action of prepegs as a moisture barrier between alumin-
ium layers and vice versa [6].
Due to the inadequate compression properties of aramid bres,
in 1987 a second generation of FML was developed with a name
GLARE (GLAss REinforced aluminiumlaminate) for aircraft fuselage
applications [1]. GLARE was tested in A330/340 fuselage barrel in
1989 and registered its civil application in 1995 through bulk cargo
oor of B777 and bulkhead of the bombardier 125. Currently
GLARE is produced in different standard grades as shown in
Fig. 1 and Table 1. The outperforming fatigue nature of FML fullls
the aircraft structural requirements and recently GLARE nds its
application in the upper fuselage skin structure of Airbus A380
and saves nearly 794 kg gross weight [3].
Damage and failure of aircraft structures caused by impact has
been documented and investigated over the years. From the failure
report of 71 Boeing 747 aircraft having 29,500 endurance, it was
found 90 out of 688 repairs (13%) are caused by impact of foreign
bodies [8]. Impact can be caused either by low-velocity sources like
collisions between cars, cargo, maintenance damage, dropped tool
or high velocity sources like runway debris, hail, bird strike and
having some ballistic impact in military aircrafts. Low-velocity im-
pact event can be treated as a quasi-static deformation process if
strain-rate do not exceed 10 m s
1
[912]. Owing to the ductility
nature, impact is not a severe threat for metal structure because
it can absorb large amount of impact energy in the elastic region
up to yield and the material may develop large strains before fail-
ure. In contrast, most composite materials are brittle in nature; it
can absorb impact energy only in elastic region before undergoing
different modes of failure. On the absence of plastic deformation,
damage in composites are classied as barely visible impact dam-
age (BVID) and this will reduce the structural integrity rapidly if
unnoticed [11].
FML is the suitable material which makes use of the advantage
of metal and combined with the composites to amplify its impact
damage resistance. Impact involves the effect of the transverse
non-linear dynamic load and with the absence of through thick-
ness reinforcement, transverse impact damage resistance is partic-
ularly poor for composites. Due to low strength between the ply,
interlaminar stresses (shear and tension) cause delamination
Fiber Metal Laminates
(FML)
Aluminium
based FMLs
Other metal
based FMLs
GLARE ARALL CARALL
GLARE 1
GLARE 3
GLARE 2
GLARE 4
GLARE 5
GLARE 6
ARALL 1
ARALL 3
ARALL 2
ARALL 4
Magnesium
based FMLs
Titanium
based FMLs
(FML)
Aluminium
based FMLs
Other metal
based FMLs
Aluminium
based FMLs
Other metal
based FMLs
GLARE ARALL CARALL
GLARE 1
GLARE 3
GLARE 2
GLARE 4
GLARE 5
GLARE 6
ARALL 1
ARALL 3
ARALL 2
ARALL 4
GLARE ARALL CARALL
GLARE 1
GLARE 3
GLARE 2
GLARE 4
GLARE 5
GLARE 6
ARALL 1
ARALL 3
ARALL 2
ARALL 4
GLARE ARALL CARALL GLARE ARALL CARALL
GLARE 1
GLARE 3
GLARE 2
GLARE 4
GLARE 5
GLARE 6
GLARE 1
GLARE 3
GLARE 2
GLARE 4
GLARE 5
GLARE 6
ARALL 1
ARALL 3
ARALL 2
ARALL 4
ARALL 1
ARALL 3
ARALL 2
ARALL 4
Magnesium
based FMLs
Titanium
based FMLs
Fig. 1. Typical classes of FMLs.
metal
metal
fibre-reinforced
composite
crack
delamination
boundary
Part of the load
is bridged
over the crack.
Fig. 2. Illustration of crack bridging by bres [7].
364 G.B. Chai, P. Manikandan/ Composite Structures 107 (2014) 363381
accompanied with matrix crack and bre damage. The com-
plete possibilities of impact induced damage are summarized in
Fig. 3.
It is very important to identify the various failure modes and
their propagation towards impact to understand the advantage of
including metal with composites in FML. In this paper, low velocity
impact response of FML is reviewed with the help of relevant liter-
atures in theoretical, numerical and analytical studies done by
many researchers and nally the key issues that need to be solved
are also addressed.
2. Experimental studies of low velocity impact on bre-metal
laminates
Impact involves the collision of two bodies: the impactor and
the target. Upon collision, contact force develops as the impactor
indents the target. The knowledge of dynamic response of struc-
ture and its damage resistance is much needed to optimize the
structure requiring high safety like aircraft structural applications.
The majority of impact test has been carried out on a at plate with
either simply supported or clamped boundaries. The inability to
visualize the internal damage (BVID) of composites makes the re-
search community to focus the low-velocity impact phenomena
stringently [9,1319]. The presence of aluminium alloy sheets in
FML offers certain ductility in the laminate and its plastic deforma-
tion provides some percentage of permanent indentation that in-
creases detectability and inspectability. The parameters that
inuence the impact response of FML subjected to low velocity im-
pact can be classied into two main groups as summarized in
Fig. 4. Material-based parameters include the type of constituents
such as type of metals and bres, the stacking sequence, the metal-
bres volume ratio, and the bonding and treatment of the inter-
faces. Whereas the geometry-based parameters are pre- and post-
stretching, size effect of test specimens and impactors size/mass,
geometry and velocity.
Sun [21] characterized the low impact damage of ARALL FML
after its evolution. Indentation test was carried out in 0 and 90
ARALL 2 3/2 specimen and its static contact behavior, residual
Fig. 3. Possible failure modes in clamped FML plate during a low-velocity impact event.
Table 1
Commercially available GLARE and ARALL laminates [4,12,20].
FML grade
d
Metal layers Prepeg layers Outperforming characteristics
AL alloy Thickness (mm)
a
Orientation
c
() Thickness (mm)
a
Glare
GLARE 1 7475-T761 0.30.4 0/0 0.25 Fatigue, strength, yield stress
GLARE 2A 2024-T3 0.20.5 0/0 0.25 Fatigue, strength
GLARE 2B 2024-T3 0.20.5 90/90 0.25 Fatigue, strength
GLARE 3 2024-T3 0.20.5 0/90 0.25 Fatigue, impact
GLARE 4A 2024-T3 0.20.5 0/90/0 0.375 Fatigue, strength in 0 direction
GLARE 4B 2024-T3 0.20.5 90/0/90 0.375 Fatigue, strength in 90 direction
GLARE 5 2024-T3 0.20.5 0/90/90/0 0.5 Impact, shear, off-axis properties
GLARE 6A 2024-T3 0.20.5 45/40.5 0.5 Shear, off-axis properties
GLARE 6B 2024-T3 0.20.5 45/45 0.5 Shear, off-axis properties
GLARE HS
b
7475-T761 0.30.4
b b
ARALL
ARALL 1 7075-T6 0.3 0/0 0.22 Fatigue, strength
ARALL 2 2024-T3 0.3 0/0 0.22 Fatigue, damage tolerant
ARALL 3 7475-T761 0.3 0/0 0.22 Fatigue, toughness
ARALL 4 2024-T8 0.3 0/0 0.22 Fatigue, elevated temperature prop.
a
The thickness corresponds to thickness of single composite layer or aluminium plate.
b
High strength (HS) glare has any of the bre layups as in GLARE 2 to GLARE 5.
c
0 Represents the axial rolling direction.
d
Fraction after the FML grade represents number of metal layers to composite layers. For example: GLARE 3 3/2 represents 3 metal layers and 2 composite layers.
G.B. Chai, P. Manikandan/ Composite Structures 107 (2014) 363381 365
strength was investigated. The impact damage resistance of
FML over other aircraft structural materials were studied through
comparative low velocity impact tests [5,6]. The following materi-
als of monolithic Al 2024-T3 (1.37 mm thick), ARALL 2 3/2 layup
(1.35 mm thick), GLARE 3 3/2 (1.37 mm thick) and carbon/PEEK
composites having thermoplastic PEEK which is tough compared
to thermoset matrix (1.37-2.05 mm thick) were tested using low
velocity drop weight impact tester. The tests were performed on
100 cm
2
square specimens with 7.5 mm hemispherical impactor
mass of 575 g with maximum drop height of 12 m and maximum
velocity of 10 m s
1
.
The impact energy at which the rst bre failure occur called
minimumcracking energy (U
f
) was calculated. For any loading con-
ditions, GLARE 3 shows superior performance compared to other
materials having same surface density as shown in Fig. 5 and also
having small damage width even in higher impact energy (approx-
imately 20 mm at 40 J for GLARE 3 having 1.48 mm thickness) [6].
2.1. Effect of pre-stress
The effect of pre-stress on impact was studied [5] because the
real impact may strike an aircraft structure under ight loads. Al
2024-T3, 7075-T6, ARALL 1 and ARALL 2 specimens were tested
using hydraulic testing machine. The metal specimens are pre-
stressed in their rolling direction (0350 MPa) while the FML spec-
imen along the bre direction (0300 MPa). Impact tests were per-
formed at 0.6 m s
1
and results showed the dependency of
monolithic material for the pre-stress is less than the ARALL spec-
imens. The ARALL specimens suffered premature cracks with high
pre-stress as shown illustratively in Fig. 6. A typical illustration of
the variation of strain during the low-velocity impact is depicted in
Fig. 7 [6]. It shows that strain increases with the impact force till its
maximum value and then, force drops to zero and the strain be-
comes constant permanent strain in the plastically deformed dent.
Regarding the failure behavior, FML exhibited either bre fail-
ure or aluminium failure phenomena. In the case of composite
layer failure, a crack occurred perpendicular to the bre direction
and neither bre failure nor crack occurred on the outer alumin-
ium layer. And in the case of aluminium failure, the crack took
place in the rolling direction (bre direction of the composite lam-
inates). Because of having very low strain rates (2%), both ARALL
and CARE (equivalent of CARALL) underwent bre failure while
the high strain rate of R-glass bre (5.5%), GLARE exhibited either
aluminium or bre failure based on the stacking sequence. The
characteristics of different bres towards the low velocity impact
were clearly reported in Refs[6,12], an illustration of the results
is shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen in the gure that the structural
S = 0 MPa
S = 250 MPa
S = 150 MPa
Time, ms
I
m
p
a
c
t

F
o
r
c
e
S = 0 MPa
S = 250 MPa
S = 150 MPa
Deflection, mm
I
m
p
a
c
t

F
o
r
c
e
(a) Force vs time response (b) Force vs deflection respone
Fig. 6. Typical results for ARALL 1 illustrating the effect of pre-stress [5].
Constant permanent
strain after Impact
s
t
r
a
i
n
Time,ms
Fig. 7. Typical Strain-time curve for low velocity impact (1.47 J) ARALL 2 FML[6].
Low Velocity Impact Response of
Types of Metals
Types of fibers
Types of Matrix
Metal/Composite
volume fraction
Bonding/Surface
treatment
Layup
Post stretching
Scaling effect
Impactor
Material based
parameters
Geometry based
parameters
Pre-Stressing
Fig. 4. Parameters that inuence the response characteristics of FML.
Fig. 5. A comparison of minimum cracking energy of the materials [5].
response of all FML laminates is similar up to the point of rst fail-
ure and after that point the similarity vanishes. This was observed
to be dominated by the bre/aluminium failure.
2.2. Effect of metal constituents
The inuence of different kind of metal alloys on the behavior of
FML is huge. Nearly 15% increment in shear property of GLARE 3
laminate equipped with high shear strength alloys with respect
to Al-2024 alloy [22]. On the onset of ARALL and GLARE FMLs,
two types of aluminium alloys 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 (or 7475-
T6) were used because of their high fracture toughness and high
strength respectively (as shown in Table 1). The main responsibil-
ities of aluminuim layers in FML are:
Yielding of the materials at high loads.
Stable extension before fracture.
Providing better residual strength.
Good fatigue performance.
Excellent blunt notch strength, short crack performance.
High stiffness and strength of Al-7475-T6 resulted in small per-
manent deection, lower delamination of GLARE 1 but the brittle
nature provided less energy absorption and less favorable damage
resistance than Al-2024 based GLARE [23]. From the survey of
many research articles [5,6,23,24], the candidate prone to damage
of GLARE either aluminium or bre is fully based on the layup
conguration and kind of aluminum constituents.
ARALL and CARALL are bre damage dominated FMLs, the dif-
ference in metal constituents resulted insensitive. However, the
higher strength of 7000 grade aluminium has smaller permanent
deection than the other type. Many other candidates were contin-
uously investigated to improve the mechanical properties of FML
from past years. Having low density, improved electro-magnetic
shielding, superior corrosion resistance impress the magnesium
as a suitable candidate for FML [25]. In this study, the specic per-
foration resistance of magnesium (mg) based FML was found to be
superior to aluminium based FML. However, on analyzing the mer-
its and demerits of mg based FML over aluminum based FML, frac-
ture toughness of mg based FML than Al based FML results less
crack resistance and lower residual strength. Eventually, on view-
ing the damage tolerance aspects, the brittle nature of magesium
based FML delivered less impact resistance than Al based FML.
But, the inter dependency of impact response by many other fac-
tors, a prior conclusion about magnesium based FML is still not
yet clear [26,27]. Much research work has been published about
Titanium (Ti) based FMLs for years [2832]. During the low-veloc-
ity impact, the fracture of Ti layer on the non-impacted side plays a
major role to predict the damage characterization of inner compos-
ite laminate [33]. Lack of fatigue performance [29], low ductility of
high strength Ti alloy registered an ineffective impact resistance
FML.
2.3. Effect of stacking sequence
Being a directional property dependent nature, the behavior of
composites having different bre orientation was studied over
many years. It was concluded that altering the layer stacking se-
quence affect the maximum impact force, delamination area, pre-
and post-impact characteristics, and damage width. The impact re-
sponse studies on the effect of different stacking sequence were
conducted on CARALL [3437] and GLARE [38]. Sayed [39] carried
out the low velocity impact analysis of various GLARE 5 (3/2) spec-
imens having unidirectional, cross-ply, angle-ply, quasi-isotropic
orientations for different impact energy levels and histories of con-
tact force, permanent deection, minimum cracking energy and
strain variations were presented. He concluded that the impact
resistance of unidirectional GLARE specimens was found worst fol-
lowed by cross and angle ply. Because of their large specimen stiff-
ness, quasi-isotropic [0/45/45/90] laminate shows good impact
resistance with low permanent deection.
Liu [23] carried out similar kind of studies for GLARE 1,2,3 (3/2)
and ARALL 3 and reported GLARE 3 with cross-ply glass prepegs of-
fered better impact resistance than others. Low density, higher lon-
gitudinal to transverse youngs modulus, less ductile and stronger
than glass bres; aramid-epoxy prepeg constituent FML (ARALL)
experienced severe damage than GLARE during impact. A compar-
ison to low velocity impact response between GLARE 3,4,5 (2/1)
was reported by Laliberte [40] and between GLARE 4,5 (2/1) by
Wu [41]. As it was expectable, GLARE 5 with more glass epoxy pre-
peg layers shows good damage resistance.
2.4. Effects of Metal Volume Fraction (MVF)
Similar to the use of volume fraction of bres (Vf) and matrix
(Vm), the study on FML introduce a new parameter MVF which re-
lates the sum of thickness of the metal layer to the total thickness
of the laminate as:
MVF
p
1
t
metal
t
lam
1
where t
metal
= thickness of each metal layer, p = number of alumin-
ium layers and t
laminate
= thickness of total laminate. MVF of 0
means fully composite while MVF of 1 means a monolithic metal
[22]. The material property of GLARE having any MVF can be calcu-
lated by using a linear relation which is identical to the equation of
rule of mixtures available in elementary mechanics of composites
which is Material Property of FML = MVF metal layer contribu-
tion + (1-MVF) prepeg layer contribution.
Thus, it is quite clear that the impact response of FML varies
with MVF and the dissimilar impact behavior of various GLARE
and ARALL grades supported the above mentioned concept. Many
experimental investigations stipulated the inuence of MVF was
documented [42,43]. Increasing the glass/epoxy content in GLARE
increased the damage resistance and 15% increment in minimum
cracking energy at low velocity and even higher (twice or thrice)
at high velocity impact than monolithic aluminium [44].
Abdullah and Cantwell [45] reported that there is a threshold
limit to the aluminium thickness after that the perforation energy
begins to fall. Increment in impact resistance due to increment in
aluminium thickness is appreciated but for the light weight appli-
cations, this was not an optimized solution [43]. During quasi-sta-
tic loading, specic perforation energy (perforation energy/areal
density) is constant over a particular thickness range (0.5
1.5 mm) for a aliuminium alloy 2024-O/woven glass bre prepeg
but behaves superior to plain composites [46]. There is no variation
in the maximum load with MVF but there is a nite decrement in
rst failure energy of woven bre reinforced GLARE 2/1 specimens
[47].
2.5. Scaling effects
There are a number of parameters that govern the response and
damage initiation of a low-velocity impact problem. In order to
understand the effect of each parameter, dening some non-
dimensional variable and study its variation will be the convenient
way. Scaling a response to the prototype structures is another
advantage of non-dimensionalization. Sankar [48] provided a
method for non-dimesionalizing the impact equations based on
ve dimensional parameters and semi-empirical equations for
maximum impact force and impact duration was developed for
both large and small mass impacts. Damodar et al [49] reported
the preliminary analytical and experimental results to verify the
accuracy of scaling laws for a thin laminated composite plates sub-
jected to low-velocity transverse impact. The scaled laminates ap-
pear to develop more severe damage than the reference
conguration.
Regarding the scaling effects of FML, two articles [50,51] inves-
tigated the response of reference and scaled specimen. Mckown,
Cantwell and Jones [51] analyzed 2/1 SRPP FML based on a param-
eter k (ratio of characteristic length in model to the corresponding
value in the reference full scale) with four values 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.
From the normalized load-deection curves shown in Fig. 9, the
damage threshold energy and perforation energy, resembles the
good agreement of the scaling law. But, the transient nature of
composite material property promotes deviations in scaling laws
for dynamic events like strain-rate behavior. The work of Carillo
and Cantwell [50] was similar to that of Damodar [49], except that
Ref. [50] fully devoted to FMLs. Scaling stacking sequence was
investigated using two approaches viz., ply-level scaling [Al
n
,0/
90
n
]
s
(scaling thickness of each ply) and sublaminate-level scaling
[Al,0/90]
ns
(repetition of simple sublaminate structure). The exper-
imental results of low-velocity impact tests provided evidence of
good agreement with simple scaling laws.
2.6. Effect of post stretching
During the manufacturing process, a hot curing-cycle (120 C)
in the autoclave; FML carry a residual stress system over the thick-
ness with the tensile stress in the Al sheets and compressive stress
in the prepreg due to unequal thermal contraction during cooling
down from curing temperature to room temperature. So, some
grades of FMLs are post stretched to some limit after the curing cy-
cle. In general, metal layers are strained in to plastic region while
the prepeg layers remained in elastic zone during post stretching.
Developing initial tensile stress in the prepreg layers causes low
energy absorption and reduction of the rst failure energy (perfo-
ration) [24]. There is not much variation in the maximum perma-
nent deection, impact force, and crack length after rst failure
but there was a signicant improvement in fatigue crack growth
resistance with increasing post-stretching percentage [7] as in
Fig. 10.
The historical developments pertaining to the experimental
investigation of bre-metal laminates subjected to low-velocity
impact are chronological tabulated in Table 2 with details of the
key contributions discussed.
3. Simulation of low velocity impact on FMLs
Numerically simulating the dynamic, non-linear and transient
behavior of composite laminates under impact load is very com-
plex because of highly localized contact load and concomitant
damage phenomena like bre breakage, delamination, matrix
cracking, and plastic deformations with large deformation in the
impacted structure. Since the impact event takes place in through
thickness direction, the mechanical properties in that direction is
highly deteriorated. Thus, the plane stress assumption with negli-
gible out of plane stress (i.e., r
33
, r
13
, r
23
) is no more valid. One of
high probabilistic stiffness degradation cause due to impact event
is the inter-laminar damage called delamination, which is mainly
because of stress components in thickness direction.
However, the stiffness loss of composite layers due to matrix
cracks and delaminate between the laminates is not able to quan-
tify either experimentally because of Barely Visible Impact Damage
(BVID) or analytically because of coupled equations having non-
linear formulations. These phenomenological characteristics are
incorporated only through full 3-D FEM model with complete
stress and strain eld. The development of procient numerical
models to capture the above mentioned damage and dynamic ef-
fects still keep a real challenge for the research communities. The
road maps of details to be discussed in the following section are
narrated as follows; at rst the developments in numerical model-
ing of composites and hybrid type sandwich panels are discussed.
Based on the comprehend knowledge from composites, improve-
ments in the numerical simulation of FML are briey reviewed
and summarized.
In 1985, Petersen [70] introduced the FEM technique to analyze
the composite plates impacted by the projectile based on shear
deformable plate theory and the effect of rotary inertia. Davies
[71] who developed an explicit FEM code to investigate the barely
visible damage of impacted composites. He managed to predict the
dynamic responses like force, deection, and strain histories
through his code. In his modeling transverse shear deformation ef-
fect was incorporated through Mindlin eight-noded element type
for the target plate. Later, many research articles related to the
numerical modeling of impact damage of composite laminates
are found [7187]. Most of the researchers utilize the potential
of commercial available softwares like ABAQUS, LS-DYNA etc.
Tita [72] developed a Vectorized User Material Subroutine (VU-
MAT) to investigate the damage characterization of low-velocity
impacted clamped circular CFRP laminates at different stacking se-
quence and various impact energy. Quadrilateral, full integration
S4 shell elements was used to model the plane stress state and 8
noded linear brick solid element (C3D8) was used to study 3D
stress state. Some of the prominent aspects of his simulation are;
Based on different failure criterias [88,89], a general material mod-
el was generated for both plane stress and 3D solid state and these
models were implemented to ABAQUS software by VUMAT sub-
routine. Based on the damage initiation and its evolution, proper-
ties of the material will degrade in accordance to the following
exponential form of degradation law:
F
o
r
c
e
Deflection, mm
Al 2024-T3
GLARE 2
CARE
ARALL 2
First failure
Fig. 8. Illustrative response of various FML on quasi-static loading [6,12].
Fig. 9. Comparison of normalized impact force-deection curves for different scales
[51].
P
df
P exp
A
A
0
_ _
H
_ _
2
where P is the property to be reduced, A and A
0
are the area of con-
tact and interaction zone of failure respectively. The mechanical
contact property was implemented through exponential type pres-
sure-overclosure relation available in ABAQUS with contact pres-
sure of 10
2
N/mm
2
at zero clearance and clearance of 10
4
mm at
zero contact pressure. As already quoted the necessity of 3-D stress
state for impact event, the results of shell elements having plane
stress assumption does not converge to the experimental results
as compared to solid elements. Neglecting the effect of permanent
strain and restricted to linear behavior are some of the limitations
in his model which need further improvement.
Regarding sandwich structures, many research workers have at-
tempted to model the low-velocity impact response and capture
the various failure modes [90,9497]. The overall developments
and ndings in this scenario was reviewed and reported in Chai
and Zhu [98]. Similar to material model for composites, imple-
menting 3-D stress based damage model for composite sandwich
structures shows good correlation with the experiments [99].
Recently, Guan [94] presented the effect of oblique impact on
plain foams samples and their associated samples through FEM
modeling. The energy consumed to perforate the sandwich struc-
tures was found proportional to the oblique angle. With the FEM
model, this was concluded due to an increase in material failing
area through shear and large volume of foam crushing occurs dur-
ing perforation. The author also reported very good agreement be-
tween the predictions of FEM model and experimental results.
Hence, it was crystal clear that the path of numerical modeling
in composites and sandwich structures has come long way to reach
at its almost end stage of understanding the complete mechan-
ics of material and its failure behavior based on the review
knowledge.
Table 2
Historical developments in experimental investigation of bre-metal laminates under low-velocity impact event.
Refs. Year Key aspects
[5,6] 1993/
1996
Low velocity impact characteristics of GLARE and ARALL FML were determined using drop-weight impact testing machine. Results have
shown GLARE outperforms ARALL FML.
Comparative study between static, low-velocity and high velocity impact and its corresponding damage resistance, effect of tensile loading
on damage size are some of the notable scenarios.
[52] 1998 Effect of matrix-bre adhesion to low-velocity impact on CARALL bre metal laminates was experimentally investigated.
[53] 2000 The enhanced residual strength of FML was noticed through Impact test and subsequent tensile test.
[54] 2000 The deterioration of strength due to low-velocity impact of different stacking sequence ARALL specimens were evaluated through compres-
sion after Impact (CAI) test.
Despite of having small bre and micro matric cracks, the extent of delamination was found severely inuences the residual performance of
impacted specimen.
[55] 2002 Extensive study has been carried out on post impact fatigue performance of GLARE laminates. It was found that FML behave superior than
isotropic aluminum laminates.
[56] 2004 Inuence of impact velocity, impactor mass and impact energy was studied explicitly. Based on the experimental data, an appropriate
semiempirical relations are formulated for different characteristic parameters.
[25] 2005 Comparative study of perforation energy between aluminum and magnesium based GFPP and CFRP specimens were carried out by con-
ducting low-velocity impact test. It was epilogue that Magnesium based GFPP outperforms than its counterparts.
[40] 2005 Impact test were performed on different 2/1 standard glare specimens. Both NDT and post mortem investigation were carried out to eval-
uate the magnitude of damage. From the analysis, Glare 5 was concluded as a superior impact resistance material than other glare
specimens.
[57] 2007 Perforation energy of Glare bre/aluminum based FML was calculated at different impact energies.
[41,58] 2007/
2008
Characterizing the Glare specimens based on the damage stages ranges from plastic dent, BVID, CVID to complete perforation at different
impact energies. Residual strength of these different characteristic candidates was experimental through post impact fatigue test.
[50,51] 2008 To minimizing the manufacturing cost for experimenting the full scale model, scaling effects in the low-velocity impact response of FML
was studied unambiguously.
[59] 2008 Relative study between the mechanical properties long bre thermoplastic composite (LFT)/ metal laminate (LML) was carried out. Low
velocity experimental shows LML outperforms LFT.
[60] 2009 Glare specimens were placed over high strength Al alloy substrate which acts as a fatigue crack retarder. Both low velocity and fatigue test
were performed for the above congured specimens. The fatigue result shows the crack growth is retarded up to a factor of 2.
[23] 2009 Effect of material constituents, ply orientation of FML on low velocity impact was investigated in detail. Compared with unidirectional glare
specimens, cross-ply constituents had better impact resistance was the end nding.
[61] 2010 To enhance the safety level of mechanical components, the author interested to investigate carbon based FML. Both experimental and
numerical impact study was performed with descriptive data analysis.
[46,62,63] 2011 Inuence of specimen size, impactor diameter, number of composite layers, metal layers to low velocity impact was investigated on glare
specimens.
[33,64] 2011/
2006
To diagnose the advantage of titanium as a metal layer on GFRP based FML, low velocity impact test were performed. Due to plastic defor-
mation and crack initiation on metal layers, damage intensity of internal GFRP layers was suppressed.
[65,66] 2011/
2012
Degradation of material property of glass based FML due to multiple impacts was studied experimentally. Ultimate tensile strength, duc-
tility percentage and failure strain are the parameters taken for investigation.
[43] 2011 Effect of different metal constituents and its thickness on impact response were studied experimentally and validated the obtained data
with numerical modeling.
[39,67] 2011 Experimental Study was done on glare 5-3/2 specimens to investigate the effects of different specimen geometry and lay-up sequence
towards the low velocity impact response.
[68] 2011 Low velocity impact response of glare FML was investigated at different impact velocity and the nature, shape of the damage were quan-
tied through destructive microphotography and non-destructive ultrasonic techniques.
[27] 2012 - Impact response of magnesium based FML was determined through experiments. From the visual inspection, having a larger shear crack on
metal layer with smaller limit to rst failure energy level, it was suspected that magnesium based FML offer less impact resistance than
aluminum based FML.
[47] 2012 A progressive quasi-static indentation test and low-velocity impact test were carried out to investigate the impact response of glare spec-
imens. Two different glare specimens were experimented: Unidirectional and woven GFRP. Effects of sanding, different layups, impact
velocity were analyzed adequately. Results are validated with numerical simulation.
[69] 2013 Address the inuence of impactor mass, ply orientation, metal thickness, and plate dimension to low-velocity impact response.
However, the modeling of FML under dynamic behavior during
impact is still at its infancy and with great complexity in the
mechanics of metal and composites. Despite of the current high
computational capabilities, some analogous information needs to
incorporate for modeling the impact behaviors accurately. They
are: (i) Material model including plasticity effects to provide post-
yield response of aluminum layer. (ii) Appropriate material model
having information about all possible failure of composite layer
(Eg., Hashin Failure criteria in ABAQUS). (iii) Material model to deal
delamination initiation and its growth. (iv) Need of interface ele-
ments to model layered structures and its sensitivity towards
delamination. The general steps involved to model this complex
phenomenon are explained via a owchart shown in Fig. 11. Only
limited numbers of articles were found in numerical modeling im-
pact resistance of FMLs indulging the above mentioned characteris-
tics but with certain limitations to derive consistent results.
3.1. Details of FE formulations to model FML
Having layered structure with different material characteristics,
nature of 3-D stress and strain tensors, yielding of metal layers, in-
ter-laminar damage, crack growth and its propagation; a full
unambiguous continuum FE model with appropriate interface ele-
ments is required to simulate complete phenomenon. The pub-
lished articles of Hashagen [100102] and Linde [103] are found
to exploit the use of nite element modeling and techniques in
FML applications.
Hashagen [102] compared the behavior of standard nite solid
and shell elements in order to model laminated FML structure. The
physical non-linear behavior of materials was taken in to account
through Hoffman yield criteria and von Mises yield criteria for
orthotropic and isotropic materials respectively. On comparing
the experimental results, the author concluded the solid like shell
element comprising 16 geometrical nodes (Top and Bottom surface
having 8-node each) is able to compute laminate structures behav-
ior and its consequences. Furthermore, the author reported that, it
is able to avoid performance deterioration with parameter depen-
dent (e.g., Poissons ratio) of standard solid elements. This phe-
nomenon is generally called Locking effects in nite element
approximations [104].
The mechanism and mathematical formulation of delamination
model for FML was extensively revealed in Hashagen articles
[100,101]. Delamination between the material layers was formu-
lated by introducing solid like shell interface element and line
interface element for 2-D and 3-D respectively. To initiate the
delamination in the interface elements, a loading function consid-
ering all state of traction forces [105] was applied and the growth
of delamination was controlled based on the energy release rate
and fracture toughness of interface layer. The author also sug-
gested that the same loading function was also applicable to solid
like continuum elements which encounters combined delamina-
tion and matrix cracking.
3.2. Role of commercial FE software on impact behavior
Apart from the few mathematical formulations related to
numerical modeling of FML as stated above, most of the publica-
tions utilize the potential of commercial FEM software. In the case
of impact modeling, role of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA is substantially
major. Linde [103] presented the modeling methods of FML in
ABAQUS and insist the requirement of VUMAT to capture failure
modes. Information about the importance of interface elements
and available options to create those kinds of elements are also
presented. Surely the details scripted in this article will give con-
sistent knowledge for new researchers in this area. List of articles
devoted to impact behavior of FMLs through commercial FE soft-
ware are summarized in Table 3 and the details are briefed in sub-
sequent sections.
Generally, modeling of damage in composite ply under impact
with intermediate stain rate is classied in to four approaches
[105]:
(i) Failure criteria approach (dependent on equivalent stress
and strain).
(ii) Fracture mechanics approach (dependent on energy release
rate).
(iii) Plasticity or yield surface approach.
(iv) Damage mechanics approach (dependent on degradation of
material property).
Likewise, to capture the plasticity effects metal layer was repre-
sented as elastic-plastic material with rate dependent behavior
and either tensile or shear or user specied failure criteria was
used as a damage model.
3.3. Importance of cohesive elements in FML modeling
Cohesive elements are special kind of nite elements used to
model some discontinuities like adhesive patches, interfacial layers
in composites and some other situations in which interfacial
strength concept is required. They have been used to model the re-
gions which are crack prone, delamination in the case of compos-
ites etc. The mechanical behavior of these elements depend on the
kind of constitutive relations implemented while analysis. The de-
tails of modeling and available constitutive relations in commercial
FE software ABAQUS (which is widely used to carry out Impact
analysis of laminated composites) are briefed here. The mechanical
constitutive responses of cohesive elements are classied in to
three categories:
(i) Continuum-based modeling in which the mechanical prop-
erties of adhesives are obtained through experiments and
those values are directly used in FE simulations. This kind
of modeling is applicable only when the adhesive layer has
some nite thickness.
As cured 2/1 lay-up
crack
+
+ +
+
+ + + + +

Aluminium
Aluminium
Fibre/epoxy
Post-stretched 2/1 lay-up
Internal loads
Internal +
tension load
High stress concentration Lower stress concentration
+
+ +
+
+ + + + + + + + +

+ + + + +

Fig. 10. Effect of post-stretching on fatigue crack growth [24].

(ii) Traction-separation based modeling which often involves
modeling bonded layer between composites. The response
of the interface layer is represented in terms of traction vs.
relative displacement across them. This type of modeling is
used when the adhesive or bonded layer has very small
thickness or even zero thickness.
Table 3
Selective summary of numerical modeling work on low-velocity impact of composites and FML.
Refs. Year Software
utilized
Key aspects
Numerical studies on composites
[87] 2003 ABAQUS Both in-plane and out-of-plane damage failure modes are accurately simulated based on stiffness degradation technique
Since strain values are more continuum than stress, strain based Hashin and Ye delamination failure criteria was expressed as
UMAT to simulate in-plane and out-of-plane failure modes
[84] 2008 LS-DYNA - Created a 3-D failure model based on continuum damage mechanics (CDM) with sufcient control over mode of failure through
the quantity of energy dissipation.
[83] 2008 ABAQUS A 3-D Elasto-plastic constitutive model and critical damage area (CDA) failure theory were implemented as a UMAT in ABAQUS to
investigate the transverse impact behavior of 3-D orthogonal woven composite panels.
[82] 2008 FORTRAN Developed a novel FE code to study the transient dynamic impact behavior based on Mindlin-Reissner rst order shear deforma-
tion theory.
Consideration of geometric non-linearity, limited to linear elastic region, no material damage model are some of the pro and cons
of the code.
[86] 2009 User friendly FE
code
Coupling Reddys layer wise theory with 3-D elasticity approach, a complete 3-D FE code named IMPLW3D (Impact response, 3-D
elasticity based layerwise approach) was formulated.
The generality of the code was studied through different impact event related and material related parameters and the accuracy
of the code was veried by comparing the results with the other studies.
[80] 2009 LS-DYNA A novel micro-mechanical material model had been developed to account two important mechanical behavior of uni-directional
polymer matrix composites namely strain-rate dependency through visco-plastic constitutive relations and progressive post-fail-
ure behavior through CDM.
[85] 2010 ABAQUS Implementing VUMAT having 3-D stress based Hashin failure criteria for developing intra-laminar damage and Yeh criteria for
developing inter-laminar damage.
[90] 2010 ABAQUS Implementing non-linear elasto-plastic shear formulation in intra-laminar damage model allows calculating post impact perma-
nent indentation accurately.
[77] 2012 ABAQUS Used stress based failure criterion for damage initiation; Hashin criteria for bre and tensile matrix failure and Puck & Schurmann
damage model for compressive matrix failure.
Damage Propagation was estimated through strain based failure criteria for tensile and compressive failure modes and Soutis
semi-empirical expression for non-linear shear behavior.
With Camanho stress failure criteria and fracture mechanics based appropriate mixed-mode damage models was used to capture
complete delamination initiation and propagation respectively.
[79] 2012 ABAQUS VUMAT composed of full 3-D Maimi damage model for intra-laminar damage and mixed-mode damage model for interlaminate
damage was implemented.
Extent of damage at any interface or ply level and post-impact compression strength were clearly simulated.
[75] 2012 ABAQUS Simulate permanent indentation after impact using plastic-like model in matrix cracking interfaces.
Developed numerical model accounts sound interaction between intra-laminar and inter-laminar damage.
[76] 2013 ABAQUS Introduced anisotropic elasto-plastic material model incorporated with bre failure based on maximum stress criterion via
VUMAT provide a contended method to predict permanent indentation.
With thanks to bi-linear traction-separation law for the interface cohesive elements, delamination had also been simulated
efciently.
Numerical studies on FML
[91] 2008 LS-DYNA Model the low velocity impact on FML along with user-dened material subroutine based on continuum damage mechanics
(CDM) for composite layers.
The post-processing results shows delamination is not a signicant damage in low-velocity impact.
[92] 2009 ABAQUS Thermoplastic based FML with elastic-plastic metal layers and an isotropic composite layer was simulated.
Appropriate failure criteria with relevant element removal function were dened for both the metal and composite layer to model
a simulation with high reliability.
[61] 2010 ABAQUS Numerical study was carried out to demonstrate the effect of different impact energies on carbon based FML using 2-D stress
based Hashin damage model for composite layer.
Metal layer was free from damage criteria because the author assumes low velocity impact doesnt produce enough damage due
to its high ductility nature.
[93] 2010 ABAQUS Necessity of solid elements over continuum shell elements, importance of 3D Hashin failure criteria over its 2D form on low-
velocity impact were demonstrated extensively through numerical simulation.
[43] 2011 ABAQUS Metal types and thickness effect were studied in numerical and the robustness of the model was inspected through experimental
results.
Apart from other factors, proper element selection is dominating to evaluate the accuracy of numerical modeling of FML under
low-velocity impact.
[63] 2011 ABAQUS Effect of impactor size, target size and impact location were studied numerically.
General contact interaction between the stacking layers, surface-to-surface contact between impactor and target, tensile failure
and shear failure criteria for metal layers, 2D Hashin failure criteria for composite layers are some of the important facts in this
particular simulation.
[33] 2011 ABAQUS An explicit numerical model dening adhesive layer in between the metal and composite layer, interface layer using cohesive
elements to simulate interlaminar delamination was developed. - External and internal damage effects on each metal face sheets
and embedded composite layers were accurately found by computing absorbed energy on each stacking layers.
[68] 2011 LS-DYNA Glass based multilayered FML was modeled using shell elements and both intra and inter laminar failure was specied using
appropriate damage criteria.
Contour plots for different composite failure was able to obtain which helps to quantify the magnitude of damage and its severity.
[47] 2012 ABAQUS A detailed 3D stress based Hashin failure criteria was implemented through subroutine VUMAT to capture the damage phenom-
enon of composites and Johnson cook damage model for metal layers.
(iii) Uniaxial stress state method which is applicable for gasket
modeling. This is out of scope of our study, so it is not dis-
cussed here.
Regarding modeling with cohesive elements, there are different
ways to model the interface layer. The available modeling tech-
niques of cohesive zones for composite layers using ABAQUS is de-
picted in Fig. 12. Recently in contrast to cohesive element
modeling, Curiel [106] introduced a novel technique called eX-
tended Finite Element Method (XFEM) to model the delamination
of composite specimens specically GLARE. This method has mesh
independency on damage initiation and use interface enrichment
functions to dene discontinuous elds. This helps to capture the
material response near the singularity region (crack tip) and allow
displacement jumps to simulate crack propagation. But, the appli-
cation of this method is still in its development stage.
3.4. Numerical modeling of FML with FE software
Laliberte [91] reported the modeling methodology of low veloc-
ity impact on FMLs using commercial FE software LS-DYNA. Degra-
dation of material properties due to the formation of damage was
implemented in user-dened material subroutine (UMAT) based
on continuum- damage mechanics (CDM) theories. Three different
simulation methods for GLARE were analyzed and the output re-
sponses were compared with the experimental results:
(i) Tied-interface having elastic-plastic metal and elastic prepeg
layer; which under predict the absorbed energy, permanent
deection and over predict peak impact force and layer stiffness.
(ii) Tie break-interface having elastic-plastic metal and elastic
prepeg layer; which resembles same nature as mentioned
in rst method with slightly high peak impact force value.
(iii) Tie break-interface having elasticplastic metal and UMAT
dened prepeg layer; a model to simulate delamination
which under-predict the absorbed energy and over-predict
the permanent deection and peak impact force.
The author concluded that intra-laminar damage (matrix crack,
bre damage) has greater effect on the impact response than inter-
laminar damage (delamination) and a numerical model incorporat-
ing UMAT shows better correlation with experimental tests.
Fig. 11. Typical owchart for numerical modeling of impact process using ABAQUS/explicit.
ABAQUS/Explicit has an ability to carry out numerical simula-
tion of FML under projectile impacts up to velocity of 150 m/s
[92]. The level of accuracy is primarily inuenced by the kind of
elements selected to model metal and composite layers [43]. ABA-
QUS/explicit element library consist two or three dimensional
modied second order interpolation elements. Most of the re-
search article used hexahedral solid elements (C3D8R) for the alu-
minum layers and either hexahedral solid elements or hexahedral
shell continuum elements (SC8R) for composite layer modeling.
Guan [92] quoted composite laminate failed under tension (as
like due to impact) cannot be modeled with element removal func-
tion based on Tsai-Wu failure criteria in commercial code like ABA-
QUS. For composite layers, many research articles developed user
material sub-routine using Hashin damage initiation criteria
[47,61,63,93] to simulate the impact event in ABAQUS. This crite-
rion considers four different failure modes mechanisms with the
general stress based 3D forms as tabulated in Table 4.
Seo [93] carried out a detailed numerical study of GLARE spec-
imens subjected to low-velocity impact using ABAQUS/Explicit.
This article provides comparative and comprehensive information
about the efciency of 2-D and 3-D based modeling elements.
Comparative study was made between the following three catego-
ries of simulations:
(i) Elasticplastic metal layer and composite layer with no fail-
ure model.
(ii) Elasticplastic continuum solid element metal layer and
continuum shell element composite layer with inbuilt pla-
nar strain based Hashin failure model.
(iii) Elastic-plastic continuumsolid element metal layer and con-
tinuum solid element composite layer with user dened 3-D
strain based Hashin failure model.
The material response due to impact was evaluated based on
damage mechanics approach. The author concluded that results
of a complete 3-D based failure model were found good agreement
with experimental data in all parametric aspects.
Song [61] simulated the impact performance of carbon bre
based FML called CARAL using ABAQUS FE software at different im-
pact energy levels. FEM model having solid element metal layer
and shell element CFRP layer with 2-D stress based Hashin damage
criteria was used. Impact force histories shown good agreement
with experimental values but, the absence of failure model to me-
tal layer resembles more contradictions at higher energy levels.
Fan [62,63] investigated the effect of target size, impactor size
and the location of impact through numerical simulation. Perfora-
tion threshold (or amount of absorbed impacted energy) was the
parameter taken to characterize the impact response of above
mentioned effects. Finally, the author reported that impactor size
and target size is directly proportional to the perforation threshold,
and also that the location of impact has no signicant effect. Exper-
imental and numerical simulated results have shown good
agreement.
The behavior of titanium based FMLs were extensively investi-
gated in reference [33]. Interfacial debonding between the layers
and crack initiation on non-impacted side was manually applied
by input the values as analytical steps at appropriate nodal loca-
tions and contact time. Including plasticity effects of metal layer,
damage model for metal, composite and interface layers are some
of its salient features but similar to reference [6163] instead of 3D
only 2D based failure criteria was applied to composite layers. This
reects some discrepancies in the damage area evolution. On visu-
alizing the sectional damage area of all layers through numerical
simulations, the author documented the presence of metal layer
on the non-impacted side protected the enclosed internal GFRP
layers from impact damage.
The inuence of element types for modeling the FML layers was
greatly studied by Sadhigi [43]. The author modeled two different
groups of models utilizing solid element for metal layers in both
the groups and solid element for composite layers in rst group
and shell element for the later. The numerical results revealed solid
elements shows better agreement with the experimental results
than shell elements. But similar to the above mentioned articles,
this article is also limited to 2-D based failure criteria for composite
layers.
Tsartsaris [68] simulated glass based FMLs to investigate its low-
velocity impact response using LSDYNA3D nite element code.
Meso-scale approach was utilized to model the FML layers having
elastic plastic metal layers and linear elastic GFRP layer with
Chang-Chang failure criteria. Also, the warping stiffness of the layers
was controlled through appropriate hourglass values. To activate in-
ter-laminar damage between the layers, a bilinear traction-separa-
tion law with quadratic mixed mode criterion was used. With the
help of post processing software, the author managed to get layer-
wise delamination area and reported only 10% discrepancy with
experimental observed data. Also, energy absorbed by individual
ply was obtained by plotting energy vs time history of each ply as
shown in Fig. 13. Having dominant shear stress than tensile and
compressive stresses, metal layers place on the middle surfaces ab-
sorb less energy than one placed in the outer regions.
Recently Zhu and Chai [47] reported a numerical modeling of
low velocity impact response on glass bre reinforced metal lami-
Table 4
General 3-D stress based Hashins Failure criteria for composite layers.
Fibre tension (r
11
P0: F
t
f

r11
X
T
2
a
r12r
2
13
S
L

2
Fibre compression (r
11
< 0): F
c
f

r11
X
C
2
Matrix tension (r
22
r
33
P0): F
t
m

r22r33
Y
T
_ _
2
r
2
12
r
2
13
S12
2

r
2
23
r22r33
S23
2
Matrix compression (r
22
r
33
< 0): F
c
m

r22r33
2
2S23
2

Y
C
2S23
2
1
_ _
r22r33
Y
C
_ _
r
2
12
r
2
13
S
2
12

r
2
23
r22r33
S
2
23

nates. 8-noded hexahedral solid brick element was used to model
both the metal and composite layer. The regions of impact and
boundary surfaces are the critical locations so these regions are -
nely meshed and other regions are coarsely meshed as in Fig. 14. A
Johnson-cook damage criterion was used to determine the dam-
age behavior of ductile aluminium layer and 3-D stress based Ha-
shin damage criteria for brittle composite layers. The nodes of
interface layers are tied together for maintaining continuity and
surface-to-surface contact interaction was dened to model the
interaction between impactor and target. The variation of strain
rate-displacement, contact force-displacement and damage behav-
ior shows good agreement with experimental results.
Setoodeh [86] developed an user friendly FE code IMPLW3D
comprising three dimensional elasticity based approach coupled
with Reddys layer-wise laminated plate has the capability to de-
scribe the dynamic behavior of both thick and thin composite plate
for an ideal contact problem accurately. This kind of relaxation is
not possible in commercially available FE softwares like ABAQUS,
LS-DYNA. From the knowledge of author, no such efcient user de-
ned FE model is found for the impact analysis of FML. Thus, invok-
ing such kind of numerical modeling may reveal adequate
information on transverse load cases like low-velocity impact.
Apart from the articles [47,93] briefed above, all the other arti-
cles utilize only the inbuilt 2-D Hashin failure criteria to model the
failure model for brittle composite layers. Implementing user de-
ned 3-D stress or strain based Hashin failure model in ABAQUS
may give more realistic and accurate response for different inu-
encing parameters.
4. Analytical modeling of low velocity impact on FMLs
As mentioned in Section 2, the response of structure to the im-
pact depends on many parameters. Thus, conducting an experi-
mental based research will be much expensive and time
consuming. Likewise, being a non-linear dynamic transient prob-
lem, need to implement damage failure criterias require surplus
super computational facilities to simulate an efcient numerical
FE models to capture complete anatomy of the mechanism. In
addition, we already mentioned various complexities present in
the numerical modeling of FML in Section 3. In order to have some
initial perception about the dynamic impact response, necessity to
calculate some critical ranges (for e.g., to evaluate minimum thick-
ness of the structure to avoid complete perforation at particular
peak impact energy) and for optimization applications, complete
or quasi analytical modeling is very much appreciated and needed.
In this section, rst the basic principles of impact dynamics re-
quired to formulate the analytical models is summarized followed
by the developments in analytical models of composite structures
are briefed and historical developments in analytical models of no-
vel FML is reviewed towards the end.
4.1. Morphology of impact dynamics
Impact resistance is the ability of structure to resist fracture un-
der stress applied at very high speed. The impact energy is the
measure of toughness of the material and to calculate its character-
istics, accurate information about variation of contact force during
the contact time is required. Impact is a sudden dynamic contact
event between the rigid impactor and target. For accurate predic-
tion of contact force history F(t), the local indentation in the con-
tact region needs to be accounted.
Indentation is the distance between impactor tip and the target
surface as in Fig. 15 while the impactor has higher rigidity than the
target, it create some local deformations when it impinges. The
relationship between contact force and the indentation is given
Fig. 12. (A) Cohesive elements share nodes with surrounding elements. (B) Discretization details of node sharing between cohesive and surrounding elements. (C)
Independent meshes with tie constraints. (D) Surface based cohesive interaction.
Fig. 13. Energy curve for each individual ply of A=0=90=A
S
FML where A refers to
aluminium ply and the rest are unidirectional GFRP [68].
by the contact law but the behavior of contact force between the
impactor and the target is difcult to notice. In the case of low
velocity impact, the time period of impact is long than the time
period of rst mode shape of the plate, the resulting response is as-
sumed to be quasi-static [107]. For these cases, Hertz contact law
can be applied to trace the contact force history and it is given by:
Ft k
c
a
3
2
t 3
where a is the indentation and k
c
the modied Hertz contact stiff-
ness is given by k
c

4
3
ER
1
2
and
1
R
1
R
1
1
R
2
and
1
E
1m
2
1
E
1
1m
2
2
E
2
where
R
1
; E
1
; m
1
and R
2
; E
2
; m
2
are the equivalent radius of curvature,
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio of the impactor and target
respectively.
However in composite laminates, the existent of permanent
indentation is found even in low impact energies and this shows
some inadequacy of Hertz law to capture the contact force during
unloading and subsequent reloading [108]. To overcome this de-
ciency, modied Hertzian law was developed by Tan and Sun [109]
as follows [110]:
F F
m
a a
0
a
m
a
0
_ _
2:5
During unloading 4
F F
m
a a
0
a
m
a
0
_ _
1:5
During subsequent re-loading 5
where F
m
is the maximum contact force, a
m
is the maximum inden-
tation, and a
0
is the permanent indentation.
With this short basic knowledge, the developed low-velocity
impact (large mass and quasi-static response) related mathemati-
cal formulations for laminated composite materials and their cor-
responding super hybrid FML are presented in the following
sections.
4.2. Solution methods
Different analytical solution methods were formulated by many
researchers from the past decades to analyze the response of com-
posite structures under impact load [9,13,14,16,17,111115].
There is a general necessity and basic mechanics of any particular
impact problem is required in order to select an effective and ef-
cient solution model to obtain an accurate solution. The solution
will vary based on the nature (elastic, plastic, anisotropy, low-
velocity, High-velocity, blast impact) and condition of problem
(innite, nite, thin, thick plate), the level of non-linearity, size of
the equations and availability of input data. So, proper solution
method is required to get simple, reasonable compact results.
According to Abrate [116], the available solution models are classi-
ed into four categories; spring-mass models [16,117], energy-bal-
ance models [9,112,118], complete models [17] based on Classical
Plate theory (CPT), Mindlins First order Shear Deformation Theory
(FSDT) [119] and some novelty methods [120].
4.3. Analytical developments in FML
In most of the available analytical model based literature, for
the case of low velocity impact, the time period of impact is longer
than the time period of rst mode shape of the plate. So, the prop-
agation of stress wave towards boundary edge and higher order
vibration modes are negligible and the resulting response is as-
sumed to be quasi-static. This is the valid and accepted assumption
as stated by most of the researchers [6,107,121] as long as velocity
of impact is very small or the target is impacted by large mass.
Vlot [5] proposed a rst analytical model to determine the im-
pact response of FML. Based on the Goldsmith [122] spring-mass
system, solutions for plate deection, contact force, contact time
can be obtained by simply solving the governing differential equa-
tion of motion with some reasonable assumptions. For the impac-
tor of mass m
p
with initial velocity v
0
impacted on circular
specimen of equivalent mass m
eq
having stiffness, the contact be-
tween the impactor and the target was assumed constant.
Also, for the low velocity impact, the stiffness of target plate
was assumed to be constant instead of varying with deection. La-
ter, it was found this assumption is valid for small deections com-
pared to plate thickness. By calculating the total kinetic energy of
the plate, the equivalent mass of the target m
eq
was determined.
Total K:E
plate

1
2
m
eq
_ w
2
0
6
where w
0
= center deection of the target. For the case of circular
plate specimen, the equivalent mass was found
7
54
times of plate
mass. With this background, solution for the impact response was
obtained by solving the governing differential equation:
m
tot
w
0
Cw
0
0 7
where m
tot
m
eq
m
p
.
Later, instead of a rigid contact assumption stated above, Hertz-
ian contact law was used to dene the relation between contact
impactor force and deection induced. Sun [21] proposed same
kind of analysis and the damage characterization of ARALL lami-
8-noded
hexahedral solid
brick element
Fig. 14. Typical nite element model for the impact analysis of FML [47].
nates. With the help of Von karman strain displacement relations
[9], modied Hertzian contact law [109], and Newmark numerical
algorithm [111], Vlot [123] developed an efcient full scale non-
linear elastic model for impact on rectangular FML plate.
Tsamasphyros [121,124128] contributed major role to develop
analytical model for circular clamped GLARE FML under quasi-sta-
tic indentation load through series of research over the past ve
years. The static response of thin circular GLARE plate under the
action of transverse hemispherical impactor was analytically
developed [127]. The model utilize Rayleigh Ritz (or total mini-
mum potential energy) method having appropriate boundary con-
dition satised deformation function to derive load applied by
impactor P with couple of assumptions.
For obtaining compact analytical expressions, the material
behavior of aluminum and GFRP layer was assumed as rigid-per-
fectly plastic and linear elastic respectively. Also, based on experi-
mental behavior of clamped glare plates [6], the deection of the
FML plate was much larger than its total thickness, so the resis-
tance of the plate to bending was assumed negligible (all D
ij
terms)
and only the effect of membrane resistance (all A
ij
terms) was ta-
ken in to account. The author consider up to three parametric Ritz
approximate deformation function to check the solution conver-
gence. As expected, the higher parametric function was found to
converge satisfactorily.
From the obtained solution, the static response of the event was
formulated in terms of load P vs. central lateral displacement w
0
along with load value to cause rst failure in GFRP layer. Since the
target plate aspect ratio (radius/thickness) is very high, the contri-
bution of shear deformation and local indentation was assumed
negligible in the above calculation. The above obtained solution
was validated with results from ANSYS based FE modeling [128].
The comparison graph conrms the consistency of the analytical
model. Later, various scenarios of different commercially available
glare grades had been studied and the ranges of rst failure load
was calculated analytically and compared graphically.
The dynamic response of circular GLARE FML plates with
clamped boundary condition was studied by Tsamasphyros [125].
The author utilizes spring mass system having single degrees of
freedom as a mathematical model to formulate the phenomenon.
The details of the considered mathematical model and their
nomenclature and boundary conditions are presented in Fig. 16.
In the gure, the symbols M
0
and m
e
are the mass of impactor
and effective plate mass respectively, k
p
, k
el
are the stiffness due
to plastic and membrane effects respectively and w
o
is the center
plate deection under the impactor. The total response of the prob-
lem is usually divided in to three stages with different initial con-
ditions as shown in Table 5.
The rst stage begins when the impactor comes into contact
with the target plate and increases the impact load till the critical
value of load causes delamination. The initial conditions are dis-
placement of the central target plate under the impactor is zero
and the velocity of the impactor was represented as v. The second
stage starts from the time period at which the delamination occurs
among the GFRP layers and ceases when the velocity of impactor
decreases to zero. The initial conditions are displacement of the
target plate at which the delamination initiates w
d
o
and the initial
velocity is nothing but the nal velocity of rst stage. Finally the
third stage covers the position of the impactor from the maximum
target plate displacement to the time at which impactor force re-
duces to zero.
The stiffness values involved in the governing differential equa-
tions are taken from previous Ritz method based static response
formulation:
K
p
0:576N
x
0:576N
y
0:734N
xy
8
K
el

1
a
2
0:62A
11
0:62A
22
0:412A
12
2A
66
9
where N
x
, N
y
and N
xy
are the in-plane forces in the aluminum layer
and A
ij
are the extensional stiffness of the GFRP laminates.
By solving the three initial value problems of Table 5, the
author can predict histories of contact load, displacement, veloc-
ity, kinetic energy [125]. After the impact event, the impacted
FML plate will have some permanent deection because the ap-
plied load is beyond the elastic limit even at very low impact en-
ergy level [6]. After the impact event the state at which impactor
load is completely removed, the permanently deected plate is
still in equilibrium due to the internal residual stress available
in it. Using this condition, the author can able to calculate the
permanent dent depth (or indentation) w
per
o
[126]. In his recent
article [121], the above mentioned governing differential equation
of motion are transformed to Dufng equation (a second order or-
dinary differential equation) form and calculate all the impact
characteristics by solving analytically with appropriate initial
conditions.
Malekzadeh extended his series of analytical modeling research
works on impact [86,117,129131] to the low-velocity impact re-
sponse to FML [132]. The author assumes a 2-DOF spring mass sys-
tem as a mathematical model as the details shown in Fig. 17. In the
gure, the symbols m
I
, m
p
, x
1
and x
2
represents mass, displacement
of impactor and FML plate respectively and, k
1
, k
2
represents con-
tact and bending-shear stiffness respectively.
Instead of using Hertz non-linear contact law, the author imple-
mented Chois linearized contact law [133] for calculating the con-
tact force history. At rst, two coupled governing differential
equation of motion with appropriate initial conditions are solved
numerically to obtain the contact history of the impact event.
The governing equations are:
m
I
x
1
k
1
x
1
x
2
0 10

C

I
impactor
t c a p m I e r o f e B target
After Impact
Fig. 15. Before and after impact.
Table 5
Governing differential equations of motion and initial conditions.
Stage Governing differential equation of motion Initial conditions
Initial displacement Initial velocity
Loading stage before delamination M
0
me wo Kpwo K
el
w
3
o
0 w
o
(0) = 0 _ wo0 v
Loading stage after delamination M
0
me wo Kpwo K
el
w
3
o
0 wo0 w
d
o
_ wo0 _ w
o2
Unloading stage M
0
me wo 2Kpwo K
el
w
3
o
Kpw
max
o
0 wo0 w
max
o
_ wo0 0
m
P
x
2
k
2
x
2
k
1
x
1
x
2
0 11
with the initial conditions of x
1
0 x
2
0 0; _ x
1
0 v; _ x
2
0 0 .
The obtained contact force history was substituted to Mindlins
rst order shear deformation theory. The complete equation of mo-
tion was formulated in terms of Naviers approach having all un-
known variables (deection, in-plane shear deformations) in
terms of Fourier series. The nal equations are solved numerically
with the help of mathematical solver MATLAB, and all the struc-
tural characteristics like deection under the impactor, strain,
stress informations are found. The author investigates the inu-
ence of metal layer sequence, mass and velocity of impactor, aspect
ratio of FML plate. But, neglecting the membrane effect, rotary
inertia, plasticity behavior of layers, implementing linearized con-
tact law and excluding the damage effects are some of the major
limitations of this research.
Abatan [134] reported two simple analytical solutions based on
the classical plate theory and shear deformation theory for simply
supported plate subjected to central impact load. Solution for
transverse displacement history was obtained based on Naviers
type formulations as represented elsewhere in this report. The ef-
fect of three different impact load pulse rectangular wave, sine
wave and dirac delta was investigated with the obtained solution.
On comparing the displacement histories of the two solution
methods with the experimental results, classical plate theory re-
sult shows close resemblance than its counterpart.
Inuence of the cross section material distribution, metal vol-
ume fraction, number of layers and relative ply thickness was stud-
ied. From the developed analytical model, it was found that the
former two factors have a signicant effect but the latter two does
not. In another article [135], Abatan reported a simplistic linear
model to predict the impact force history based on Newtons law
of motion. This model has the ability to evaluate impact force his-
tory from the known impact energy (i.e, Impact velocity). Despite
of the above capabilities, the proposed model is restricted to only
elastic behavior of structure.
Caprino [136] observed the variation of load (P)displacement
(d) for different impact energy level and formulated a second order
semi-empirical polynomial equation relating the impact force and
displacement for both loading and unloading phase. The contact
history was obtained by calculating duration of loading (t
1
) and
unloading (t
2
) phase based on the following relation;
t
1

_
dmax
0
V
1
t
dd and t
2

_
dr
dmax
V
1
t
dd. Where V
t
is the velocity
of impactor. Fig. 18 depicts the obtained relations and its accuracy
level on impact characteristics curve.
Where P
L
and P
UL
is the impact load during loading and un-load-
ing phase respectively and a, b, a
u
, b
u
, c
u
are the constants deter-
mined based on experimental data. In fact the above proposed
model covers the behavior of complete impact event, but it is valid
till there is no sudden discontinuity later the above semi-empirical
model is completely violated. So, this model is limited only for ini-
tial designs and validation purposes.
Recently, Moriniere [69,137] developed a comprehensive quasi-
static analytical model to study the low-velocity impact response
of rectangular clamped GLARE FML plates under hemispherical in-
denter. Different impact variables are collected and aggregate in to
a unique problem based on FSDT, CLT, energy conservation princi-
ple and newtons law of motion. The contribution of metal, com-
posite layer and its interaction on impact response are taken in
to account through the modied form of deection function given
by Lin [138]. The boundary condition satised function has maxi-
mum deection (w
max
) at the center of rectangular plate having
length a and width b along with the modied deection prole
has the following form:
where w
0
Al

wmax
1
Ra
aa

m
1
R
b
bb
_ _
m
w
0
GE

wmax
1
Ra
aa

n
1
R
b
bb
_ _
n with a Pb; 0 6 a 6 1; 0 6 b 6 1
The above function accomplish deection prole shapes near the
contact region (i.e form 0 to R
a
, R
b
) and stretched region around it
(i.e form R
a
to a/2, R
b
to b/2). Integration of strain rate effects, inu-
ence of metal plasticity, and consideration of both intraply and
interplay damage scenarios, including the material behavior of both
aluminum and unidirectional composite layers are some of the
important features in the current developed model.
M
0
+m
e
w
o
k
p
k
el
3
o el o p
w k w k +
o e
w m M & & ) (
0
+
Fig. 16. Typical mathematical model used for the dynamic response of glare FML
plate.
Fig. 17. Mathematical model and corresponding free body diagram.
wx; y
w
max
0 6 x 6 R
a
; 0 6 y 6 R
b
MVF:w
0
Al
1
x
aa
_ _
m
1
y
bb
_ _
m
R
a
6 x 6
a
2
; R
b
6 y 6
b
2
1 MVF:w
0
GE
1
x
aa
_ _
n
_ _
1
y
bb
n
_ _
_
_
12
However, the effect of transverse stress components was as-
sumed to be negligible in the present analyses; this model is re-
stricted only to thin laminates. Apart from that restriction, this is
the only unique model which provides complete information of
material and its damage behavior through accurately predicted
histories of impact force, velocity, deection, energy and other re-
lated impact characteristics curves.
In a nutshell, from the knowledge attained through this review
the analytical model to study low-velocity impact response related
to FML is still in at its infant stage. All the above presented models
have their own limitations. Some models are limited to elastic re-
gion [134], some requires experimental informations [136], some
using linearized contact law [132], some requires suitable dis-
placement function assumption [121] and some models neglect
transverse stress and strain components (i.e. plane stress assump-
tion) [69]. Also, apart from the work of Moriniere [69], none of the
other analytical models accounts the damage phenomenon but
even this model is restricted only to simply supported boundaries
and for thin plates. For implementing similar kind of approach to
other boundary conditions, suitable displacement function must
be derived and this will impose further complexity.
5. Concluding remarks
Since the origin of FML concept in 1950, there is a stringent re-
search activity taking place to nd its application in vast elds
demanding high strength to weight ratio. Recently, GLARE nds
its application as a fuselage material for A380 because of its low
density, high strength and better impact resistance than mono-
lithic aluminum. This will spur the research community to improve
and develop many optimum FMLs and widen its application.
Numerous experimental investigations were carried out for the
past 20 years to determine the behavior of FML under various con-
ditions like static, dynamic (low, high velocity, blast) loading. In
this paper, the low-velocity impact characteristics of FML were dis-
cussed based on the previous research articles contributing to
experimental, numerical and analytical solution methods. Some
of the important conclusions and future research work possibilities
are summarized below:
From the review, the response of FML to low velocity impact
involve many parameters like type of metal, bre, matrix, stack-
ing sequence, metal volume fraction, impactor geometry, target
shape, post-stretch percentage etc. This huge interdependency
results difculty to attain the optimum FML. Thus, nding
major factors using some Design of Experiments (DOE) methods
like ANNOVA may be useful to select optimum FML species for
relevant applications [139].
GLARE has superior impact behavior than other currently avail-
able FMLs. Some research article posted that the implement of
shape memory alloys in hybrid composites improve its impact
performance [140]. Analyzing FML based on shape memory
alloy may give benecial performance.
On doping the metal layers with the commercial composites,
FML shows relatively high fatigue and impact resistance.
Instead of utilizing epoxy (thermoset) adhesives which has
toughness deciency, implementing compatible elastomer-
modied epoxy adhesives to adhere adjacent metal and com-
posite layers in FML may improve the toughness which reects
the enhancement of above mentioned material properties.
In the case of GLARE, both aluminum and glass prepegs are
strain rate sensitive materials. Glass composite laminates
shows different behavior under quasi-static and dynamic load-
ing cases [141]. From the knowledge of the author, apart from
few FML related article [44,69] no other articles discuss this
inuence explicitly.
Impact on FML is characterized as BVD (Barely Visible Damage)
when it is impacted at very low impact energy. Post-Impact fati-
gue behavior is extreme important for these kind of cases in
order to predict the fail safe period after impact. Studies related
to this topic are very limited [55]. Similar kind of extensive
analysis is highly appreciated to understand the failure
progression.
At the time of review, there is no comparative study that relates
thermoplastic and thermoset composites in FML structure
under low-velocity impact was found [12].
Many applications in aircrafts experience vast temperature
range approximately -20 C to 80 C. Currently there is no pub-
lished study on the effect of temperature and other environ-
mental effects like moisture on the structural response of FML
subjected to low-velocity impact.
Apart from few articles [47,93], all the quoted literatures in this
report utilize 2-D based failure model for simulating the mate-
rial behavior of composite layers. Modeling the plies using solid
element with 3-D failure model is needed to simulate the
through thickness behavior during impact event.
With the evolution of advanced computational technology,
using commercially available softwares like ABAQUS, LS-DYNA
with appropriate user dened subroutine program in three
dimensions and modeling the interface layers with cohesive
elements [33] are recommended to clearly predict damage ini-
tiation, propagation and inter-laminar damage (Delamination)
in order to understand what happens inside each layer of FML.
There are limited number of articles found related to the analyt-
ical solution of impact response of FML. Nearly 80% of them are
applicable only to elastic region. Developing a new effective
Fig. 18. Typical illustration of proposed semi-emprical model for both loading and un-loading phase. (a) Force (P)-displacement (d) curve (b) force (P)-time (t) curve.
analytical model that is able to capture the elastic-plastic char-
acteristics based on the nature of experimental results would be
useful for efcient and economical design of these structures.
From the knowledge of review, most of the analytical models
are formulated based on plane stress assumption. Similar to
the model represented in Ref. [142], Implementing Reddys
layer wise theory to account transverse stress and strain effects
may helpful to study the inter-laminar damage behavior which
is the major phenomenon in case of FML.
Most of the available analytical and numerical studies are
restricted to either simply supported or clamped boundary con-
ditions having standard geometry like rectangular, circular
shapes with center impact. None of the article is found having
a comparative analysis of the above mentioned different bound-
ary and geometry conditions. Such a vast comparative study is
required to extract the detailed behavior of FMLs similar to
the article Ref. [142] regarding composite laminates.
Having high ductility, impact behavior of FML has shown excel-
lent response than honeycomb sandwich panels [143]. Develop-
ing a novel type of sandwich panel with FML as a facesheet may
widen the applications of current sandwich panels.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support in the form of a research student scholar-
ship provided by Nanyang Technological University, and the per-
mission to use the laboratory and computing facilities at the
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering are truly
acknowledged. The funding of the NTU-DLR collaboration must
also be acknowledged here. It must also be mentioned that the fab-
rication of test specimens by nal year students are acknowledged.
References
[1] Vlot A VL, Vries JT. Towards application of ber-metal laminates. Aircraft Eng
Aerosp Technol 1999;71:55870.
[2] Straznicky PV, Laliberte JF, Poon C, Fahr A. Applications of ber-metal
laminates. Polym Compos 2000;21:55867.
[3] Guocai Wu JMY. The mechanical behavior of GLARE laminates for aircraft
structures. JOM 2005:729.
[4] Sinmazelik T, Avcu E, Bora M, oban O. A review: bre metal laminates
background bonding types and applied test methods. Mater Des
2011;32:367185.
[5] Vlot A. Impact properties of bre metal laminates. Compos Eng
1993;3:91127.
[6] Vlot A. Impact loading on bre metal laminates. Int J Impact Eng
1996;18:291307.
[7] Khan SU, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Post-stretching induced stress
redistribution in Fibre Metal Laminates for increased fatigue crack growth
resistance. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:396405.
[8] Vogelesang LB, Vlot A. Development of bre metal laminates for advanced
aerospace structures. J Mater Process Technol 2000;103:15.
[9] Shivakumar KN, Elber W, Illg W. Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in
thin circular laminates. AIAA J 1985;23:4429.
[10] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. The impact resistance of composite materialsa
review. Composites 1991;22:34762.
[11] Richardson MOW, Wisheart MJ. Review of low-velocity impact properties of
composite materials. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 1996;27:112331.
[12] Sadighi M, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Impact resistance of ber-metal
laminates: a review. Int J Impact Eng 2012;49:7790.
[13] Ramkumar RL, Chen PC. Low-velocity impact response of laminated plates.
AIAA J 1983;21:144852.
[14] Sankar BV, Sun CT. Low-velocity impact response of laminated beams
subjected to initialstresses. AIAA J 1985;23:19629.
[15] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. Comparison of the low and high velocity impact
response of CFRP. Composites 1989;20:54551.
[16] Pang SS, Zhao Y, Yang C, Grifn SA. Impact response of composite laminates
with a hemispherical indenter. Polym Eng Sci 1991;31:14616.
[17] Pierson MO, Vaziri R. Analytical solution for low-velocity impact response of
composite plates. AIAA J 1996;34:163340.
[18] Goo N, Kim S. Dynamic contact analysis of laminated composite plates under
low-velocity impact. AIAA J 1997;35:151821.
[19] Lee Y-S, Kang K-H, Park O. Response of hybrid laminated composite plates
under low-velocity impact. Comput Struct 1997;65:96574.
[20] Botelho EC SR, Pardini LC, Rezende MC. A review on the development and
properties of continuous ber/epoxy/aluminium hybrid composites for
aircraft structures. Mater Res 2006;9:24756.
[21] Sun CT, Dicken A, Wu HF. Characterization of impact damage in ARALL
laminates. Compos Sci Technol 1993;49:13944.
[22] Vlot A, Gunnink JW. Fibre metal laminates: an introduction. Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2001.
[23] Liu Y, Liaw B. Effects of constituents and lay-up conguration on drop-weight
tests of ber-metal laminates. Appl Compos Mater 2009;17:4362.
[24] Vlot A, Van Ingen JW. Delamination resistance of post-stretched bre metal
laminates. J Compos Mater 1998;32:1784805.
[25] Corts P, Cantwell WJ. The fracture properties of a bre-metal laminate based
on magnesium alloy. Compos B Eng 2005;37:16370.
[26] Alderliesten R, Rans C, Benedictus R. The applicability of magnesium based
bre metal laminates in aerospace structures. Compos Sci Technol
2008;68:298393.
[27] Prnnen T, Alderliesten R, Rans C, Brander T, Saarela O. Applicability of
AZ31B-H24 magnesium in Fibre Metal Laminates an experimental impact
research. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2012;43:157886.
[28] Burianek DA, Spearing SM. Delamination growth from face sheet seams in
cross-ply titanium/graphite hybrid laminates. Compos Sci Technol
2001;61:2619.
[29] Burianek DA, Spearing SM. Fatigue damage in titanium-graphite hybrid
laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:60717.
[30] Rhymer DW, Johnson WS. Fatigue damage mechanisms in advanced hybrid
titanium composite laminates. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:9951001.
[31] Burianek DA, Giannakopoulos AE, Spearing SM. Modeling of facesheet crack
growth in titaniumgraphite hybrid laminates, Part I. Eng Fract Mech
2003;70:77598.
[32] Burianek DA, Spearing SM. Modeling of facesheet crack growth in titanium
graphite hybrid laminates. Part II: experimental results. Eng Fract Mech
2003;70:799812.
[33] Nakatani H, Kosaka T, Osaka K, Sawada Y. Damage characterization of
titanium/GFRP hybrid laminates subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos A
Appl Sci Manuf 2011;42:77281.
[34] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. Geometrical effects in the low velocity impact
response of CFRP. Compos Struct 1989;12:3959.
[35] Hitchen SA, Kemp RMJ. The effect of stacking sequence on impact damage in a
carbon bre/epoxy composite. Composites 1995;26:20714.
[36] Fuoss E, Straznicky PV, Poon C. Effects of stacking sequence on the impact
resistance in composite laminatesPart 1: parametric study. Compos Struct
1998;41:6777.
[37] Will MA, Franz T, Nurick GN. The effect of laminate stacking sequence of CFRP
lament wound tubes subjected to projectile impact. Compos Struct
2002;58:25970.
[38] Cantwell WJ. Geometrical effects in the low velocity impact response of GFRP.
Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:19008.
[39] Seyed Yaghoubi A, Liu Y, Liaw B. Stacking sequence and geometrical effects on
low-velocity impact behaviors of GLARE 5 (3/2) ber-metal laminates. J
Thermoplast Compos Mater 2011;25:22347.
[40] Lalibert J, Straznicky PV, Poon C. Impact damage in ber metal laminates,
Part 1: experiment. AIAA J 2005;43:244553.
[41] Wu G, Yang J-M, Hahn HT. The impact properties and damage tolerance and
of bi-directionally reinforced ber metal laminates. J Mater Sci
2007;42:94857.
[42] Seyed Yaghoubi A, Liaw B. Thickness inuence on ballistic impact behaviors
of GLARE 5 ber-metal laminated beams: experimental and numerical
studies. Compos Struct 2012;94:258598.
[43] Sadighi M, Prnnen T, Alderliesten RC, Sayeaftabi M, Benedictus R.
Experimental and numerical investigation of metal type and thickness
effects on the impact resistance of ber metal laminates. Appl Compos
Mater 2011;19:54559.
[44] Vlot A, Krull M. Impact damage resistance of various bre metal laminates. J
Phys IV France 1997;07. C3-1045-C3-50.
[45] Abdullah MR, Cantwell WJ. The impact resistance of polypropylene-based
bre-metal laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:168293.
[46] Fan J, Cantwell W, Guan Z. The low-velocity impact response of ber-metal
laminates. J Reinf Plast Compos 2011;30:2635.
[47] Zhu S, Chai GB. Low-velocity impact response of bre-metal laminates
experimental and nite element analysis. Compos Sci Technol 2012;72:1793802.
[48] Sankar BV. Scaling of low-velocity impact for symmetric composite
laminates. J Reinf Plast Compos 1992;11:296309.
[49] Damodar A, Prasad C, Cheryl R, Paolo F, Wade J. Scaling the non-linear impact
response of at and curved composite panels. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2005.
[50] Carrillo JG, Cantwell WJ. Scaling effects in the low velocity impact response of
ber-metal laminates. J Reinf Plast Compos 2008;27:893907.
[51] Mckown S, Cantwell WJ, Jones N. Investigation of scaling effects in ber
metal laminates. J Compos Mater 2008;42:86588.
[52] Lawcock GD, Ye L, Mai YW, Sun CT. Effects of bre/matrix adhesion on
carbon-bre-reinforced metal laminatesII. Impact behaviour. Compos Sci
Technol 1998;57:16218.
[53] Abdullah MR, Cantwell WJ. The mechanical properties of ber-metal
laminates glass bre reinforced polypropylene. Compos Sci Technol
2000;60:108594.
[54] Park R, Jang J. Effect of stacking sequence on the compressive performance of
impacted aramid ber/glass ber hybrid composite. Polym Compos
2000;21:2317.
[55] Lalibert JF, Poon C, Straznicky PV, Fahr A. Post-impact fatigue damage
growth in bermetal laminates. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:24956.
[56] Caprino G, Spataro G, Del Luongo S. Low-velocity impact behaviour of
breglassaluminium laminates. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2004;35:60516.
[57] Atas C. An experimental investigation on the impact response of berglass/
aluminum composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2007;26:147991.
[58] Hyoungseock Seo HTH, Jenn-Ming Yang. Impact damage tolerance and
fatigue durability of GLARE laminates. J Eng Mater Technol 2008:130.
[59] Kulkarni RR, Chawla KK, Vaidya UK, Koopman MC, Eberhardt AW.
Characterization of long ber thermoplastic/metal laminates. J Mater Sci
2008;43:43918.
[60] Bagnoli F, Bernabei M, Figueroa-Gordon D, Irving PE. The response of
aluminium/GLARE hybrid materials to impact and to in-plane fatigue.
Mater Sci Eng, A 2009;523:11824.
[61] Song SH, Byun YS, Ku TW, Song WJ, Kim J, Kang BS. Experimental and
numerical investigation on impact performance of carbon reinforced
aluminum laminates. J Mater Sci Technol 2010;26:32732.
[62] Fan J, Guan Z, Cantwell WJ. Structural behaviour of bre metal laminates
subjected to a low velocity impact. Sci China Phys Mech Astron
2011;54:116877.
[63] Fan J, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ. Numerical modelling of perforation failure in
bre metal laminates subjected to low velocity impact loading. Compos
Struct 2011;93:24306.
[64] Bernhardt MR S, Kobayashi AS. Low-velocity impact response
characterization of a hybrid titanium composite laminate. J Eng Mater
Technol 2006:129.
[65] Rajkumar GR, Krishna M, Narasimha Murthy HN, Sharma SC, Vishnu Mahesh
KR. Experimental investigation of low-velocity repeated impacts on glass
ber metal composites. J Mater Eng Perform 2011;21:148590.
[66] Morinire FD, Alderliesten RC, Tooski MY, Benedictus R. Damage evolution in
GLARE bre-metal laminate under repeated low-velocity impact tests.
Central Eur J Eng 2012;2:60311.
[67] Yaghoubi AS, Liu YX, Liaw BM. Drop-weight impact studies of GLARE 5 ber-
metal laminates 2011:26779.
[68] Tsartsaris N, Meo M, Dolce F, Polimeno U, Guida M, Marulo F. Low-velocity
impact behavior of ber metal laminates. J Compos Mater 2011;45:80314.
[69] Morinire FD, Alderliesten RC, Sadighi M, Benedictus R. An integrated study
on the low-velocity impact response of the GLARE bre-metal laminate.
Compos Struct 2013;100:89103.
[70] Petersen BR. Finite element analysis of composite plate impacted by a
projectile. University of Florida; 1985.
[71] Davies GAO, Zhang X, Zhou G, Watson S. Numerical modelling of impact
damage. Composites 1994;25:34250.
[72] Tita V, de Carvalho J, Vandepitte D. Failure analysis of low velocity impact on
thin composite laminates: experimental and numerical approaches. Compos
Struct 2008;83:41328.
[73] Zhang X. Impact damage in composite aircraft structures-experimental
testing and numerical simulation. Proc Inst Mech Engrs, Part G: J Aerosp
Eng 1998;212:24559.
[74] Gama BA, Gillespie Jr JW. Finite element modeling of impact, damage
evolution and penetration of thick-section composites. Int J Impact Eng
2011;38:18197.
[75] Bouvet C, Rivallant S, Barrau JJ. Low velocity impact modeling in composite
laminates capturing permanent indentation. Compos Sci Technol
2012;72:197788.
[76] He W, Guan Z, Li X, Liu D. Prediction of permanent indentation due to impact
on laminated composites based on an elasto-plastic model incorporating
ber failure. Compos Struct 2013;96:23242.
[77] Shi Y, Swait T, Soutis C. Modelling damage evolution in composite laminates
subjected to low velocity impact. Compos Struct 2012;94:290213.
[78] Raimondo L, Iannucci L, Robinson P, Curtis PT. A progressive failure model for
mesh-size-independent FE analysis of composite laminates subject to low-
velocity impact damage. Compos Sci Technol 2012;72:62432.
[79] Gonzlez EV, Maim P, Camanho PP, Turon A, Mayugo JA. Simulation of drop-
weight impact and compression after impact tests on composite laminates.
Compos Struct 2012;94:336478.
[80] Tabiei A, Aminjikarai SB. A strain-rate dependent micro-mechanical model
with progressive post-failure behavior for predicting impact response of
unidirectional composite laminates. Compos Struct 2009;88:6582.
[81] Bouvet C, Castani B, Bizeul M, Barrau J-J. Low velocity impact modelling in
laminate composite panels with discrete interface elements. Int J Solids
Struct 2009;46:280921.
[82] Minak G, Ghelli D. Inuence of diameter and boundary conditions on low
velocity impact response of CFRP circular laminated plates. Compos B Eng
2008;39:96272.
[83] Lv L, Bohong Gu. Transverse impact damage and energy absorption of three-
dimensional orthogonal hybrid woven composite: experimental and FEM
simulation. J Compos Mater 2008;42:176386.
[84] Donadon MV, Iannucci L, Falzon BG, Hodgkinson JM, de Almeida SFM. A
progressive failure model for composite laminates subjected to low velocity
impact damage. Comput Struct 2008;86:123252.
[85] Wang S-X, Wu L-Z, Ma L. Low-velocity impact and residual tensile strength
analysis to carbon ber composite laminates. Mater Des 2010;31:11825.
[86] Setoodeh AR, Malekzadeh P, Nikbin K. Low velocity impact analysis of
laminated composite plates using a 3D elasticity based layerwise FEM. Mater
Des 2009;30:3795801.
[87] Lee Y-J, Huang C-H. Ultimate strength and failure process of composite
laminated plates subjected to low-velocity impact. J Reinf Plast Compos
2003;22:105981.
[88] Yamada SE, Sun CT. Analysis of laminate strength and its distribution. J
Compos Mater 1978;12:27584.
[89] Hashin Z. Analysis of properties of ber composites with anisotropic
constituents. J Appl Mech 1979;46:54350.
[90] Faggiani A, Falzon BG. Predicting low-velocity impact damage on a stiffened
composite panel. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41:73749.
[91] Jeremy Lalibert CP. Numerical modeling of the impact response of ber
metal laminates. Polym Compos 2008:60311.
[92] Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ, Abdullah R. Numerical modeling of the impact
response of ber-metal laminates. Polym Compos 2009;30:60311.
[93] Seo H, Hundley J, Hahn HT, Yang J-M. Numerical simulation of glass-ber-
reinforced aluminum laminates with diverse impact damage. AIAA J
2010;48:67687.
[94] Zhou J, Hassan MZ, Guan Z, Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of
foam-based sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol 2012;72:178190.
[95] Zhu S, Chai GB. Effect of adhesive in sandwich panels subjected to low-
velocity impact. Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part L: J Mater Des Appl
2011;225:17181.
[96] Foo CC, Seah LK, Chai GB. Low-velocity impact failure of aluminium
honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2008;85:208.
[97] Zhou DW, Stronge WJ. Low velocity impact denting of HSSA lightweight
sandwich panel. Int J Mech Sci 2006;48:103145.
[98] Chai GB, Zhu S. A review of low-velocity impact on sandwich structures. Proc
Inst Mech Engrs, Part L: J Mater Des Appl 2011;225:20730.
[99] Foo CC, Chai GB, Seah LK. A model to predict low-velocity impact response
and damage in sandwich composites. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:134856.
[100] Hashagen F, de Borst R. Numerical assessment of delamination in bre metal
laminates. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;185:14159.
[101] Hashagen F, de Borst R, de Vries T. Delamination behavior of spliced Fiber Metal
Laminates. Part 2. Numerical investigation. Compos Struct 1999;46:14762.
[102] Hashagen F, Schellekens JCJ, de Borst R, Parisch H. Finite element procedure
for modelling bre metal laminates. Compos Struct 1995;32:25564.
[103] Peter Linde JP, de Boer Henk, Carmone Clarice. Modelling and simulation of
bre metal laminates. In: ABAQUS users conference, Boston, Massachusetts;
2004.
[104] Ivo Babuka MS. Locking effects in the nite element approximation of
elasticity problems. Numer Math 1992;62:43963.
[105] Iannucci L. Progressive failure modelling of woven carbon composite under
impact. Int J Impact Eng 2006;32:101343.
[106] Curiel Sosa JL, Karapurath N. Delamination modelling of GLARE using the
extended nite element method. Compos Sci Technol 2012;72:78891.
[107] Olsson R. Mass criterion for wave controlled impact response of composite
plates. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2000;31:87987.
[108] Yang S, Sun, CT. Indentation law for composite laminates. NASA CR 165460.
1981.
[109] Tan TM, Sun, CT. Wave propagation in graphite/epoxy laminates due to
impact. NASA CR-168057. 1982.
[110] Sun CT, Chen JK. On the impact of initially stressed composite laminates. J
Compos Mater 1985;19:490504.
[111] Sankar BV, Sun CT. An efcient numerical algorithm for transverse impact
problems. Comput Struct 1985;20:100912.
[112] Cairns DS, Lagace PA. Transient response of graphite/epoxy and Kevlar/epoxy
laminates subjected to impact. AIAA J 1989;27:15906.
[113] Sun CT, Liou WJ. Investigation of laminated composite plates under impact
dynamic loading using a three-dimensional hybrid stress nite element
method. Comput Struct 1989;33:87984.
[114] Qian Y, Swanson SR. A comparison of solution techniques for impact response
of composite plates. Compos Struct 1990;14:17792.
[115] Obst AW, Kapania RK. Nonlinear static and transient nite element analysis
of laminated beams. Compos Eng 1992;2:37589.
[116] Abrate S. Modeling of impacts on composite structures. Compos Struct
2001;51:12938.
[117] Malekzadeh K. Analytical prediction of low-velocity impact response of
composite sandwich panels using new TDOF spring-mass-damper model. J
Compos Mater 2006;40:167189.
[118] Foo CC, Seah LK, Chai GB. A modied energy-balance model to predict low-
velocity impact response for sandwich composites. Compos Struct
2011;93:138593.
[119] Choi I-H, Kim I-G, Ahn S-M, Yeom C-H. Analytical and experimental studies
on the low-velocity impact response and damage of composite laminates
under in-plane loads with structural damping effects. Compos Sci Technol
2010;70:151322.
[120] Shariyat M, Jafari R. Nonlinear low-velocity impact response analysis of a
radially preloaded two-directional-functionally graded circular plate: a
rened contact stiffness approach. Compos B Eng 2012:1020.
[121] Tsamasphyros GJ, Bikakis GS. Analytical modeling to predict the low velocity
impact response of circular GLARE bermetal laminates. Aerosp Sci Technol
2013.
[122] Goldsmith W. Impact: the theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids.
Dover Publications; 1960.
[123] Vlot A. Low-velocity impact loading on bre reinforced aluminium laminates
(ARALL) and other aircraft sheet materiaIs. PhD dissertation Delft University
of Technology, 1991.
[124] George J, Tsamasphyros GSB. Static indentation response of ber-metal
laminated plates consisting of different standard GLARE grades. J Mater Sci
Eng 2012;11:73746.
[125] Tsamasphyros GJ, Bikakis GS. Dynamic response of circular GLARE ber
metal laminates subjected to low velocity impact. J Reinf Plast Compos
2011;30:97887.
[126] George J, Tsamasphyros GSB. Analytical and nite element modelling of
circular GLARE plates under indentation loading and unloading. Adv Compos
Lett 2011;20:1018.
[127] George J, Tsamasphyros GSB. Analytical modelling of circular GLARE
laminated plates under lateral indentation advanced composites letters
2009:18.
[128] Tsamasphyros GSB GJ. nite element modeling and analytical simulation of
circular GLARE ber-metal laminates subjected to lateral indentation. J
Serbian Soc Comput Mech 2009;3:6780.
[129] Khalili MR, Malekzadeh K, Mittal RK. A new approach to static and dynamic
analysis of composite plates with different boundary conditions. Compos
Struct 2005;69:14955.
[130] Khalili SMR, Shokuhfar A, Malekzadeh K, Ashenai Ghasemi F. Low-velocity
impact response of active thin-walled hybrid composite structures
embedded with SMA wires. Thin-Walled Struct 2007;45:799808.
[131] Shokuhfar A, Khalili SMR, Ashenai Ghasemi F, Malekzadeh K, Raissi S.
Analysis and optimization of smart hybrid composite plates subjected to low-
velocity impact using the response surface methodology (RSM). Thin-Walled
Struct 2008;46:120412.
[132] Payeganeh GH, Ashenai Ghasemi F, Malekzadeh K. Dynamic response of
bermetal laminates (FMLs) subjected to low-velocity impact. Thin-Walled
Struct 2010;48:6270.
[133] Choi IH, Lim CH. Low-velocity impact analysis of composite laminates using
linearized contact law. Compos Struct 2004;66:12532.
[134] Abatan A, Hu H, Olowokere D. Impact resistance modeling of hybrid
laminated composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 1998;11:24960.
[135] Abatan A, Hu H. Effect of cross section material distribution on impact response
of hybrid composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2002;15:37587.
[136] Caprino G, Lopresto V, Iaccarino P. A simple mechanistic model to predict the
macroscopic response of breglassaluminium laminates under low-velocity
impact. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38:290300.
[137] Morinire FD, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Energy distribution in glare and
2024T3 aluminium during low-velocity impact. ICAS2012.
[138] Lin C, Fatt MSH. Perforation of composite plates and sandwich panels under
quasi-static and projectile loading. J Compos Mater 2006;40:180140.
[139] Lee D, Morillo C, Oller S, Bugeda G, Oate E. Robust design optimisation of advance
hybrid (bermetal) composite structures. Compos Struct 2013;99:18192.
[140] Kim E-H, Lee I, Roh J-H, Bae J-S, Choi I-H, Koo K-N. Effects of shape memory
alloys on low velocity impact characteristics of composite plate. Compos
Struct 2011;93:29039.
[141] Evci C, Glge M. An experimental investigation on the impact response of
composite materials. Int J Impact Eng 2012;43:4051.
[142] Nosier RKK A, Reddy JN. Low-velocity impact of laminated composites using
a layerwise theory. Comput Mech 1994;13:36079.
[143] Shengqing Z. Composite sandwich panels subjected to impact of a foreign
body. Singapore: School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University; 2012.

3 Deec 52 Eb 452 e 030 Ab

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

3 Deec 52 Eb 452 e 030 Ab

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Review

Low velocity impact response of bre-metal laminates A review

Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 67905756; fax: +65 67924062.

Fig. 10. Effect of post-stretching on fatigue crack growth [24].

G.B. Chai, P. Manikandan/ Composite Structures 107 (2014) 363381 373

Anda mungkin juga menyukai