Optimisation of Laminated Composite Panel

Introduction

The usage of composite materials inside different industries around the world has increased during
the last years; based on this point, and with the intention to take advantage of this kind of materials,
it is important to evaluate the mechanical properties and impact behaviour. For companies like
aerospace and automotive, impacts represent a critical point in terms of maintenance and cost;
nowadays there are different numerical and analytical models used to predict and evaluate stresses,
forces and damage during impact with composite materials. In this project, a methodology is presented
to find and evaluate the contact force originated for the impact between a laminated composite panel
and a steel impactor.

Part 1

In part one, the contact force for an impact between a simply supported laminate and an impactor
made of steel is calculated; a graphical description of the problem can be found in the next picture:

Figure 1 Compos ite plate under i mpact, Pa rt 1.

The mechanical properties for the composite material and the impactor can be found in Table 1 and
Table 2.

Table 1 Mecha nical properties of the composite material

𝑬𝟏 𝟏𝟕𝟐 𝑮𝑷𝒂
𝑬𝟐 6.89 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝑮𝟏𝟐 3.45 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝑮𝟏𝟑 3.45 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝑮𝟐𝟑 2.75 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝝂 𝟏𝟐 0.25
𝝂 𝟐𝟑 0.25
𝝆 𝑘𝑔
1750 ⁄𝑚3

1
 Table 2 Mecha nical properties of Steel impactor

Young´s Modulus, 𝑬 𝟐𝟏𝟎 𝑮𝑷𝒂

Poisson ratio, 𝝊 0.3
Radius, 𝒓 3.45 𝐺𝑃𝑎
Impactor Mass, 𝑴𝟐 3 𝑘𝑔
Impactor Velocity, 𝑽 3 𝑚⁄𝑠

The geometric dimensions of the plate can be found on the next table:

Table 3 La mi nated composite plate dimensions

Laminated Composite Plate Dimensions

Length of plate (𝒂) 200 𝑚𝑚
Width of the plate (𝒃) 200 𝑚𝑚
Thickness of single ply (𝒕) 0.5 𝑚𝑚

The laminate composite plates analysed in the first part of the assessment have the next orientation:

Table 4 Fi bre orientation for the first part

Laminate number Orientation

Laminate 1 [+45/−45/0/90]𝑠
Laminate 2 [0/0/90/90]𝑠
Laminate 3 [90/90/90/0]𝑠
Laminate 4 [0/0/0/90]𝑠

For the first step, the natural frequency of the composite flat plate (𝜔2𝑚𝑛 ) and the mass of the laminate
shell (𝑀1 ) were found to evaluate the equivalent stiffness of the simply supported laminated (𝐾1 ).
The mass for every laminate is:

𝑀1 = 𝜌 (𝑡)(𝑎)(𝑏)(#𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠)
𝑘𝑔
𝑀1 = (1750 ⁄𝑚3 ) (5𝑒 − 4 𝑚)(0.2 𝑚)(0.2 𝑚 )(8) = 0.28 𝑘𝑔

The equation used to find the natural frequency is [1]:

1⁄
𝜋2 𝑚 4 𝑚 2 𝑛 2 𝑛 4 2
𝜔𝑚𝑛 = [𝐷1 ( ) + 2𝐷3 ( ) ( ) + 𝐷2 ( ) ]
√𝜌𝑚 ℎ 𝑎 𝑎 𝑏 𝑏

Where:

𝐷11 = 𝐷1 ; 𝐷22 = 𝐷2 ; (𝐷12 + 2𝐷66 ) = 𝐷3

𝐷𝑖𝑗 parameters come from the bending stiffness matrix: 𝐷𝑖𝑗 = ∑𝑁 ̅̅̅̅ 3 3
𝑘=1[𝑄𝑖𝑗 ]𝑘 (ℎ𝑘 − ℎ 𝑘−1)

𝑁
1
𝜌𝑚 = ∑ 𝜌𝑘 (ℎ 𝑘 − ℎ 𝑘−1 )
ℎ
𝑘=1

𝑘𝑔
With 𝜌𝑘 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑘𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 ( ⁄𝑚3 ).

2
To find the lowest natural frequency: 𝑚 = 𝑛 = 1. The natural frequency in terms of cycles per second
(𝐻𝑧) [1]:

𝜔𝑚𝑛
𝑓𝑚𝑛 =
2𝜋

A summary of the results for every laminate can be found on the next table; to corroborate the
analytical solution, a simulation using ANSYS software was performed.

Table 5 Na tural frequency a nd s tiffness of the l aminate composite plates, comparison with ANSYS

Composite flat plate 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 (𝒓𝒂𝒅⁄ 𝟐) 𝑲 𝟏 (𝑵⁄𝒎) 𝒇𝒎𝒏 (𝟏⁄𝑯𝒛) 𝒇𝒎𝒏 (𝟏⁄𝑯𝒛) %𝒆
𝒔
numerical using ANSYS
Laminate 1 𝟏. 𝟐𝟎𝟗𝒆𝟕 𝟑. 𝟑𝟖𝒆𝟔 𝟓𝟓𝟑. 𝟑𝟓 𝟓𝟖𝟕. 𝟖𝟔 𝟔. 𝟐𝟑
Laminate 2 8.795𝑒6 2.46𝑒6 472.1 475.63 𝟎. 𝟕𝟒
Laminate 3 8.795𝑒6 2.46𝑒6 472.1 475.11 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑
Laminate 4 8.795𝑒6 2.46𝑒6 472.1 475.11 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑

The first natural mode shape for laminate 1, 2 and 3 can be found on the next pictures:

Figure 2 Fi rs t mode of vi bration, Laminate 1: [ +𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟎/𝟗𝟎] 𝒔

Figure 3 Fi rs t Vi bration Mode, La minate 2: [𝟎/𝟎/𝟗𝟎/𝟗𝟎] 𝒔

3
 Figure 4 Fi rs t Vi bration Mode, La minate 3: [𝟗𝟎/𝟗𝟎/𝟗𝟎/𝟎]𝒔

The analytical expression to evaluate the contact force of a laminated composite plate with simply
supports is [2]:

𝐹(𝑡) = 𝐾2∗ [𝐴1 (𝐶1 − 1) sin 𝜔1 𝑡 + 𝐴 2 (𝐶2 − 1) sin 𝜔2 𝑡]

Where the effective contact stiffness 𝐾2∗ is defined as [2]:

𝑝 𝑝+1
𝑝 + 1 2Γ ( + 1) + √𝜋Γ ( ) 𝑝−1
𝐾2∗ = √𝜋Γ ( ) 2 2 𝛼 𝐾
2 4Γ 2 (𝑝 + 1) + 𝜋Γ 2 ( 𝑝 + 1 ) 𝑚 2
2 √ 2

With Γ the gamma function, 𝑝 a material constant (𝑝 = 1.5) and 𝛼𝑚 the maximum contact
deformation for simply supported edge, defined by:

𝛼𝑚(𝑓) + 𝛼𝑚(𝑐 )
𝛼𝑚(𝑠) =
2

The equations used to find the contact deformation for free 𝛼𝑚(𝑓) and clamped edges 𝛼𝑚(𝑐 ) are [2]:

0.4 0.4
𝑀1 𝑀2 0.4 5𝑉 2 5𝑉 2
𝛼𝑚(𝑓) = ( ) ( ) , 𝛼𝑚(𝑐) = (𝑀2 ) 0.4 ( )
𝑀1 + 𝑀2 4𝐾2 4𝐾2

The constants used to evaluate the contact force can be found using [2]:

1 𝐾1 + 𝐾2 𝐾2 1 𝐾1 + 𝐾2 𝐾2 2 𝐾2
2
𝜔1,2 = ( + )±√ ( − ) + 2
2 𝑀1 𝑀2 4 𝑀1 𝑀2 𝑀1 𝑀2

2 𝐸
𝐾2 = √𝑟
3 (1 − 𝜐2 )

𝐾2
𝐶1 =
𝐾2 − 𝜔12 𝑀2

4
 𝐾2
𝐶2 =
𝐾2 − 𝜔22 𝑀2

𝑉
𝐴1 =
𝜔1 𝐶2 − 𝐶1 )
(

𝑉
𝐴2 =
𝜔2 (𝐶1 − 𝐶2 )

The results obtained for the impulse 𝐹(𝑡) for different velocity values applied to the steel impactor in
each laminate can be found in the next table:

Table 6 Conta ct Force (N) for different velocity va lues.

Impactor velocity ( 𝒎⁄𝒔) V=3 V=6 V = 10 V = 15

Composite flat plate 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁)
Laminate 1 3356 8852.2 18099.0 31928.0
Laminate 2 3355.5 8851.6 18097.0 31926.0
Laminate 3 3355.5 8851.6 18097.0 31926.0
Laminate 4 3355.5 8851.6 18097.0 31926.0

Figure 5 Force (N) vs Ti me (s) for di fferent La minates.

Based on the graph, we can see laminate with orientation [+45/−45/0/90] 𝑠 will absorb more energy
during an impact event (the difference with the rest of laminates is clearer when V = 15, where the
difference is 2 N). It is important to notice the fact laminate 1 obtained the highest value for the natural
frequency. Maximum contact time for laminates is about 12.9 𝜇𝑠.

5
 Figure 6 Force (N) vs Ti me (s) for di fferent i mpactor velocity (m/s) i n La minate 1 [ +𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟎/𝟗𝟎] 𝒔

As we can see, the force will increase because of an increase in the speed of the impactor, meanwhile,
contact time will maintain the same value. It is important to evaluate damage using a criteria failure
for composite materials to ensure the integrity of the panel after an impact.

Part 2

For the part two of the assessment, a composite plate with a stiffener was analysed to find the
minimum thickness for the laminate to absorb maximum impact energy. The composite panel to
analysed is shown in the next picture:

Figure 7 Compos ite plate under i mpact, Pa rt 2

6
 Figure 8 Di mensions of composite panel

A simplification of the geometry was made to obtain the bending matrix 𝐷𝑖𝑗 of the complete composite
panel:

Figure 9 Si mplification geometry to ca lculate bending matrix 𝑫𝒊𝒋

The composite plate was divided in 5 sections; for each one, bending matrix 𝐷𝑖𝑗 and natural frequency
𝜔2𝑚𝑛 were found to finally evaluate a global equivalent stiffness of the simply supported laminated
plate 𝐾1 :

7
 𝐾1 = (𝜔2𝑚𝑛,1 + 𝜔2𝑚𝑛,2 + 𝜔2𝑚𝑛,3 + 𝜔2𝑚𝑛,4 + 𝜔2𝑚𝑛,5 )𝑀1,𝑇

Figure 10 Di vi sions of the composite plate

Thickness of the plies evaluated were: 𝑡1 = 0.3 𝑚𝑚, 𝑡2 = 0.4 𝑚𝑚, 𝑡3 = 0.5 𝑚𝑚, 𝑡4 = 0.6 𝑚𝑚. The
fibre orientation for every layer is showed in the next table:

Laminate number Orientation

Laminate 1 [0/90]2𝑠
Laminate 2 [45/−45/90/90]𝑠
Laminate 3 [90/90/90/0]𝑠
Laminate 4 [0/0/0/90] 𝑠

For the section 3, the equation used to obtain the 𝐃𝐢𝐣 with a rotation of 90° was [3]:

[𝑘̅ ] = [𝑇]𝑇 [𝑘][𝑇]

With:

cos 𝜃 sin 𝜃 0 0 0 0
−sin 𝜃 cos 𝜃 0 0 0 0
[𝑇] = 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 cos 𝜃 sin 𝜃 0
0 0 0 −sin 𝜃 cos 𝜃 0
[ 0 0 0 0 0 1]

Results were grouped according to the thickness for every layer:

Table 7 Equi valent s tiffness of the simply s upported laminated plate (𝐾1) wi th 𝑡1 = 0.3 𝑚𝑚

Laminate number 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 (𝒓𝒂𝒅⁄ 𝟐 ) 𝑴𝟏 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒌𝒈) 𝑲 𝟏 (𝑵⁄𝒎)

𝒔
Laminate 1 8.67E+12 0.826 7.15E+12
Laminate 2 1.05E+13 0.826 8.67E+12
Laminate 3 1.25E+13 0.826 1.03E+13
Laminate 4 4.87E+12 0.826 4.02E+12

According to the next figure, for the first case, laminate with orientation [90/90/90/0]𝑠 represents
the best option to absorb energy during an impact scenario, followed by [45/−45/90/90]𝑠 , [0/90]2𝑠
and finally [0/0/0/90]𝑠 .

8
 Figure 11 Theoretical force – ti me curves for s ections with 𝒕𝟏 = 𝟎. 𝟑 𝒎𝒎.

Table 8 Equi valent s tiffness of the simply s upported laminated plate (𝐾1) wi th 𝒕𝟐 = 𝟎. 𝟒 𝒎𝒎

Laminate number 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 (𝒓𝒂𝒅⁄ 𝟐 ) 𝑴𝟏 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒌𝒈) 𝑲 𝟏 (𝑵⁄𝒎)

𝒔
Laminate 1 8.98E+12 1.1 9.88E+12
Laminate 2 1.09E+13 1.1 1.19E+13
Laminate 3 1.29E+13 1.1 1.42E+13
Laminate 4 5.07E+12 1.1 5.57E+12

Figure 12 Theoretical force – ti me curves for s ections with 𝒕𝟐 = 𝟎. 𝟒 𝒎𝒎.

9
 Table 9 Equi valent s tiffness of the simply s upported laminated plate (𝐾1) wi th 𝒕𝟑 = 𝟎. 𝟓 𝒎𝒎

Laminate number 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 (𝒓𝒂𝒅⁄ 𝟐 ) 𝑴𝟏 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒌𝒈) 𝑲 𝟏 (𝑵⁄𝒎)

𝒔
Laminate 1 9.31E+12 1.37 1.27E+13
Laminate 2 1.12E+13 1.37 1.54E+13
Laminate 3 1.33E+13 1.37 1.83E+13
Laminate 4 5.27E+12 1.37 7.22E+12

Figure 13 Theoretical force – ti me curves for s ections with 𝒕𝟑 = 𝟎. 𝟓 𝒎𝒎.

For 𝑡 = 0.5 mm, graphs show the better laminate is with configuration [45/−45/90/90]𝑠 , followed
by [90/90/90/0]𝑠 , [0/90]2𝑠 and finally [0/0/0/90]𝑠 .

Table 10 Equi valent s tiffness of the simply s upported laminated plate (𝐾1) with 𝒕𝟒 = 𝟎. 𝟔 𝒎𝒎

Laminate number 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 (𝒓𝒂𝒅⁄ 𝟐 ) 𝑴𝟏 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (𝒌𝒈) 𝑲 𝟏 (𝑵⁄𝒎)

𝒔
Laminate 1 9.64E+12 1.65 1.59E+13
Laminate 2 1.16E+13 1.65 1.92E+13
Laminate 3 1.38E+13 1.65 2.28E+13
Laminate 4 5.49E+12 1.65 9.06E+12

For the last case, it is important to notice the weight of the complete plate has increased to the double
and pass from 0.826 to 1.65 kg. In aviation, weight is one of the most important aspects, so it is
important to consider this parameter when a design decision will be taken.

10
 Figure 14 Theoretical force – ti me curves for s ections with 𝒕𝟒 = 𝟎. 𝟔 𝒎𝒎.

For the final case, laminates with configuration [45/−45/90/90]𝑠 and [90/90/90/0] 𝑠 represent
the better case (difference in contact force is insignificant) , followed by [0/90] 2𝑠 and [0/0/0/90]𝑠 .

Results discussion and conclusion

For the part 1 of this assessment, laminate with orientation [+45/−45/0/90] 𝑠 and t = 0.5 mm for
every layer represent the best option; in addition to the ability to absorb more energy during an
impact, this configuration offers different advantages, like:

- Optimising damage tolerance: group the ±45° plies together and on the outer surface.
- Microcracking formation: avoid this by grouping layers of the same orientation.
- Symmetrical and balanced laminate: avoid warping during the manufacturing process of the
laminate.
- 𝑫𝟑𝟑: talking about buckling capability, this parameter is the most important for the stability of
skin under load. Increasing laminate proportion of layers with ±45° will increase skin stability
and strain allowable; for part 1, laminate with [+45/−45/0/90] 𝑠 configuration has the
highest value for the 𝐷33 parameter.

330.51 198.3 62.07 809.28 9.2 0

𝐷𝑖𝑗 [+45/−45/0/90]𝑠 = [ 198.3 247.75 62.07 ] 𝑁 ∗ 𝑚 𝐷𝑖𝑗[0/0/90/90]𝑠 = [ 9.2 147.18 0 ]𝑁 ∗𝑚
62.07 62.071 𝟐𝟎𝟕. 𝟒𝟗 0 0 𝟏𝟖. 𝟒

50.63 9.2 0 905.84 9.2 0

𝐷𝑖𝑗 [90/90/90/0]𝑠 = [ 9.2 905.84 0 ]𝑁 ∗𝑚 𝐷𝑖𝑗[0/0/0/90]𝑠 = [ 9.2 50.63 0 ]𝑁 ∗𝑚
0 0 𝟏𝟖. 𝟒 0 0 𝟏𝟖. 𝟒

Based on graphs, it is clear the contact stiffness 𝐾2 , velocity V and mass of the impactor 𝑀2 will have
a big impact in the Force and contact time with the composite plate:

- If the velocity increased, Force will increase, and contact time remains in the same value.

11
- If the mass of the impactor increased, impulse and time will increase proportionally.
- Finally, if the radius of the impactor increase, them force will increase, meanwhile contact time
will decreased.

Table 11 Conta ct Force (N) for different mass va lue, 𝑉 = 3 𝑚⁄𝑠 , 𝑟 = 10 𝑚𝑚.

Impactor Weight (𝒌𝒈) 𝑴𝟐 = 𝟑 𝑴𝟐 = 𝟔 𝑴𝟐 = 𝟏𝟎 𝑴𝟐 = 𝟏𝟓

Composite flat plate 𝐹(𝑡) (𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡) (𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡) (𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡) (𝑁)
Laminate 1 3354.2 3813.4 4175.6 4484.7
Laminate 2 3354.1 3813.3 4175.5 4484.7
Laminate 3 3354.1 3813.3 4175.5 4484.7
Laminate 4 3354.1 3813.3 4175.5 4484.7

Figure 15 Force (N) vs Ti me (s) wi th different mass va lues (kg) for the impactor i n La minate 1 [+𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟎/𝟗𝟎] 𝒔

Table 12 Conta ct Force (N) for different radius, 𝑴𝟐 = 𝟑, 𝑽 = 𝟑 𝒎⁄𝒔

Impactor radius (𝒎𝒎) r = 10 r = 30 r = 60 r = 100

Composite flat plate 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡)(𝑁) 𝐹(𝑡) (𝑁)
Laminate 1 3354.2 3954.7 4388.2 4737.8
Laminate 2 3354.1 3955.0 4388.4 4737.8
Laminate 3 3354.1 3955.0 4388.4 4737.8
Laminate 4 3354.1 3955.0 4388.4 4737.8
Laminate 5 3354.2 3955.0 4388.4 4737.8

12
 Figure 16 Force (N) vs Ti me (s) wi th different mass va lues (kg) for the impactor i n La minate 1 [+𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟎/𝟗𝟎] 𝒔

Related to the part 2, laminate with configuration [45/−45/90/90]𝑠 and [90/90/90/0]𝑠 , according
to the graph, offer the capability to absorb almost the same energy during an impact when t = 0.6 mm
for every ply; however, based on previous points, laminate [45/−45/90/90]𝑠 will represent the best
option. The weight for the entire assembly, 1.65 kg, could represent an issue; based on this parameter,
the idea to perform a design of experiments to find the best thickness for the stiffener and plate will
help to decrease the weight.

The next table shows the natural frequencies obtained for the different laminate configurations using
ANSYS software and the original design:

Table 13 Res ults for the first natural frequency for different laminates using ANSYS

Laminate Configuration t = 0.3 mm t = 0.4 mm t = 0.5 mm t = 0.6 mm

(0.758 kg) (1.01 kg) (1.263 kg) (1.516 kg)
[45/-45/90/90] s 555.9 585.73 619.22 655.3
[90/90/90/0] s 427.83 471.39 521.1 574.87
[0/90] 2s 426.51 464.81 505.75 547.29
[0/0/0/90] s 377.5 394.81 413.3 432.95

13
 Figure 17 Fi rs t mode of vi bration for the plate using laminate [+𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟗𝟎/𝟗𝟎]𝒔

Configuration [+𝟒𝟓/−𝟒𝟓/𝟗𝟎/𝟗𝟎]𝒔 represents the best option for the assembly; the next table shows
the values of the equivalent stiffness 𝐾1 using different combinations for the stiffener and plate
thickness:

Table 14 Equi valent s tiffness for different configurations (𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓 ≤ 𝒕𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆)

Iteration # 𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓 𝑴𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑴𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑴𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 f (from 𝝎𝟐𝒎𝒏 𝑲𝟏

ANSYS)
1 0.3 0.307 0.3 0.45 0.757 555.9 1.22E+07 9.24E+06
2 0.3 0.307 0.4 0.6 0.907 551.6 1.20E+07 1.09E+07
3 0.3 0.307 0.5 0.75 1.057 558.69 1.23E+07 1.30E+07
4 0.3 0.307 0.6 0.9 1.207 576.98 1.31E+07 1.59E+07
5 0.4 0.41 0.4 0.6 1.01 585.73 1.35E+07 1.37E+07
6 0.4 0.41 0.5 0.75 1.16 592.23 1.38E+07 1.61E+07
7 0.4 0.41 0.6 0.9 1.31 607.17 1.46E+07 1.91E+07
8 0.5 0.51 0.5 0.75 1.26 619.22 1.51E+07 1.91E+07
9 0.5 0.51 0.6 0.9 1.41 633.28 1.58E+07 2.23E+07
10 0.6 0.61 0.6 0.9 1.51 655.3 1.7E+07 2.56E+07

Figure 18 Iterations 4 to 10, comparison using graphs.

14
With this graph we can confirm a composite panel with the highest natural frequency will not ensure
the best performance to impacts (iteration 7 shows best performance in comparison with iteration 8,
which has higher value for the natural frequency), will depends of the geometry and weight of the
plate.

Referencies

1. Vinson JR., Sierakowski RL. The Behavior of Structures Composed of Composite Materials.
Second Edi. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. 435 p.
2. Arachchige B., Ghasemnejad H., Augousti AT. Theoretical approach to predict transverse
impact response of variable-stiffness curved composite plates. Composites Part B:
Engineering. Elsevier Ltd; 2016; 89: 34–43. Available at:
DOI:10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.036
3. Wu J. Dynamic analysis of an inclined beam due to moving loads. 2005; 288: 107–131.
Available at: DOI:10.1016/j.str.2012.09.019

15
Appendix: MATLAB code used to evaluate Force – Time (impulse) for different laminates
clc
clear

% PART ONE: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COMPOSITE MATERIAL & IMPACTOR MATERIAL/LAMINATE

% A.1) MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE COMPOSITE MATERIAL:
E1 = 172e9; % Pa
E2 = 6.89e9; % Pa
G12 = 3.45e9; % Pa
G13 = G12; % Pa
nu12 = 0.25; % unit less
nu23 = nu12; % unit less
rho = 1750; % kg/m^3
nu21 = nu12*E2/E1; % MINOR POISSON RATIO, unit less
G23 = E2/(2*(1+nu23)); % Pa

% A.2) MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE IMPACTOR:

Ei = 210e9; % GPa
nui = 0.3; % unit less

% A.3) REDUCED STIFFNESS MATRIX (Q):

Q = [E1/(1-nu12*nu21) (nu12*E2)/(1-nu12*nu21) 0;(nu12*E2)/(1-nu12*nu21) E2/(1-
nu12*nu21) 0;0 0 G12]; % Pa

% A.4) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAMINATE (b>a):

a = 200*1e-3; % LENGTH (m)
b = 200*1e-3; % WINDTH (m)

% LAMINATES FOR ASSESSMENT 2, PART 1:

%t = [45 -45 0 90 90 0 -45 45]*pi/180; % ANGLES FOR EVERY LAYER (I) (deg)
%t = [0 0 90 90 90 90 0 0]*pi/180; % ANGLES FOR EVERY LAYER (II) (deg)
%t = [90 90 90 0 0 90 90 90]*pi/180; % ANGLES FOR EVERY LAYER (III) (deg)
t = [0 0 0 90 90 0 0 0]*pi/180; % ANGLES FOR EVERY LAYER (III) (deg)

% LAMINATES FOR ASSESSMENT 2, PART 2:

%t = [0 90 0 90 90 0 90 0]*pi/180; % X8
%t = [0 90 0 90 90 0 90 0 0 90 0 90 90 0 90 0]*pi/180; % X16

%t = [45 -45 90 90 90 90 -45 45]*pi/180; % X8

%t = [45 -45 90 90 90 90 -45 45 45 -45 90 90 90 90 -45 45]*pi/180; %X16

%t = [90 90 90 0 0 90 90 90]*pi/180; % X8
%t = [90 90 90 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 90 0 0 90 90 90]*pi/180; % X16

%t = [0 0 0 90 90 0 0 0]*pi/180; % X8
%t = [0 0 0 90 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 0 0 0]*pi/180; % X16

%l = 0.3*1e-3; % THICKNESS OF A SINGLE LAYER (0.3 mm)

%l = 0.4*1e-3; % THICKNESS OF A SINGLE LAYER (0.4 mm)
l = 0.5*1e-3; % THICKNESS OF A SINGLE LAYER (0.5 mm)
%l = 0.6*1e-3; % THICKNESS OF A SINGLE LAYER (0.6 mm)

h = l*numel(t);% TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE LAMINATE (m)

%z = [-1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X8 (0.3
mm)
%z = [-14.65 -14.35 -14.05 -13.75 -13.45 -13.15 -12.85 -12.55 -12.25]*1e-3; %
SPECIAL CASE SECTION I X8
%z = [-25.375 -25.075 -24.775 -24.475 -24.175 -23.875 -23.575 -23.275 -22.975]*1e-
3; % SPECIAL CASE SECTION II X8
%z = [-2.4 -2.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
2.4]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X16 (0.3 mm)

%z = [-1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X8 (0.4
mm)

16
%z = [-15.45 -15.05 -14.65 -14.25 -13.85 -13.45 -13.05 -12.65 -12.25]*1e-3; %
SPECIAL CASE SECTION I X8
%z = [-26.175 -25.775 -25.375 -24.975 -24.575 -24.175 -23.775 -23.375 -22.975]*1e-
3; % SPECIAL CASE SECTION II X8
%z = [-3.2 -2.8 -2.4 -2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
3.2]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X16 (0.4 mm)

z = [-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X8 (0.5 mm)
%z = [-16.25 -15.75 -15.25 -14.75 -14.25 -13.75 -13.25 -12.75 -12.25]*1e-3; %
SPECIAL CASE SECTION I X8
%z = [-26.975 -26.475 -25.975 -25.475 -24.975 -24.475 -23.975 -23.475 -22.975]*1e-
3; % SPECIAL CASE SECTION II X8
%z = [-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
4.0]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X16 (0.5 mm)

%z = [-2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X8 (0.6
mm)
%z = [-17.05 -16.45 -15.85 -15.25 -14.65 -14.05 -13.45 -12.85 -12.25]*1e-3; %
SPECIAL CASE SECTION I X8
%z = [-27.775 -27.175 -26.575 -25.975 -25.375 -24.775 -24.175 -23.575 -22.975]*1e-
3; % SPECIAL CASE SECTION II X8
%z = [-4.8 -4.2 -3.6 -3.0 -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2
4.8]*1e-3; % POSITION OF THE LAYERS X16 (0.6 mm)

M1 = a*b*rho*h; % MASS OF THE PLATE (kg)

% A.5) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IMPACTOR:

ri = 10*1e-3; % RADIOUS OF THE IMPACTOR (m)
vi = 3; % IMPACTOR VELOCITY (m/s)
p = 1.5; % MATERIAL CONSTANT
M2 = 3; % MASS OF THE IMPACTOR (kg)

% A.6) [A], [B], [D], [Qij] AND [As] MATRIX

A = zeros(3); % EXTENSIONAL STIFFNESS MATRIX, INITIAL VALUE
B = zeros(3); % COUPLING STIFFNESS MATRIX, INITIAL VALUE
D = zeros(3); % BENDING STIFFNESS MATRIX, INITIAL VALUE

for i=1:length(t)
theta = t(i);
c = cos(theta);
s = sin(theta);
T = [c^2 s^2 c*s;s^2 c^2 -c*s;-2*c*s 2*c*s (c^2)-(s^2)]; % TRANSFORMATION
MATRIX
Qbar = transpose(T)*Q*T; % TRANSFORMED STIFFNESS MATRIX
A = A+(z(i+1)-z(i))*Qbar; % EXTENSIONAL STIFFNESS MATRIX (N/m)
B = B+(1/2)*(z(i+1)^2-z(i)^2)*Qbar; % COUPLING STIFFNESS MATRIX (N)
D = D+(1/3)*(z(i+1)^3-z(i)^3)*Qbar; % BENDING STIFFNESS MATRIX (N*m)
end

% A.7) BENDING STIFFNESS MATRIX COEFFICIENTS:

D1 = D(1,1); % N*m
D2 = D(2,2); % N*m
D3 = D(1,2)+2*D(3,3); % N*m

% PART TWO: SOLUTION TO THE DYNAMIC PROBLEM

% B.1) m & n parameters
m = 1; % unit less
n = 1; % unit less

% B.2) NATURAL FREQUENCY OF THE COMPOSITE PLATE:

wmn2 = (((sqrt(D1*(m/a)^4+2*D3*(m/a)^2*(n/b)^2+D2*(n/b)^4))*pi^2)/sqrt(rho*h))^2;
f = sqrt(wmn2)/(2*pi)

% B.3) EQUIVALENT STIFFNESS OF THE S IMPLY SUPPORTED LAMINATED PLATED:

K1 = wmn2*M1;

% B.4) CONTACT STIFFNESS IN THE IMPROVED HERTZIAN CONTACT LAW:

K2 = (2/3)*(ri^0.5)*(Ei/(1-(nui^2)));

17
% B.5) MAXIMUM CONTACT DEFORMATION:
amf = ((M1*M2/(M1+M2))^0.4)*(((5*vi^2)/(4*K2))^0.4); % TARGET STRUCTURE WITH FREE
EDGES
amc = (M2^0.4)*(((5*vi^2)/(4*K2))^0.4); % TARGET STRUCTURE WITH CLAMPED EDGES
ams = (amf+amc)/2; % MAXIMUM CONTACT DEFORMATION FOR SIMPLY SUPPORTED EDGES

% B.6) EFFECTIVE CONTACT STIFFNESS:

g = 1; % GAMMA FUNCTION
K2_star = ((pi^0.5)*g *((p+1)/2)*(2*g*((p/2)+1)+(pi^0.5)*g*((p+1)/2))*(ams^(p-
1))*K2)/(4*g^2*((p/2)+1)+(pi)*g^2*((p+1)/2));

% B.7) CONTACT FORCE HISTORY PARAMETERS

p1 = (K1+K2)/M1;
w1 = sqrt(0.5*(p1+(K2/M2))+sqrt((1/4)*(p1 -(K2/M2))^2+K2^2/(M1*M2)));
w2 = sqrt(0.5*(p1+(K2/M2))-sqrt((1/4)*(p1-(K2/M2))^2+K2^2/(M1*M2)));
C1 = K2/(K2-(w1^2)*M2);
C2 = K2/(K2-(w2^2)*M2);
A1 = vi/(w1*(C2-C1));
A2 = vi/(w2*(C1-C2));

% B.8) CONTACT FORCE HISTORY PLOT:

t1 = 0:1e-8:8.0e-5;
Ft = -K2_star*(A1*(C1-1)*sin(w1*t1)+A2*(C2-1)*sin(w2*t1));

plot (t1,Ft,'r')
axis([0 4.5e-5 0 13000])
grid on

title('Force vs time, curve of the laminated composite plate' )

xlabel('Time (s)')
ylabel('Load (N)')

18