Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Damage prediction in composite plates subjected

to low velocity impact
R. Tiberkak a, M. Bachene b, S. Rechak c,*
, B. Necib d

a
Département de Mécanique, Université Saad Dahleb, Blida 09000, Algeria
b
Département de Mécanique, Université de Médéa 26000, Algeria
c
Laboratoire de Génie Mécanique et développement, Ecole Nationale Polytechnique, 10 Rue Hassan Badi, El-Harrach, Alger, Algeria
d
Département de Mécanique, Université de Constantine 25000, Algeria

Available online 24 March 2007

Abstract

In this investigation, fiber-reinforced composite plates subjected to low velocity impact are studied by the use of finite element analysis
(FE). Mindlin’s plate theory is implemented into the FE approach in which a 9-node Lagrangian element is considered. Dynamic stress
analysis is carried out by the use of a constitutive equation of composite laminates without damage. A parametric analysis shows that the
increase in the percentage of the 90 plies increases the contact force implying a reduction in the rigidity of the laminate. Stresses are
calculated at nine Gaussian points of each element of each interface and then averaged. At first, threshold velocities are evaluated for
different stacking sequence to predict matrix crack initiation. Then, the impact induces damage at a higher impact velocity including
matrix cracking is predicted by the appropriate failure criteria. The present results indicate that matrix cracking appears in the upper
90 plies with the dominance of transverse shear stress.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element analysis; Composite plates; Failure criteria; Matrix cracking; Delamination

1. Introduction impact. The results of these works are compared to the

The Fiber-reinforced composite plates are very suscepti-
ble to low velocity transverse impact which can cause sig-
nificant damage, such as matrix cracking, delamination
and fiber breakage [1–5]; these damages imply significant
reductions in the strength and stiffness of materials. Due
to the anisotropy of composite laminates and non-uniform
distribution of stress under dynamic loading, the failure
process of laminates is very complex. The dynamic
response of composite structures subjected to transient
dynamic loading has been studied in terms of analytical,
numerical [1,2] and experimental works [5,6]. Theoretically,
many works have been developed with an aim of studying
the behaviour of composite targets under low-velocity
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tiber_r@yahoo.fr (R. Tiberkak), srechak@hotmail.
com (S. Rechak).
experimental data obtained using different types of impact
machines.
Pierson and Vaziri [7] presented an analytical model
based on the combined effects of shear deformation, rotary
inertia and nonlinear Hertzian contact law with an aim of
studying the low-velocity impact response of simply sup-
ported laminated composite plates. Sun [4] applied a mod-
ified Hertzian contact law to study low-velocity impact
response analysis of composite laminates.
Yang and Sun [8] presented the experimental indenta-
tion law through static indentation tests on composite lam-
inates. Tam and Sun [9] developed their own finite element
program to analyze impact response of composite lami-
nates and they performed impact tests using a pendulum
type low-velocity impact test system. Ik Hyeon Choi and
Cheol Ho Lim proposed a linearized contact law in study-
ing low-velocity impact analysis of composite laminates
and compared it to the modified Hertzian contact law

0263-8223/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.03.007
74 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82

[10]. Sun and Chattopadhyay [11], Dobyns [12] and where N(x, y), M(x, y) and Q(x, y) are stresses and moment
Ramkumar and Chen [13] employed the first-order shear resultants and [C] is the elasticity matrix expressed as a
deformation theory developed by Whitney and Pagano function of [A], [B], and [D], where
[14] in conjunction with the Hertzian contact law to study n Z Zk
X
the impact of laminated composite plates. Sankar [15] pre- ðAij ; Bij ; Dij Þ ¼ ðQij Þk ð1; z; z2 Þ dz; i; j ¼ 1; 2; 6:
sented a semi-empirical formula in predicting impact char- k¼1 Z k1

acteristics such as the peak force, the contact duration, and
the peak strain on the back surface of laminates. Ganapa-
thy and Rao [16] predict the damage in laminated compos-
ite plates and in cylindrical/spherical shell panels subjected
to low velocity impact. The in-plane damage in the lami-
nates was firstly analyzed by a 2-D nonlinear finite element
model using laminated composite shell elements with a 48
degree-of-freedom. The in-plane damage was then ana-
lyzed by using a Tsai–Wu criterion and maximum stress
criteria. The interlaminar stresses were obtained by inte-
grating the 3-D equations of equilibrium through the
thickness.
In the present study, a Mindlin’s plate theory along with a
modified Hertzian contact law is used to describe the behav-
ior of carbon/epoxy laminated composite plates subjected to
a central impact of a spherical rigid projectile. This paper
enters in the continuity of the work conducted by the authors
Tiberkak et al. [23]. A parametric study is conducted by
varying some parameters of the impactor and the composite
plate such as mass and velocity of the impactor as well as the
stacking sequence, boundary conditions, and the in-plane
dimensions of the target. We intend, in the present work,
to predict impact damage at a specific impact speed. Thus,
we proceed with the computation of the dynamic stresses
at the Gaussian points via our numerical model, then the
failure criterion suggested by Choi and Chang [17] is used
to predict matrix cracking and delamination.
ð2Þ
In which Aij is the extensional stiffness matrix, Dij is the
bending stiffness matrix, Bij is the bending-extensional cou-
pling stiffness matrix. The transverse shear stiffness matrix
[F] is given by
n Z Zk
X
ðF ij Þ ¼ aij ðQij Þk dz i; j ¼ 1; 2; ð3Þ
Z k1
k¼1
where aij are shear modification factors usually taken as
5/6.
Qij ði; j ¼ 1; . . . ; 6Þ are elastic constants:
3. Finite element formulation
Let us consider the contact of a spherical impactor and
the target laminated composite plate containing N trans-
versely thin layers. The contact force is applied at the cen-
ter of the plate. Fig. 1 describes the impact procedure of the
two structures (rigid body and the composite plate).
A laminate composite plate of thickness h and composed
of n arbitrarily oriented layers is considered. The x  y
plane coincides with the middle plane of the plate and
the z axis is oriented along the thickness direction. The dis-
placements u, v and w at any point (x, y, z) in the laminate
are given by

2. Constitutive equations uðx; y; zÞ ¼ u0 ðx; yÞ þ zhx ðx; yÞ;

vðx; y; zÞ ¼ v0 ðx; yÞ þ zhy ðx; yÞ; ð4Þ
Let us consider a thick plate laminate, in which each wðx; y; zÞ ¼ w0 ðx; yÞ;
lamina may be oriented at an angle h with respect to the
x-axis of the coordinate system as shown in Fig. 1. where u0, v0 and w0 denote the mid-plane displacements
The constitutive equations are as follow: and hx and hy denote the rotations along the x and y axes,
8 9 8 9 respectively.
<N >
> = < eo >
> = A nine node isoparametric element based on the Mind-
M ¼ ½C K ; ð1Þ lin plate theory which takes into account the effect of trans-
: >
> ; : >
> ;
Q c verse shear deformation is used in the present work. Each
node has five degrees of freedom ðui ; vi ; wi ; hxi ; hyi Þ. The dis-
placements are expressed in terms of their nodal values
R using the element shape functions [18]:

h X
NN X
NN X
NN

z
u0 ¼ N i u0i ; v0 ¼ N i v0i ; w0 ¼ N i w0i
θ i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
ð5Þ
X
NN X
NN
hx ¼ N i hxi ; hy ¼ N i hyi :
1st layer b x
i¼1 i¼1
Nth layer

y The stresses in the fiber direction 1–2 in the kth lamina are
a
obtained by the conventional coordinate transformation
Fig. 1. Description of the impact loading and coordinate system. law.
 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82 75

4. Contact force Vi
t=0
The dynamic response due to impact is investigated with
the consideration of the following assumptions: (i) friction-
less between the impactor and composite plate, (ii) neglect-
ing the damping effect in the composite plate and (iii) the wi (t) ws (x, y,t)
impactor is a rigid body with isotropic properties. The
F t=t
principal of virtual work for the impactor-target plate
system can be written as [19]
Z
fdugT qf€
Z
ug dV þ ½fde0 gT fN g þ fdkgT fMg dA
F ()
α t
v A
Z Fig. 2. Description of impact procedure.
T
 fdug fT g dS þ dwi m€ wi þ F da ¼ 0; ð6Þ
S
plate containing N transversely thin layers. The contact is
where q is the mass density, V, A and S are, respectively,
located at the center of the plate. Fig. 2 describes the
the volume, mid-plane area and the boundary surface area
impact procedure of the two structures (rigid body and
of the plate element, {T} is the vector of applied surface
the composite plate). The contact force between the impac-
tractions, wi and m are the displacement and mass of the
tor and the plate is calculated using a modified nonlinear
impactor, F is the contact force between the impactor
Hertzian indentation law proposed by Tam and Sun [9,10]:
and the target, a is the indentation of the target plate.
In the present work, a nine-node isoparametric element 8
< ka3=2 For loading;
based on the Mindlin plate [1–3], which takes into account  q
F ¼ ð11Þ
the effect of transverse shear deformation is used. Each : F m aaa 0
For unloading;
m a0
node has five degrees of freedom (ui, vi, wi, hxi, hyi). The 
dynamic equation of plate is given by Eq. (7): bðam  acr Þ if ðam  acr Þ;
a0 ¼ ð12Þ
0 if ðam 6 acr Þ;
½Mf€
ug þ ½Kfug ¼ fF g; ð7Þ
where q, b are experimental constants, and k is the contact
where [M] and [K] are, respectively, the mass matrix and stiffness coefficient. Various analytical and experimental
stiffness matrix of the composite plate, given by techniques for the determination of k have been proposed
XZ T
in the literature. Coefficient Fm is the maximum impact
½M ¼ ½N  ½m½N
  dV ; ð8Þ force reached before unloading, and am the corresponding
V
maximum indentation depth. a0 is the permanent indenta-
where tion depth in the target (plate). The contact deformation a
2 3
I1 0 0 I2 0 is defined as the difference between the displacement of the
6 7 impactor and the displacement of the composite laminates
60 I1 0 0 I2 7
6 7 (Fig. 2). It is given by the following equation:
 ¼6
½m 60 0 I1 0 0 7 7;
6 7 aðtÞ ¼ wi ðtÞ  ws ðtÞ; ð13Þ
4 I2 0 0 I3 0 5
0 I2 0 0 I 3: where wi(t) and ws(t) are the displacement of the impactor
and the impacted point at the mid surface of the plate,
where, respectively.
Z h=2 The Hertzian contact constant k for a plate is given by
ðI 1 ; I 2 ; I 3 Þ ¼ qð1; z; z2 Þ dz: ð9Þ the following equation [10]:
h=2
4 R1=2
k¼ h 2 i; ð14Þ
Here {u}and {ü} are respectively the displacement and 3 1mi þ 1
Ei E2
acceleration vector. {F} is the equivalent of external load,
which includes the impact force. where R, Ei and mi are the radius, Young’s modulus and
The dynamic equation of a rigid ball is given by the use Poisson’s ratio of the impactor and E2 is the transversal
of Newton’s second law: Young’s modulus of the plate. The displacement of impac-
tor at the time step (n + 1) is determined by applying the
€ i ¼ F c
mi w ð10Þ Newmark integration scheme [20,21]:
where mi is the mass of the ball (impactor) and Fc is the    2
Dt2 Dt
contact force. ðwi Þnþ1 ¼ ðwi nÞn þ Dtðw_ i Þ þ wi Þn 
ð€ ðF c Þnþ1 :
Consider the contact between a spherical ball made of 4 4mi
an isotropic material and a target laminated composite ð15Þ
76 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82

Substituting the above expression for wi in the contact laws 10

defined in Eq. (11) we obtained the following equations: 9
For the loading phase:
8
1:5
ðF c Þnþ1 ¼ K½q  ðws Þnþ1  b1 ðF c Þnþ1  : ð16Þ
7

Contact force (KN)

For the unloading phase: 6
q
ðF c Þnþ1 ¼ K 1 ½q  ðws Þnþ1  a0  b1 ðF c Þnþ1  ; ð17Þ 5
where 4
  2 Vaziri et al
Dt Dt 3
q ¼ ðwi Þn þ Dtðw_ i Þn þ w i Þn ;
ð€ b1 ¼ k1 Delfosse et al (Mesured)
4 4mi 2 Present
Fm 1
¼ 2:5
: ð18Þ
ðam  a0 Þ 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
The contact force is determined by the use of the Time (ms)
Newton–Raphson method.
Fig. 3. Contact force history for 6.14 kg and 1.76 m/s.

5. Verification of the numerical model

16
In order to calculate the dynamic stresses, contact force, 14
and the central deflection, a FORTRAN computer code
based on the present analysis has been developed for this 12
Contact force (KN)

purpose. It is at first indispensable to undertake a compar-

10
ative survey in order to check the correctness of the pro-
gram with respect to other instrumented impact tests data 8
published in the literature. The properties of the target plate
used here are listed in Table 1. The contact stiffness value 6
k = 0.6 · 109 N/m3/2 and impactor mass M = 0.314 kg are Vaziri et al
4 Present
used in the present comparison. As can be seen from Figs.
3 and 4, a good agreement is observed when comparing 2
the results of the present study with other numerical and
experimental models [19,22]. 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
This validation is quite important in the formulation for
Time (ms)
the prediction of the impact damage (matrix cracking or
delamination). Fig. 4. Contact force history for 6.14 kg and 2.68 m/s.

6. Parametric studies force and central deflection under different configurations

of impact.
In this section, we perform a parametric study by vary-
ing various parameters such as boundary conditions, stack- 6.1. Effect of boundary conditions
ing sequence, size of the composite plate, and mass and
velocity of the impactor. Thus, we compute the contact A low impact velocity of (2.92 m/s) is used to demon-
strate the effect of boundary conditions on the dynamic
behavior of fiber-reinforced composite plates. Thus,
clamped and simply supported plates are considered. The
Table 1 properties of the target plate and impactor are similar to
Material properties of the plate and the impactor those previously used (Table 1).
Composite materials The parameters used in the indentation law between the
Plate properties rigid ball and the plate are
E1 = 129 GPa, E2 = 7.5 GPa, G12 = 3.5 GPa, m12 = 0.33
q ¼ 2:5; b ¼ 0:094; acr ¼ 1:7  104 m:
q = 1540 kg m3
Boundary conditions Simply-supported Figs. 5 and 6 show force-time and central deflection histo-
Size 0.127 · 0.0762 · 0.00465 m3
ries. No significant change in the contact force and central
Stacking sequence [45/90/45/0]3s
deflection is observed when changes in the boundary condi-
Impactor properties tions from simply supported to fully clamped ends are
R = 12.7 mm, E = 207 GPa, m = 0.3
made.
 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82 77

4.0 5

3.5 n=2
4 n=3
3.0

Contact force (KN)

Contact force (KN)

n=4
2.5 3
2.0

1.5 2

1.0 simply supported plate

1
clamped plate
0.5

0.0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (ms) Time (ms)

Fig. 5. Contact force history for 0.314 kg and 2.92 m/s. Fig. 7a. Contact force history for three different stacking sequences.

(ii) [0n/90m/0n] with n = 1, 2, 3 and m = 2, 4, 6. With a

total thickness equal to 4.65 mm.
0.6

0.5 In these configurations, three types of composite plates

are considered by varying the percentage of fibers oriented
Central deflection (mm)

0.4 at 90:
Composite plate containing 25% of fibers 90 [03/902/03].
0.3 Composite plate containing 50% of fibers 90 [02/904/02].
Composite plate containing 75% of fibers 90 [0/906/0].
0.2 The following observations can be made:

0.1 simply supported plate 1. The contact force increases with an increase in the
percentage of fibers oriented at 90.
clamped plate
0.0 2. This fact is also demonstrated when comparing Fig. 7a
with n = 4 (the total thickness of plies oriented at 90
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 is equal to 5.08 mm) to Fig. 7b with the configuration
Time (ms) [0/906/0] (the total thickness of plies oriented at 90 is
equal to 3.49 mm), the maximum contact forces are
Fig. 6. Central deflection history for 0.314 kg and 2.92 m/s.
equal to (4.8 KN) and (3.6 KN), respectively.

6.2. Effect of stacking sequence

4
The effect of stacking sequence is conducted on different n=3, m=2
configurations. The numerical tests are carried out on a n=2, m=4
laminated composite plate 0.127 · 0.0762 m2 clamped at 3 n=1, m=6
Contact force (KN)

each side. The same impact velocity of 2.92 m/s and impac-
tor mass of 0.314 kg are used. The configurations consid-
ered are the following: 2

(i) [0/90n/0] with n = 2, 3, 4. with a thickness ply equal to

1.27 mm.
The numerical results are shown in Fig. 7a, where it is 1
observed that the contact force increases with an
increase in the thickness of the 90 plies which indi-
cates that the laminate becomes less rigid (i.e. the 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
maximum contact force of a [0/904/0] is greater than
Time (ms)
those of the other configurations [0/903/0] and [0/902/
0]). Fig. 7b. Contact force history for three different stacking sequences.
78 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82

Table 2
The values of maximum contact forces for different plate dimensions and
6.3. Effect of in-plane dimensions different impactor masses
Plate in-plane dimensions Maximum contact force (N) for
The effects of in-plane dimensions on the contact force (mm) 0.314 kg
are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Three sizes of [02/904/02] lam-
150 · 150 2458
inated plates are considered: 150 · 50 mm2, 150 · 100 2773
2 2
150 · 100 mm , and 150 · 150 mm . The narrow sides 150 · 50 2372
(50 mm, 100 mm, and 150 mm) of the plates are clamped
and the other side (150 mm) is free. Two different masses Plate in-plane dimensions Maximum contact force (N) for 1.2 kg
of the impactor (0.314 kg, and 1.2 kg) are considered. (mm)
150 · 150 5010
The impactor velocity is taken as 2.92 m/s. From the fol- 150 · 100 5071
lowing figures, it is observed that contact force duration 150 · 50 4578
is affected by the mass of the impactor. As the mass
increases the contact duration increases, whereas the in-plane dimensions (150 · 50 mm2) independently of the
contact duration is higher for the plate with the smallest mass of the impactor. Table 2 shows the maximum contact
forces for two different masses of the impactor and for
three different in-plane dimensions of laminated plates.
Independently of the mass of the impactor, the contact
3.0 force is minimal for the plate having the smallest in-plane
150 x 150 dimensions.
2.5 150 x 100
150 x 50 6.4. Effect of the impactor velocity
Contact force (KN)

2.0
In order to determine the effect of the impactor velocity
1.5
on the impact behavior of a plate, the impact force and the
central deflection are calculated at increasing impactor
velocities (0.85, 1.6 and 2.92 m/s). The properties of the tar-
1.0
get plate and the impactor used are the same as those used
in Section 1. The impact force and the central deflection are
0.5 proportional to the impact velocity during the loading
phase of a simply supported plate (Figs. 10 and 11). At
0.0 the end of the unloading phase, the curves of the contact
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 force and the central deflection are reversed.
Time (ms)
Fig. 8. Contact force history for 0.314 kg and 2.92 m/s. 6.5. Effect of the impactor mass

It is observed that doubling or trebling the mass does

not increase the maximum contact force to the same factor

6 4.0
Vp=2.92 m/s
150 x 150 3.5 Vp=1.6 m/s
5 150 x 100
Vp=0.85 m/s
150 x 50 3.0
Contact force (KN)
Contact force (KN)

4
2.5

3 2.0

1.5
2
1.0
1
0.5

0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Fig. 9. Contact force history for 1.2 kg and 2.92 m/s. Fig. 10. Contact force history for three different impactor velocities.
 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82 79

n 2 n 2
0.6 r
22 s23
nY
þ nS
¼ e2M ;
Vp=2.92 m/s
T
Vp=0.85 m/s
0.5 if eM P 1 failure; ð19Þ
Vp=0.85 m/s
Central deflection (mm)

if 22 P 0 n Y ¼ n Y T ;
r
0.4
if 22 < 0 n Y ¼ n Y c ;
r

0.3 where YT and Yc are the in situ ply transverse tensile and
compressive strengths, respectively. s23 and r 22 are the
averaged interlaminar transverse shear stress, and normal
0.2
stress, respectively [5,11].
The delamination criterion is given by the equation
0.1 below
" 2 nþ1 2 nþ1 2 #
n
0.0 s23 s13 r
22
Da n þ nþ1 þ nþ1 ¼ e2D ;
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ST SL Y
Time (ms)
if eD P 1 failure; ð20Þ
Fig. 11. Central deflection history for three different impactor velocities. nþ1 nþ1
if 22 P 0
r Y ¼ Y T;
nþ1 nþ1
if 22 < 0
r Y ¼ Y c;

6.0 where Da is a constant to be determined from the experi-

5.5 ment. n and n + 1 correspond to upper and lower plies of
M=1M the nth interface, respectively.
5.0
M=2M
4.5 M=4M 7.1. Damage analysis
Contact force (KN)

4.0
3.5 7.1.1. Prediction of matrix cracking
3.0 To predict matrix cracking, dynamic stresses are calcu-
2.5 lated at nine Gaussian points of each element. The failure
2.0 criteria given by Eq. (19) are then applied at each Gaussian
1.5 point. Only r22 and s23 stress components are concerned in
1.0 the prediction of matrix cracking.
0.5 The material properties of the impactor and composite
0.0
plate and the yielding laminate strength are given in
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Table 3.
Time (ms) Different stacking sequences are considered. The plate is
simply supported on all edges. Its size is 127 mm · 76.2 mm
Fig. 12. Contact force history for three different impactor masses.
and tlayer = 0.465 mm. The time step used is Dt = 0.27 ls. If
we use 15 · 11 elements, the impact force is applied on the
upper surface at the 83th element in the Gaussian point
but in smaller increments. Also it is observed that the con- (ipgs = 2 and jpgs = 2) with (NPGS = 3).
tact duration increases with an increase of the mass of
impactor (Fig. 12). It is important to notice that the
Table 3
increase in the mass of the impactor does not have much Material properties of plate and impactor and yielding strength of lamina
influence on the contact force in the linear time domain
Composite materials
[0, 200 s]. In this case, the impactor mass is equal to
Plate properties
M = 0.157 kg.
E1 = 144.8 GPa, E2 = 9.65 GPa
G12 = G13 = 7.10 GPa, G23 = 5.92 GPa
7. Prediction of impact induced damage m12 = 0.30, q = 1389.2 kg m3
Boundary conditions Simply-supported
Once the numerical model has been validated, we intend Lamina strengths
to predict impact damage at a specific impact speed. Thus, YT = 55.20 MPa, Da = 1.8  2.0
we proceed with the computation of the stresses at the YC = 294.0 MPa, ST = 32.94 MPa
Gaussian points via our numerical model, then the failure SL = 101.1 MPa
criterion suggested by Choi and Chang [17] is used to pre- Impactor properties
dict matrix cracking and delamination. The critical matrix R = 6.35 mm, E = 200 GPa, m = 0.3
q = 7870 kg m3
cracking criterion is given by the following equation:
80 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82

Table 4 Table 6
Threshold velocity inducing crack initiation for different stacking Position of matrix cracking, [02/904/02]
sequences 22 ðMPaÞ s23 ðMPaÞ
Lam. Nu Ele. Nu IPGS JPGS t(ls) r
Stacking Threshold t (ls) Fc (N) 22 ðMPaÞ
r s23 ðMPaÞ
3 83 1 3 12.69 3.75 33.67
sequence velocity vp (m/s)
3 83 2 3 12.69 3.75 33.67
02/905/02 6.70 31.86 1110.45 11.40 32.24 4 83 1 3 12.69 2.25 33.67
02/904/02 6.80 32.40 989.86 13.48 31.94 4 83 2 3 12.69 2.25 33.67
02/903/02 7.00 28.62 834.23 5.170 32.96 5 83 1 3 12.69 0.75 33.67
02/902/02 7.40 28.35 695.96 5.226 32.93 5 83 2 3 12.69 0.75 33.67
03/902/03 7.15 30.24 951.20 20.46 30.61 6 83 1 3 12.69 0.75 33.67
03/903/03 7.00 31.59 1087.86 18.25 31.11 6 83 2 3 12.69 0.75 33.67
03/904/03 6.95 32.13 1219.70 15.81 31.59 7 83 3 1 12.96 6.13 32.94
7 83 3 2 12.96 6.13 32.94
8 83 3 1 12.96 10.21 32.94
8 83 3 2 12.96 10.21 32.94
Table 4 shows the possibilities of the initiation matrix
cracking at different Gaussian points.
A numerical parametric study has been conducted in
matrix cracking first appears in element 83 (ipgs = 1 and
order to determine the threshold impact velocity inducing
jpgs = 3) of lamina 3. It is first observed that for all config-
initiation matrix cracking, for several stacking configura-
urations, damage appears at an earlier time with the
tions. In these stacking sequences, we vary the percentage
increase in the impact velocity. A numerical quantitative
of fibers in the 0 fibers and in the 90 fibers. As shown
study shows (Table 5) that matrix cracking initiates in lam-
in Table 4, in the laminate [02/902/02] damage initiates at
ina 3, and 4 at 11.34 ls, then in lamina 6 at around 12.50 ls.
a higher threshold velocity (7.40 m/s), whereas in the lam-
Table 6 shows matrix cracking in lamina 3 at element 83
inate [02/905/02] damage initiates at a lower threshold
with the corresponding Gaussian points (ipgs = 1 and
velocity (6.70 m/s). This can be attributed to the fact that
jpgs = 3) where transverse shear stress dominates ðs23 ¼
the increase in plies oriented at 90 reduces in the rigidity
33:67 MPa; r22 ¼ 3:75 MPaÞ. The next failure is observed
of the laminate.
in lamina 4 at the same time. At a later time, a crack initiates
In this following section, we intend to determine matrix
in laminas 7 and 8 where normal stress r 22 changes from
cracking initiation using an impact velocity higher than
3.75 MPa to 10.21 MPa indicating a bending mode crack-
the threshold velocities and equal to 12 m/s. The same
ing. It has to be pointed out that the stiffness matrix is not
stacking sequence configurations are considered. Fig. 13
modified to take matrix cracking into account.
shows details of the FEM discretization around the impact
node. Thus, we explain in the same figure the notation ipjs,
7.1.2. Dynamic stresses at interfaces
jpjs. Table 5 shows that in the configuration [02/902/02]
In the following, a [02/904/02] laminate with the same
properties as those used in the previous sections is consid-
ered. The objective is to compute stress components
(r11, r22, s12, s13 and s23) at the top surface of the first lam-
ina and at the interface between laminas 7 and 8 at a point

Zoom in Impacted node

(ipgs=2 and jpgs=2)
. . .
100
ipjs=3
. . . ipjs=2
. . . ipjs=1

0
jpjs=1 jpjs=2 jpjs=3
Stress (MPa)

Fig. 13. FEM model details.

-100
sigma1
sigma2
Table 5
Position of matrix cracking, [02/902/02] tau12
-200
tau13
Lam. Nu Ele. Nu IPGS JPGS t (ls) 22 ðMPaÞ
r s23 ðMPaÞ
tau23
3 83 1 3 11.34 3.62 33.73
3 83 2 3 11.34 3.62 33.73
4 83 1 3 11.34 1.21 33.73 -300
4 83 2 3 11.34 1.21 33.73
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
6 83 3 1 12.42 13.74 32.52 Time (ms)
6 83 3 2 12.42 13.74 32.52
Fig. 14. Stress distribution at the first lamina.
 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82 81

250 20

sigma1
200 sigma2 0
tau12
150 tau13

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

tau23 -20
100
-40 (sigma2)_1
50
(tau23)_1

-60 (sigma2)_2
0
(tau23)_2

-50 -80
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Fig. 15. Stress distribution at the last lamina. Fig. 17. Stress distribution at two different locations.

location (Lamina 2, Element 83, IPGS 2 and JPGS 2)1 is

just underneath the contact point. The obtained results are
plotted and shown in Figs. 14 and 15.
From these figures, it can be demonstrated that the
stresses in the first lamina (top lamina) are negative,
whereas in the last lamina (lower lamina) they are positive.
The transverse shear stresses s12, s13 and s23 are smaller
than in plane stresses r1 and r2. The maximum value of
r1 is greater than the maximum value of r2.
Fig. 16 shows the stress histories at the mid-plane of the
laminate at the point just underneath the contact point.
Fig. 16 shows that the stress components (r1, r2 and s12)
at the mid-plane are neglected (r1, r2 and s12  0). The
other components (s13 and s23) are not that much
neglected. This means that those two components contrib-
ute more in the prediction of the matrix cracking compared
with the other components.
Fig. 17 shows the stress histories of a [02/904/02] lami-
nate, without damage, at two different locations. The first
10
5 increase in the mass and velocity of the impactor. The
Stress (MPa)
directly underneath the contact point, whereas the second
location (Lamina 2, Element 83, IPGS 3 and JPGS 1)2 is
away from the contact point. This figure shows that the
stress components s23 at the second location is much higher
than at the first location; this means that matrix cracking
will initiate away from the contact point.
8. Conclusion
In the present work, a low velocity impact inducing dam-
age in laminated composite plates is numerically studied. A
finite element approach based on a 9-node Lagrangian ele-
ment including the effect of transverse shear stress is used.
Contact force, central deflection and stress distribution
are calculated via a FORTRAN computer code developed
for this purpose. A parametric study in which the effects
of boundary conditions, stacking sequence, in plane dimen-
sions, impact velocity and mass of the impactor has been
conducted prior to damage prediction. The tendency of
the results shows that the contact duration is higher for
the plate with the smallest in plane dimensions
(150 · 50 mm2) independently of the mass of the impactor.
Both contact force and central deflection increase with an
increase of the 90 plies reduces the rigidity of the laminate.
Matrix cracking appears in the upper plies with the domi-

0
nance of transverse shear stress s23 and in the lower plies
with the dominance of both transverse shear stress s23 and
-5 normal stress r22 which explains the presence of two types
sigma1 of matrix cracking due to bending and to shear. It is also
sigma2
demonstrated from a dynamic stress analysis that crack ini-
-10 tau12
tiation occurs away from the contact point.
tau13
tau23

-15 References
0.00 0.10 0.20
Time (ms) [1] Li CF, Hu N, Yin YJ, Sekine H, Fukunaga H. Low-velocity impact
damage of continuous fiber-reinforced composite laminates. Part I
Fig. 16. Stress distribution at the mid-plane. An FEM numerical model. Composites: Part A 2002;33:1055–62.
82 R. Tiberkak et al. / Composite Structures 83 (2008) 73–82
[2] Li CF, Hu N, Cheng YG, Fukunaga H, Sekine H. Low-velocity
impact-induced damage of continuous fiber-reinforced composite
laminates. Part II Verification and numerical investigation. Compos-
ites: Part A 2002;33:1063–72.
[3] Sekine H, Hu N, Fukunaga H, Natsume T. Low-velocity impact
response of composite laminates with a delamination. Mech Compos
Mater Struct 1998;5:275–8.
[4] Sun CT. An analytical method for evaluation of impact damage energy
of laminated composites. Am Soc Test Mater 1977;ASTM STP
617:427–40.
[5] Zülayha Aslan, Ramazan Karakuza, Buket Okutan. The response of
laminated composite plates under low-velocity impact loading.
Compos Struct 2003;59:119–27.
[6] Mili F, Necib B. Impact behavior of cross-ply laminated composite
plates under low velocities. Compos Struct 2001;51:237–44.
[7] Pierson MO, Vaziri R. Analytical solution for low-velocity impact
response of composite plates. AIAA J 1996;34:1633–40.
[8] Yang SH, Sun CT. Indentation law for composite laminates. Am Soc
Test Mater 1981;ASTM STP 787:425–49.
[9] Tam TM, Sun CT. Wave propagation in graphite/epoxy laminates
due to impact. NASA CR 168057; 1982.
[10] Choi Ik Hyeon, Lim Cheol Ho. Low-velocity impact analysis of
composite laminates using linearized contact law. Compos Struct
2004;66:125–32.
[11] Sun CT, Chattopadhyay S. Dynamic response of anisotropic lami-
nated plates under initial stress to impact of a mass. ASME J Appl
Mech 1975;42:693–8.
[12] Dobyns AL. Analysis of simply supported orthotropic plates
subjected to static and dynamic loads. AIAA J 1981;19:642–50.
[13] Ramkumar RL, Chen PC. Low-velocity impact response of lami-
nated plates. AIAA J 1983;21:1448–52.
[14] Whitney JM, Pagano NJ. Shear deformation in heterogeneousaniso-
tropic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1970;37:1031–6.
[15] Sankar BV. Scaling of low-velocity impact for symmetric composite
laminates. J Reinf Plast Compos 1992;11:297–305.
[16] Ganapathy S, Rao KP. Interlaminar stress in laminated composite
plates, cylindrical/spherical shell panels damaged by low-velocity
impact. Compos Struct 1997;38(1–4):156–68.
[17] Choi HY, Chang FK. A model for predicting damage in graphite/
epoxy laminated composites resulting from low-velocity point impact.
J Compos Mater 1992;26:2134–69.
[18] Naidu NVS, Sinha PK. Nonlinear finite element analysis of laminated
composite shells in hygrothermal environments. Compos Struct
2005;69:387–95.
[19] Vaziri R, Quan X, Olson MD. Impact analysis of laminated
composite plates and shells by super finite elements. Int J Impact
Engng 1996;18(7–8):765–82.
[20] Krishnamurthy KS, Mahajan P, Mittal RK. Impact response and
damage in laminated composite cylindrical shells. Compos Struct
2003;59:15–36.
[21] Krishnamurthy KS, Mahajan P, Mittal RK. A parametric study of
the impact response and damage of laminated cylindrical composite
shells. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61:1655–69.
[22] Delfosse D, Vaziri R, Pierson MO, Poursartip A. Analysis of the non-
penetrating impact behavior of CFRP laminates. In: Proceedings of
the 9th international conference on composite materials, Madrid,
Spain; July 1993, p. 366–73.
[23] Tiberkak R, Rechak S, Bachene M. The dynamic response of
laminate composite plate under low-velocity impact. In: 25th congress
of the international council of the aeronautical sciences, Hamburg,
Germany; 3–8 September 2006.