Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436

www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Polymer-matrix composites subjected to low-velocity impact:

eect of laminate conguration
N.K. Naik*, Sailendra Meduri
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, Mumbai, 400 076, India

Received 23 May 2000; received in revised form 11 November 2000; accepted 13 March 2001

Abstract
Eect of laminate conguration on the impact behaviour of dierent polymer-matrix composites subjected to a transverse central
low-velocity point impact load has been studied. For this a 3D transient nite-element analysis code using a modied Hertz law has
been used. Quadratic failure criteria have been used to predict in-plane and interlaminar failure initiation. The studies have been
carried out with plate dimensions of 150 mm
150 mm
6 mm with a simply supported boundary condition. For these studies, an
incident impact velocity of 3 m/s and an impactor mass of 50 g have been used. Studies have been carried out on dierent mixed
composites, cross-ply laminates, woven-fabric composites and 3D composites. It is observed that mixing of unidirectional and
woven-fabric layers leads to the reduction of the failure function. # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Polymer-matrix composites; A. Textile composites; B. Impact behaviour; C. Failure criterion; C. Finite-element analysis; Mixed
composites

1. Introduction the formation of such damage when subjected to low-

Traditionally, laminated composites made of unidirec-
tional (UD) layers have been used for high-performance
structural applications because of their high specic
strength and high specic stiness. These attractive prop-
erties can be realised only if the loading direction coincides
with the reinforcement direction. In many applications the
loading can be multidirectional. Additionally, structures
often undergo transverse quasi-static or impact loading.
For such applications laminated composites made of UD
layers may not be the best.
Polymer-matrix composites are known to be highly
susceptible to internal damage caused by transverse loads
even under low-velocity impacts. The composites can be
damaged on the surface. They can also be damaged
beneath the surface by relatively light impacts causing
barely visible impact damage, while the surface may
appear to be undamaged to visual inspection. For the
eective use of polymer-matrix composites for high-
performance applications, understanding the causes of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-22-576-7114; fax: +91-22-572-
2602.
E-mail address: nknaik@aero.iitb.ac.in (N.K. Naik).
0266-3538/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0266-3538(01)00044-6
velocity impact and improving the damage-resistance
characteristics of the composites are important con-
siderations.
One of the ways of improving the damage-resistance
characteristics of polymer-matrix composites is by the
use of an appropriate form of laminate conguration.
Generally, polymer-matrix composites based on lami-
nate conguration can be classied into the following
ve categories.
1. Laminated composites made of UD prepreg tapes.
2. Planar two-dimensional (2D) textile composites.
3. Fully integrated and through-thickness-reinforced
three-dimensional (3D) textile composites.
4. Mixed composites made by using UD prepreg
tapes and 2D textile layers.
5. Hybrid composites with dierent reinforcing
materials.
Unidirectional prepregs are characterised with bre
continuity and linearity with a high level of property
translation eciency. Such materials have high in-plane
specic stiness and specic strength. Planar 2D fabric
composites are characterised by balanced in-plane
1430 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436
properties. Such composites have reduced in-plane
mechanical properties because of bre undulation.
Three-dimensional composites are emerging as the
main structural materials where multidirectional
mechanical and thermal stresses are found. Because of
the through-thickness reinforcement, 3D composites are
more delamination resistant. The reinforcement limits
damage initiation and extension after impact within the
composite. They also display better resistance to crack
propagation and less notch sensitivity as compared to
laminated composites. The spatial framework of the
reinforcement results in a sharp increase in load bearing
capacity of the material in thick-walled structures,
especially in the zones of application of concentrated
loads, cut-outs, ribs under unsteady forces and tempera-
ture eects. For the same bre volume fractions, 3D
orthogonally woven composites show a signicant increase
in through-thickness properties without a comparable
reduction in in-plane properties. The 3D composite struc-
tures are manufactured by resin transfer moulding of dry
bre preforms. Hence, complex shapes can be formed.
Mixed composites are formed by a rational combina-
tion of UD layers and 2D textile layers. A unique com-
bination of higher in-plane properties of UD layers and
balanced in-plane properties of 2D textile layers is made
use of for improving the overall performance of mixed
composites. In hybrid composites, two or more reinfor-
cing materials are used to improve the overall char-
acteristics of the material.
Considering the importance of impact behaviour of
polymer-matrix composites, extensive research has been
carried out during the last few years on this subject.
Review articles on the impact behaviour of polymer-
matrix composites covering contact laws, impact dynam-
ics, stress analysis, damage initiation and propagation,
damage tolerance and improvements in damage resistance
and tolerance are available in literature [16]. Many
research publications are available on impact behaviour
of polymer-matrix composites covering specic aspects.
Some of the typical studies are given in Refs. [718].
Matrix deformation and microcracking, interfacial
debonding, lamina splitting, delamination, bre break-
age and bre pullout are the possible modes of failure in
polymer-matrix composites subjected to impact loading.
Even though, bre breakage is the ultimate failure
mode, the macro damage would initiate in the form of
matrix cracking/lamina splitting and delamination.
Additionally, contact induced crushing of upper layers
is another possibility. Composites with higher damage
resistance are necessary for their eective use.
Generally, it is observed that the woven-fabric (WF)
composites have higher impact damage resistance than
the cross-ply (CP) counterparts made of UD layers [18
20]. However, the eect of laminate conguration on
the impact behaviour of polymer-matrix composites is
not well understood.
Laminate conguration, specically the reinforcing
arrangement can have a signicant eect on the impact
behaviour of polymer-matrix composites. To look into
this aspect, studies have been carried out on four types
of composites: laminated composites made of UD pre-
preg tapes, 2D WF composites, mixed composites made
using UD prepreg tapes and 2D WF layers and 3D
woven composites.
In this paper, the impact behaviour of polymer-matrix
composite plates simply supported on all four sides and
subjected to a transverse central low velocity point
impact load is studied. Prediction of in-plane failure of
layers in the form of matrix cracking/lamina splitting
and delaminations are the primary objectives of the
present study. The stress state in the composite plate has
been evaluated using 3D transient nite-element analy-
sis. Quadratic failure criteria have been used to deter-
mine the failure function indicating the induced stress
level with respect to in-plane failure and interlaminar
failure.
2. Analytical formulation
In the impact analysis of the composite plates, it is
assumed that the material of each layer is linearly elastic
and obeys the generalised Hookes law. It is based on
small deection theory. For the calculation of the contact
force caused due to impact on the plate, the impactor is
modelled as an isotropic elastic body of spherical shape
and the target as a plane orthotropic surface. The impac-
tor is assumed to be rigid and of higher stiness compared
to the target in the direction of impact. The stress eld in
the composite plate was analysed assuming quasi-static
loading [1921].
The in-house nite-element analysis (FEA) code was
used for the damage initiation studies [19,20]. This code
is developed using modied Hertz contact law and a 3D
transient nite element analysis. The overall response of
the plate was obtained based on the response of the
plate due to a unit impulse of time duration
t [22].
Eight-noded brick elements with three degrees of free-
dom per node were used for the analysis. The analysis of
the dynamics of impact of the composite plate by a rigid
impactor was performed to determine the contact force
history and the response of the plate.
3. Laminate congurations studied
Impact behaviour of 14 types of polymer-matrix
composites with dierent laminate congurations has
been studied. Specically, seven types of mixed compo-
sites with dierent combinations of UD layers and
plain-weave fabric layers have been studied. These seven
types of mixed composites are indicated as: MIX-1
 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436 1431

Table 1 the plain weave fabric composite WG02G used for

Lay-up of composites making mixed and WF composites have been presented
Material Lay-upa in Table 2. The elastic and strength properties of 3D
orthogonal woven composites based on ideal geometry
CP0.40GI [02/902]S and actual geometry have also been presented in Table 2.
CP0.40GII [0/90]2S
CP0.40GIII [04/904]T
CP0.40GIV [0/90]4T
MIX-1 [(0)2/[0/90]S/(0)2]T 4. Results and discussion
MIX-2 [[0/90]3/(0)2]T
MIX-3 [[0/90]2/(0)4]T The analysis has been carried out using the in-house
MIX-4 [(0)2/[0/90]2/(0)2]T
MIX-5 [[0/90]S/(0)4]T
FEA code [19,20]. A square plate of 150 mm
50 mm
6
MIX-6 [[0/90]/(0)4/[90/0]]T mm thickness with simply supported boundary condition
MIX-7 [(0)/[0/90]S/(0)3]T on all the four sides has been considered. There is a typo-
WG02G [(0)8]T graphical error in our earlier papers [19,20]. The boundary
3D-O Orthogonal conditions simply supported on all four sides are:
3D-O+ Orthogonalb
a
1. At X=0 and X=LX
Lay-up sequence is from top.
b
Considering knockdown factors and crimp reduction.
2. u60, v=0, w=0
3. At Y=0 and Y=LY
4. u60, v60, w=0
MIX-7 (Table 1). Four types of balanced symmetric
cross-ply laminates made of UD layers have also been The studies have been carried out on laminate con-
studied. These are indicated as: CP0.40GICP0.40GIV gurations as given in Table 1. For all the cases, the
(Table 1). Also, a typical WF composite made of 2D plain loading was through a transverse point load acting at
weave fabric (indicated as WG02G) and two types of 3D the centre of the plate. The studies have been carried out
orthogonal woven composites (indicated as 3D-O and for the incident impact energy (ET) of 0.23 J. The inci-
3D-O+) have also been studied. The orthogonal woven dent impact velocity of the impactor (V0) was 3 m/s, and
composite 3D-O is based on ideal geometry whereas 3D- the impactor mass (M) was 50 g. It may be noted that
O+ is based on actual geometry considering knockdown this combination represents a typical tool drop on the
factors and crimp reduction [23,24]. For all the composites composite structures. This is one of the realistic impact
the material considered is E-glass/epoxy with bre volume conditions. One would like to know the incident impact
fraction, Vf =0.40. It may be noted that the density of all energy threshold for damage initiation.
the 14 material systems is 1750 kg/m3. A steel spherical impactor with tip radius 6.5 mm,
The elastic and strength properties of E-glass/epoxy modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa and Poissons ratio of
UD layer used for making mixed and CP laminates and 0.3 has been considered.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of composites with dierent congurations of reinforcement: E-glass/epoxya

Elastic properties

Material E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) E33 (GPa) G12 (GPa) G13 (GPa) G23 (GPa)
12
13
23 Vf  (kg/m3)

UD 30.9 8.3 8.3 2.8 2.8 3.0 0.327 0.327 0.395 0.4 1750
WG02G 20.8 20.8 8.7 3.92 4.2 4.2 0.173 0.279 0.279 0.4 1750
3D-O 20.1 19.9 14.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.201 0.296 0.301 0.4 1750
3D-Ob 16.9 19.5 11.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 0.193 0.360 0.362 0.4 1750
UDc 120 7.9 7.9 5.5 5.5 2.97d 0.33 0.33 0.33d 1580

Strength properties

XT (MPa) YT (MPa) ZT (MPa) S12 (MPa) S13 (MPa) S23 (MPa) XC (MPa) YC (MPa) ZC (MPa) Vf

UD 798 27.1 27.1 36.8 36.8 36 480 140 140 0.4

WG02G 250 250 27.1 28.0 28.0 28 183 183 140 0.4
3D-O 359 340 83.0 36.8 36.8 36 215 204 170 0.4
3D-Ob 253 333 28.0 36.8 36.8 36 152 200 170 0.4
a
XT and YT values for WF composite are at pure matrix block failure.
b
Considering knockdown factors and crimp reduction.
c
Material used by Pierson and Vaziri.
d
Estimated values.
1432 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436

The in-house FEA code developed was rst run with

dierent meshes for convergence study. A mesh size of
20
20
8 was arrived at based on convergence study
and the comparison of results obtained using our in-
house FEA code and the results obtained by other ana-
lytical models and experimental observations.
The in-house FEA code was run for an impact pro-
blem solved by Karas [25,26] for an isotropic plate of
dimensions 200 mm
200 mm
8 mm. The incident
impact velocity, V0=1 m/s, impactor mass, M=32 g
and impactor tip radius, r=10 mm were considered.
Material of the plate and the impactor was steel. The
results obtained for contact force history and displace-
ment history for the plate and the impactor by the pre-
sent in-house FEA code and that obtained by Karas
were compared, and a very good correlation was
obtained [19,27]. Further, the in-house FEA code was Fig. 2. Variation of impactor and plate displacements with time at the
validated with the experimental results by Lammerant centre for T300/934 CFRP plate, [0/09/0/90/0]T simply supported.
and Verpoest [28]. They carried out experiments on
balanced symmetric CP laminates [904/04] made of 4.1. Failure function plots
HTA/6376 toughened carbon/epoxy under quasi-static
loading and found the deection of the plate at the The three possible macro modes of damage initiation
initiation of matrix cracking/lamina splitting at the that can occur in the composite laminates under impact
lower surface of the plate. The predictions based on in- load are:
house FEA code and the experimental results presented
1. Initiation of delamination due to tensile nature of
by Lammerant and Verpoest match well [27].
 Z and other interlaminar shear stresses.
Further, the in-house FEA code was run for an
2. Initiation of matrix cracking/lamina failure due to
impact problem solved by Pierson and Vaziri [15] for a
inplane stresses. Inplane tensile normal stresses
T300/934 CFRP plate of dimension 200 mm
200
and shear stress can lead to matrix cracking/
mm
2.7 mm. The material elastic properties are given
lamina failure in the lower layer and lamina failure
in Table 2. The incident impact velocity, V0=3 m/s,
in the upper layer. These matrix cracks initiated
impactor mass, M=8.5 g and impactor tip radius,
within the layer can lead to delamination when
r=6.5 mm have been considered. Impactor material is
these cracks reach the neighbouring interface.
steel. The results obtained for contact force history and
3. Crushing at the contact zone of upper layers due
plate displacement history by the present in-house FEA
to impact loading.
code and that obtained by Pierson and Vaziri are pre-
sented in Figs. 1 and 2. The results presented by Sun and Out of these three possible modes of damage initiation,
Chen, Qian and Swanson and LS-DYNA 3D as given by the third mode is not considered in the present study.
Pierson and Vaziri [15] are also presented. A good corre- Using the in-house FEA code, the stress components
lation is obtained between the results obtained by the  X,  Y,  XY,  Z,  XZ and  YZ were calculated through-
present method and those available in literature. out the composite plate for the entire impact duration.
Using the stress magnitudes calculated and the strength
data for dierent materials, failure function distribution
throughout the plate and the location of the peak failure
function are obtained. Quadratic failure criteria were
used for the determination of the failure functions.

4.1.1. In-plane failure function

An in-plane failure criterion by TsaiHill [29] has
been used for damage initiation studies. An in-plane
failure function, I based on TsaiHill criterion is dened
as follows:

2
2
2


1 2 12 1 2
 I
Fig. 1. Variation of contact force with time at the centre for T300/934 XT YT S12 XT XT
CFRP plate, [0/09/0/90/0]T simply supported.
 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436 1433

Here  1,  2 and  12 are the induced inplane stress 4.2. Failure functions for dierent laminate
components and XT, YT and S12 are the normal and in- congurations
plane shear strength values.
The damage initiation takes place in the form of Using the in-house FEA code contact force history
matrix cracking/lamina failure when the value of and plate displacement history as a function of impact
inplane failure function, I just exceeds unity. duration have been obtained. Peak contact force, max-
imum displacement, duration of impact and failure
4.1.2. Interlaminar failure function functions have been presented in Table 3 and Figs. 36
Initiation of delamination due to  Z and other inter- for all the 14 laminate congurations. In-plane failure
laminar shear stresses is determined using an inter- function history and interlaminar failure function his-
laminar failure function. For this, an interlaminar tory as a function of impact duration have been deter-
failure function based on through-thickness quadratic mined using the quadratic failure criteria as given
failure criterion as proposed by BrewerLagace has earlier. Maximum in-plane failure functions at the bot-
been used [30]. An interlaminar failure function, I is tom surface (I1) and at the top surface (I2) and the
dened as follows: maximum interlaminar failure functions (I9 and I10)
based on average stress criterion at the top two inter-

2
2
2
2 faces have been presented in Table 3. Interlaminar fail-
 3t  3c  23  31
I ure function I9 is with respect to the interface at a
Zt Zc S23 S31
distance of 5.25 mm from the bottom surface and I10 is
with respect to top interface.
Here,  3, 23 and 31 are the induced stress compo- The laminates CP0.40GI and CP0.40GII are symmetric
nents and Z, S23 and S31 are the corresponding strength whereas CP0.40GIII and CP0.40GIV are not symmetric.
values. Subscripts t and c indicate tensile and For the impact conditions considered, the failure has
compressive respectively. Superscript - indicates aver- taken place at the bottom layer for CP0.40GIII and
age value over certain area. CP0.40GIV. For all the CP laminates, failure function I1
The delamination initiation takes place when the at the bottom layer is higher than I2 or I10. This indicates
value of interlaminar failure function, I just exceeds that the failure would initiate at the bottom surface
unity. because of the inplane stress components. This is
The point stress criterion predicts higher values of because of lower transverse tensile strength of UD lay-
interlaminar failure function. This is because the calcu- ers. From Table 3, it can be seen that CP0.40GII has
lations are based on the peak stress values. The average lower failure function than for CP0.40GI. The laminate
stress criterion predicts more realistic behaviour. The CP0.40GI has clustered conguration whereas the
interlaminar failure function values based on average laminate CP0.40GII has staggered conguration.
stress criterion are calculated considering an area with It is seen that the damage initiates at the lower layer
the width equal to half the thickness of the plate around for CP laminates because of lower inplane tensile
the point of peak interlaminar failure function based on strength of the layers. One of the ways of delaying the
point stress criterion. Specically, these values were cal- failure initiation would be to introduce balanced WF
culated as follows [27]. layers at weaker regions. Seven types of UD-WF mixed
composites have been studied (Tables 1 and 3) to look
For WF laminates, into possible eect of mixing of layers on impact beha-
"
 # "
 # viour of composites. It may be noted that, MIX-1 and
4 2  1 2  1 MIX-6 are symmetric. Compared to the CP laminates,
Iasc Ipsc Ipsc 0:644 Ipsc
5 5 9 the mixed composites have signicantly lower inplane
failure function. But, there is some increase in inter-
laminar failure function for mixed composites. It may
For UD laminates, be noted that for MIX-1, MIX-2 and MIX-4, the max-
"
 # "
 # imum in-plane failure function was at a distance of 1.5
7 2  3 2  1 mm from the bottom surface, i.e. in the second and
Iasc Ipsc Ipsc 0:5 Ipsc
10 10 9 third layers from the bottom surface. This is indicated
by L3 in Table 3. The overall failure function, either the
in-plane or the interlaminar, is lower for mixed compo-
Here, Iasc indicates interlaminar failure function based sites compared to CP laminates. This indicates the ben-
on average stress criterion, whereas Ipsc indicates inter- ecial eect of mixing of UD and WF layers to decrease
laminar failure function based on point stress criterion. the failure function during an impact event. But the
For mixed and 3D composites the relation for WF inplane properties of mixed composites may be marginally
composite has been used. lower than those of CP laminates.
1434 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436

Table 3
Impact behaviour of composites: E-glass/epoxy. M=50 g, V0=3 m/s, plate dimensions: LX=150 mm, LY=150 mm and LZ=6.0 mm, simply sup-
ported

Material: Peak Max. Duration of Time to Time to Maximum in-plane Maximum interlaminar
lay-up contact displacement impactc reach fm (ms) reach failure function failure function (asc)
force fm (N) m (mm) tf (ms) m (ms)
I1 (bottom) I2 (top) I9 I10

CP0.40GI 870 0.600 1031 (961) 74 511 0.536 0.066 0.075 0.096
CP0.40GII 887 0.636 1018 (955) 74 464 0.436 0.062 0.078 0.099
CP0.40GIII 486a 0.212a 98a (98a) 98a 98a 1.000 0.067a
CP0.40GIV 175a 0.293a 136a (136a) 136a 136a 1.000 0.052a
MIX-1 1115 0.609 854 (898) 790 425 0.026 0.089 0.130 0.179
0.072 (L3)
MIX-2 1004 0.633 1026 (932) 827 449 0.022 0.064 0.129 0.165
0.064 (L3)
MIX-3 1026 0.626 1012 (924) 814 444 0.021 0.064 0.137 0.173
MIX-4 1103 0.611 854 (900) 788 425 0.026 0.089 0.127 0.175
0.076 (L3)
MIX-5 1053 0.628 1023 (926) 815 442 0.021 0.064 0.144 0.184
MIX-6 917 0.634 1012 (942) 827 450 0.390 0.061 0.111 0.140
MIX-7 1130 0.613 860 (901) 787 426 0.027 0.088 0.149 0.184
WG02G 1213 0.602 831 (893) 763 412 0.025 0.094 0.160 0.214
3D-O 1209 0.607 837 (902) 780 415 0.014 0.077 0.062 0.073
3D-Ob 1237 0.625 871 (929) 803 429 0.023 0.146 0.192 0.247
a
Indicates the values at in-plane failure.
b
Considering knockdown factors and crimp reduction.
c
Duration of impact is given at contact force, F=0. The quantity in the parentheses indicates duration of impact at plate displacement, w=0.

Fig. 3. Peak contact force and maximum displacement for dierent

mixed composites, V0=3 m/s, M=50 g, ET=0.23 J simply supported. Fig. 4. In-plane and interlaminar failure functions for dierent mixed
composites, V0=3 m/s, M=50 g, ET=0.23 J simply supported.

In general, it can be seen that MIX-1, MIX-2 and
MIX-4 have lower failure functions compared to
alternate mixed composites. A typical mixed composite
MIX-2 has six UD layers and only two WF layers.
With this, possible reduction in inplane properties
would be minimum, and there is a signicant reduction
in failure function compared to CP laminates. Peak
contact force, maximum displacement and failure func-
tions for dierent mixed composites have been pre-
sented in Figs. 3 and 4.
Composites MIX-1 and MIX-4 have lower displace-
ment compared to alternate mixed composites. The
peak contact force is higher for mixed composites com-
pared to CP laminates.
 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436
A typical plain weave fabric composite and 3D
orthogonal woven composites 3D-O and 3D-O+ have
also been studied. It can be seen that the overall failure
function is the least for 3D-O. This indicates 3D com-
posites are more impact resistant compared to the other
laminates. It may be noted that 3D-O is based on an
ideal conguration [23,24]. In actual 3D composites
there can be strand undulation leading to reduction in
mechanical properties. The conguration 3D-O+ is
Fig. 5. Peak contact force and maximum displacement for dierent
laminate congurations, V0=3 m/s, M=50 g, ET=0.23 J simply
supported.
Fig. 6. In-plane and interlaminar failure functions for dierent laminate
congurations, V0=3 m/s, M=50 g, ET=0.23 J simply supported.
1435
based on actual geometry [23,24]. For such a cong-
uration the overall failure function is higher compared
to 3D-O, 2D WF composites and mixed composites.
Peak contact force, maximum displacement and fail-
ure functions for CP laminates, MIX-2, WG02G and
3D composites have been presented in Figs. 5 and 6.
Overall, it is seen that the 3D orthogonal composite
with an ideal geometry has the least failure function.
This indicates that such composites are more impact
damage resistant. Considering possible strand undula-
tion during 3D composites fabrication, mixed compo-
sites may be a better choice. Among the mixed
composites, MIX-1, MIX-2 and MIX-4 have lower
overall failure function. Among these, MIX-2 can be a
better choice because of lower number of WF layers and
hence possible lower reduction in in-plane properties.
5. Conclusions
Eect of laminate conguration/reinforcement
arrangement on the impact behaviour of polymer-
matrix composites has been studied.
It is observed that rational mixing of UD and WF
layers helps in decreasing the overall failure function.
This indicates that mixed composites are more impact
damage resistant.
Among the mixed composites studied, MIX-2 has
overall improved properties.
Three-dimensional orthogonal woven composites
with an ideal geometry have superior impact damage
resistance properties.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Structures Panel,
Aeronautics Research and Development Board, Minis-
try of Defence, Government of India, Grant No. Aero/
RD-134/100/10/9596/890.
References
[1] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composite supported materials.
Applied Mechanics Review 1991;44:15590.
[2] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. The impact resistance of composite
materials a review. Composites 1991;22:34762.
[3] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances.
Applied Mechanics Review 1994;47:51744.
[4] Jang BZ. Advanced polymer composites. Materials Park (OH):
ASM International, 1994 pp. 167-198.
[5] Richardson MOW, Wisheart MJ. Review of low-velocity impact
properties of composite materials. Composites Part A
1996;27A:112331.
[6] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ. Review the role of reinforcement archi-
tecture on impact damage mechanisms and post-impact compres-
sion behaviour. Journal of Materials Science 1996;31:111537.
1436 N.K. Naik, S. Meduri / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 14291436
[7] Joshi SP, Sun CT. Impact induced fracture in a laminated com-
posite. Journal of Composite Materials 1985;19:5166.
[8] Joshi SP, Sun CT. Impact induced fracture in a quasi-isotropic
laminate. Journal of Composites Technology and Research
1987;9:406.
[9] Wu HT, Springer GS. Measurements of matrix cracking and
delamination caused by impact on composite plates. Journal of
Composite Materials 1988;22:51832.
[10] Wu HT, Springer GS. Impact induced stresses, strains, and dela-
minations in composite plates. Journal of Composite Materials
1988;22:53360.
[11] Sun CT, Manoharan MG. Growth of delamination cracks due to
bending in a [905/05/905] laminate. Composites Science and
Technology 1989;34:36577.
[12] Choi HY, Chang FK. A model for predicting damage in gra-
phite/epoxy laminated composites resulting from low-velocity
point impact. Journal of Composite Materials 1992;26:2134
69.
[13] Chou S, Chen HC, Chen HE. Eect of weave structure on
mechanical fracture behavior of three-dimensional carbon ber
fabric reinforced epoxy resin composites. Composites Science and
Technology 1992;45:2345.
[14] Jih CJ, Sun CT. Prediction of delamination in composite lami-
nates subjected to low velocity impact. Journal of Composite
Materials 1993;27:684701.
[15] Pierson MO, Vaziri R. Analytical solution for low-velocity
impact response of composite plates. AIAA Journal
1996;34:163340.
[16] Ebeling T, Hiltner A, Baer E, Fraser IM, Orton ML. Delamina-
tion failure of a woven glass ber composite. Journal of Compo-
site Materials 1997;31:131833.
[17] Ying Y. Analysis of impact threshold energy for carbon bre and
fabric reinforced composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 1998;17:105675.
[18] Kim JK, Sham ML. Impact and delamination failure of woven-
fabric composites. Composites Science and Technology
2000;60:74561.
[19] Naik NK, Chandra sekher Y. Damage in laminated composites
due to low velocity impact. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 1998;17:123263.
[20] Naik NK, Chandra sekher Y, Sailendra M. Damage in woven-
fabric composites subjected to low-velocity impact. Composites
Science and Technology 2000;60:73144.
[21] Davies GAO, Zhang X, Zhou G, Watson S. Numerical modelling
of impact damage. Composites 1994;25:34250.
[22] Sankar BV, Sun CT. An ecient numerical algorithm for trans-
verse impact problems. Computers and Structures 1985;20:100912.
[23] Cox BN, Dadkhah MS. The macroscopic elasticity of 3D woven
composites. Journal of Composite Materials 1995;29:785819.
[24] Naik NK, Thuruthimattam BJ. Behavior of 3-D orthogonally
woven composites under tensile loading. Journal of Composites
Technology and Research 1999;21:15363.
[25] Wu HT, Chang FK. Transient dynamic analysis of laminated
composite plates subjected to transverse impact. Computers and
Structures 1989;31:45366.
[26] Karas K. Platten untersettlichen stoss. Ingenieur Archiv
1939;10:23750.
[27] Naik NK, Chandra sekher Y, Sailendra M. Polymer matrix
woven fabric composites subjected to low velocity impact: part
I damage initiation studies. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 2000;19:91254.
[28] Lammerant L, Verpoest I. The interaction between matrix cracks
and delaminations during quasi-static impact of composites.
Composites Science and Technology 1994;51:50516.
[29] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. Washington (DC):
Scripta Book Company, 1975.
[30] Brewer JC, Lagace PA. Quadratic stress criterion for initiation of
delamination. Journal of Composite Materials 1988;22:114155.