STUDIES ON PARAMETERS AFFECTING LOW-VELOCITY IMPACT OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS

International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD) ISSN (P): 2249–6890; ISSN (E): 2249–8001 Vol. 10, Issue 3, Jun 2020, 2073-2084 © TJPR Pvt. Ltd.

STUDIES ON PARAMETERS AFFECTING LOW-VELOCITY IMPACT OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS SUNITH BABU L1, JAYA CHRISTIYANK G2 & VISHWANATH KOTI3 1

Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ramaiah Institute of Technology Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

2,3

Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ramaiah Institute of Technology Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT Composite Materials are a class of materials that are custom developed to provide better strength based on the need of the customer. The major application of composite materials finds inaerospaceapplications. However, in any field of engineering, failure is a critical factor and needs a better understanding of how these effects can be reduced. In the caseof aerospace engineering, failure may be due to the impact caused on the structures. Due to this phenomenon, damage tothe composite structure is an important area and several researchers have worked extensively to find reasons and effects of various parameters that lead to the failure of composites due to impact. Further, special emphasis on lowcannot be seen by the naked eye. This paper focuseson the effect of various failure modes and factors influencing the damage and possible ways to reduce the impact damage of composite materials, which can in turn enable better service life of the component.

KEYWORDS:Low-Velocity Impact, Impact Parameters, Polymer Matrix Composites & Effects of Damage

Original Article

velocity impact is gaining prominence, since; it is a grave threat to the aerospace industry and damage caused due to this

Received: May 29, 2020; Accepted: Jun 19, 2020; Published: Jul 03, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN2020195

1.INTRODUCTION At present, composites are extensively deployed in various fields of engineering and particularly in aerospace engineering as they offer excellent high strength to weight ratio, better corrosion,and fatigue resistance [1, 2]. Impact damage is another area phenomenon that composites undergo due to various parameters [3]. It is evident that, compared to metallic structures, composite structures are susceptible to impact damage. This is further classified into three types namely (i) low-velocity impact (ii) high velocity and (iii) hypervelocity [4,5,6]. One factor that needs special attention in the area of impact studies is the outcome of impact. High velocity and hyper velocity leads to permanent damage to the structure but LVI (Low-Velocity Impact) causes damage so negligible that it comes under BVID (Barely Visible Impact Damage) due to this the damage propagates slowly and different types of damage initiate namely matrix cracking, fiber damage, delamination and through penetration [7]. Some of the areas where damage mechanism needs further assessment in case of aircraft parts - windshield, blades (Propeller), fuel storage tank, wingspan, radar location,etc. Further, there are various supporting conditions for the impact studies such as runway debris and bird strike is one of the most important parameters that need utmost care [8,9].

Some parametersneed special studies namely the space debris owing to cause of concern for satellites, shuttle,and ISS (Inter-laminar Shear Stress) in particular which are orbiting around the planet earth [10, 11]. These

www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org

2074

Sunith Babu L, Jaya Christiyank G & Vishwanath Koti

issues can be reviewed by adopting several measures in overcoming damage due to impact by understanding the factors that enable further damage initiation. In any kind of impact damage, the failure of the composite structure can fall under any one of the following phases such as (i) matrix/fiber debonding at the interface (ii) cracking of matrix (iii) penetration (iv) interlaminar delamination and (v) fiber failure due to compression and tension. The fiber failure is one of the most advanced failure modes as the impact energy levels increase [12,13] Based on these different types of damage, the energy required falls under three categories – low energy, medium energy,and high energy and its effect on the composite materials is shown in table 1. Further, table 2 gives the velocity range for different types of impact conditions and their experimental methods to identify the impact damage assessment[14].

Sl. No. 1 2 3

Table 1: Type of Impact based on Velocity Parameter Energy Type Damage Mechanism Low Energy Indentation, Delamination, Matrix Cracking, Medium Energy Delamination, Matrix Cracking, Rear Side Fiber Breakage, Local Crushing High Energy Fiber Pull Out, Delamination, Through Penetration

Table 2: Type of Impact based on Velocity Parameter Sl. No. Velocity Type Range Equipment for Testing 1 Low Velocity 0 – 10 m/s Drop Test 2 High Velocity > 10m/s Air Gun 3 Ballistic Velocity > 600m/s Air Gun High Pressure 4 Hyper Velocity > 1800m/s Powder-based Gun Further, several parametersinfluence the dynamic impact properties of composite materials that can be classified as shown in Figure 1[15]. In the case of conventional metals, the effect of impact damage is not much of a concern since they belong to a class of materials that withstand severe damage as they fall under ductile nature. However, composite materials belong to a class of materials that cannot withstand damage as they fall under brittle nature and hence the effect of various parameters needs further investigation. When a crack propagates, it takes random path movement and grows along with the interface of two layers and matrix as interlaminar delamination [16]. Damage that is caused by quasi-staticindentation (QSI) has a pattern that is comparable to that of the LVI test and is experimentally proved [17-18].

Researchers have worked on identifying the similar behavior between LVI and QSI and have recorded the readings in the area such as damage mechanics [19-22]. Irrespective of LVI or QSI the effect of damage remains the same hence the relative difference is neglected and focus related to the effect of impact can be taken as a prime source of investigation. Further, it is essential to understand, several factors that contribute to the overall performance of the composite materials under LVI and their significance on the damage mechanism of LVI and in turn adopting the outcome of the studies in various fields where the impact is an area of concern. Impact parameters as shown in Figure 1 are further categorized into two segments namely – Primary Influencing Factors and Secondary Influencing Factors. The primary ones focus mainly related to Matrix and Resin and the other depends on temperature, geometry, hybridization of either matrix or fabric,and stacking sequence. This paper focuses onimportant parameters and they can be overcome to obtain better impact resistance composite materials for various applications.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Studies on Parameters Affecting Low-Velocity Impact of Composite Materials

2075

Figure 1: Parameters Affecting Impact Response of Composite Materials [15].

2. RESISTANCE TO IMPACT It is evident that any structural material degrades over a period and this is termed as the service life of the structure.

Similarly, composites have a service life,and after this period, they tend to degrade and lose their service life leading to the formation of several internal morphological changes such as damage to the fiber-matrix interface, matrix cracking,etc.

Therefore, composites although being a very promising material still undergo structural failure. To overcome all these damages due to LVI, the only parameter that needs special attention isfocused on resistance to impact so that damage on the material is minimized largely.

Before studying the effects of various parameters, it is essential to understand that major factors such as fabric matrix structure, stacking process, the interface between fiber matrix andconcerns that need to be addressedlike impactor shape, size, mass followed by the type of impact on the composite structure.Repeated impact or oblique impact are other parameters that need special attention. Further,Kim JM [23] carried out complete studies related to LVI and proposed some fundamental changes in the fabrication of composites to avoid damage to the structure by incorporating bi-Owen fiber cloth, tough matrix mixture, hybrid system processing, adopting different stacking sequence.

2.1 Effect of Fiber Cloth Any type of composite structure before being developed needs some of the basic components such as fiber, matrix,and a fabrication process, and these are decided based on the type of application. For an application involving wing design in an aircraft, carbon cloth is preferred while those involving military needs Kevlar for bulletproof application. Irrespective of the application selection of an appropriate cloth becomes the primary source of concern. Since fibers are one of the primary points of content during LVI their behavior needs to be studied. Some of the fiber types include UD (Unidirectional), 2D

www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org

2076

Sunith Babu L, Jaya Christiyank G & Vishwanath Koti

Woven/Bidirectional, and 3D in which the fibers are weaved in the z-direction. In the case of Unidirectional composites, they are extensively used in the aerospace sector for different components like tail-fin fuselage since they have excellent directional properties, owing to this advantage engineers still cannot use them as they have issues under transverse direction especially when subjected to LVI [24,25]. Hence transverse delamination is a grey area of concern and difficult to detect as they can also lead to residual strength reduction to a greater extent [26].

To reduce the effect faced by UD type enhancements were made by adopting 2D Woven / Bidirectional composites thereby reducing the effect of transverse delamination. This further leads to issues related to crimping [27].

One factor that needs attention is composite materials having a larger area under the stress-strain curve has better energy absorption phenomenon [28]. Another possible way of enhancing the transverse failure is by adopting a 3D composites where-in it has many benefits such as (i) resistance to repeated impact loads (ii) possibility of attainment in case of structure and shape [29,30] 2.2 Effect of Matrix Matrix also plays a significant role in impact studies based on the interface bonding between each fiber [31]. It isfound that TP (Thermoplastic) plays a significant role in case of short-fiber systems [32], when adopting TS (Thermosetting) matrix there is a possibility of inter-laminar delamination as compared to TP composites [33] hence it is evident that TS has become a greater subject matter for many researchers [34]. These issues were overcome by adopting the stitching and reinforcement phenomenon for the majority of the applications [35-36]. However, there was a significant improvement in this case when the addition of single-walled Carbon Nanotubes was introduced into the matrix systems and they in turn enhanced better load transfer and mechanical properties [37]. It was further found that by adopting multi-walled CNT(Carbon Nanotube) the fracture toughness reduced while the interlaminar delamination reduced largely. This eventually led to the idea of mixing chopped fibers in the matrix composition and turn, it was found to be increasing largely in case of fracture toughness resistance [38]. This method of increasing the usage of chopped fibers in composite materials enhances the overall impact properties and in turn, requires a higher energy level to delaminate.

3. GEOMETRY In the previous discussion,several parameters were considered when choosing fiber, matrix, and its associated cases to improve the fracture toughness behavior. To enhance the overall performance of the composite materials, it is essential to have a better understanding of the key parameters such as thickness, scaling-process, and curvature of the composite materials.

3.1 Effect of Thickness The effect of thickness on impact properties plays a significant role as it can alter the overall performance of the composite materials. The failure-threshold increases to larger value impact issues as the thickness increases [39]. It was also found that the penetration energy drastically increased with an increase in thickness [40]. When compared to thin composite plates thick ones provided better resistance to impact. In a certain type of composite material, the Hertzian values increased with an increase in thickness [41]. It was also reported that an increase in individual lamina thickness doubled the impact resistance to LVI as compared to increasing the number of plies in a composite material. [42]. It was evident that perforation energy is dependent on the span to thickness ration under LVI [43]. Based on all these independent cases it can be reported that thickness plays a vital role in the overall assessment of the composite materials.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Studies on Parameters Affecting Low-Velocity Impact of Composite Materials

2077

3.2 Effect of Curvature Most of the composite materials like laminates or sandwich composites fabrication process falls under the flat panel category. However, when we focus on applications related to aerospace, this cannot be attained and hence focus on curved structure becomes increasingly important in regions such as wingspan, fuselage, tail fin, etc., to evaluate the effect ofcurvature, experiments were carried out by several researchers Gong et al [44] carried out studies on LVI on cylindrical shells by introducing an analytical force function and in turn estimated the effect of impact on structures. This in turn enabled them to develop force-contact histories models between IM (ImpactorMass) and velocity.

Saghafi et al. [45] carried out studies on the influence of preloading the composite curved panel and found that with an increase in preloading the peak load increased while the displacement reduced mainly due to an increase in stiffness of the composite structure. Further, Shivakumar et al. [46] studied the model of spring-mass and energy balance on a curved panel and were able to get a good correlation between experimental and analytical models. Singh and Mahajan [47] were able to develop models, which could detect the inter-intra-laminar failure on the stiffened curved composites.

Based on all these studies, it was found that composite materials with higher stiffness co-efficient established better impact resistance.

4. EFFECT OF IMPACTOR Apart from fiber, matrix, thickness, impactor shape/size followed by impactor mass/velocity also plays a significant role in LVI of composite materials. It is found that not much importance is given in the literature on the above parameters. The next sections will show the work done by various researchers in the above field.

4.1 Impactor Shape and Size Several researchers have used impactors of different shapes and sizes in case of LVI of composite laminates or sandwich composites. One of the common types of impactors used by many researchers is the hemispherical type of standard ϕ 12.7mm and further LVI manufacturers like Instron have adopted this dimension [48]. Fan J et.al [49] suggest that during maintenance carried out on a composite material the type of damage caused cannot always be predicted, however, with the drop a tool hammer there isa possibility that a blunt shape can be generated. Some of the commonly used impactors are shown in figure 2.

Zhou et al. [51] found that based on altering the impactor type resulted in a change in damage mechanism under LVI. Mines et al. [52] carried out experiments under LVI and Intermedia Velocity and found that flat and hemispherical impactor generated severe damage with an increase in impact velocity. With a change in the ratio of impactor nose vs impactor radius, there wasa significant change in impact behaviorof composite materials namely GRFP. Impactor diameterinfluences the LVI of composite materials as reported by Bulent Murat Icten [53]. Overall, it can be concluded that the Impactor made of hemispherical type provides higher impact energy as compared to other types.

www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org

2078

Sunith Babu L, Jaya Christiyank G & Vishwanath Koti

Figure 2: Impactor Shapes used in LVI of Composite Materials [50].

4.2 Effect of Mass & Velocity Along with the impactor shapes and sizes, the mass and velocity parameter of the Impactor is another grey area of concern.

Many researchers have worked on varying the mass and velocity components of the impactor and some of the findings are listed below.

Ambur et al. [54] carried out LVI studies on varying the impactor mass for a range between (1.0 kg to 8.9kg) and the outcome was found that there is no effect of mass variation for a 48ply composite laminates. Robinson and Davies et al.

[55] found that mass had no significant effect while, impact energy had a significant correlation with impact failure for a range of mass such as (1.1, 1.5, and 2.0) kg. Further, Zabala et al. [56] found that for a CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics) 2mm thick composite materials with varying impactor mass between (2.1kg to 9.5kg) they found that again the impactor mass had no significant role on the impact resistance on the composite materials although inter-laminar fracture toughness was noticed, this was due to lighter impacts producing larger deformation on the panels and found that the phenomenon was also noticed in the double cantilever process.

4.3 Effect of Oblique Impact Apart from LVI on composite structure, there are possibilities of a composite material being impacted at an angle and this is ideally termed as Oblique Impact. Since most of the impact related to aerospace applications not necessarily happen only by the normal impact. Further, the literature is also found that not many researchers have worked on oblique studies. The possible angles of oblique impact can range between (00 to 600) in the majority of the research work carried out so far.

Zhou et al. [57] found that with varying impact angles the damage was identical for LVI and the damaged region was higher for lower values of impact levels. The possible episode of levels of oblique impact can be noticed in the wingspan of an aircraft where-in the angle of tilt on a wing-span can lead to oblique impact properties as reported by [58]. In other cases, the angle of penetration was found to be higher with an increase in the angle of slope on the composite materials as documented by Yang I Y et al. [59]. Kumar et al. [60] reported that the energy released by the target diminished and further enhanced with an increase in the oblique angle. Hence it is evident that each case produced different results and the overall outline of the present work needs further studies for a range of materials related to Oblique Impact.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Studies on Parameters Affecting Low-Velocity Impact of Composite Materials

2079

5. EFFECT OF EXTERNAL FACTORS (TEMPERATURE/SURROUNDINGS) Several factors can lead to damage initiation in a composite material. The extent of damage can occur from material fabrication, test conditions, and process parameters. Exposure to the atmosphere is another area of concern related to LVI of composite structure [61,62]. Composite Structures such as those used in the aerospace sector are subjected to extreme cold and hot conditions followed by those used in the marine industry are subjected to seawater ageing, this also calls for dynamic studies on the composite structure to ensure they behave normally in every environmental condition.

Ray et al. [62] recorded that degree of degradation and moisture absorption gradually reduced with an increase in temperature. From all these studies, it is found that exposure to seawater, ageing under water and moisture absorption are some of the important parameters that affect the LVI of composite structures. Further, composites that are used in the aerospace segment are subjected to varying temperatures. By increasing the composite thickness, a marginal increase in damage resistance are observed.

Guillaumat et al. [63] studied the effect of water ageing on composite structures and in turn carried out LVI on these components to review the effect. It was found that the internal structure resulted in moderate flaws on wet specimens from aramid/glass epoxy panels. Several researchers have found that the glass fiber matrix results in internal flaws due to the acidic nature of immersion studies. However, in the case of the alkaline nature of absorption of seawater could make the resin interface susceptible to damage.

6. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides an insight overview of the LVI of composite materials for a wide range of parameters such as fiber, matrix, the geometry of composite materials, impactor types and its associated parameters followed by the environmental impact on LVI. Based on the literature, it is found that many thrust areas of improvement can overcome and reduce the effect of LVI and in turn incorporate these changes in the composite development stage.This further enables better engineering applications and reduce catastrophic failure due to impact.

The fiber being one of the main constituent of the composite material has a significant effect, wherein the architecture can be manipulated thereby either reducing the no. of layers in a structure or choosing the weaving combination for a specific application, in the event of transvers failure, usage of bi-Owen orientation can be selected to reduce such failure. Hence choosing an idea combination of inter-intra layered composite can enable better LVI resistance in composite materials.

Using ideal matrix material can also reduce debonding, inter-laminar fracture toughness in between the fiber matrix interface. Parameters such a geometry and curvature effects can be reduced by using stiffened composite architecture. It is also identified that there is a lack in information in the field of oblique impact followed by limited outcome from the effect impactor shape/size including impactor velocity and its effects.

Environmental related effects of composite materials and its influence on LVI is still in progress. Temperature and Humidity are two main grey areas of concern when considering alkaline or acidic nature of exposure with reference to composite materials. Hence this paper gives an overview on the effect of LVI on composite materials in the larger picture and how they can be overcome.

www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org

2080

Sunith Babu L, Jaya Christiyank G & Vishwanath Koti

REFERENCES 1.

Andrew J Jefferson, Srinivasan Sivakumar M, Arockiarajan A, “The role of adhesively bonded super hybrid external patches on the impact and post-impact response of repaired glass/epoxy composite laminates”, Composite Structures 2018; 184:848– 59.

2.

Katnam KB, Da Silva LFM, “Bonded repair of composite aircraft structures: a review of scientific challenges and opportunities”, Progressive Aerospace Science 2013; 61:26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.03.003.

3.

Andrew J Jefferson, Arumugam V, Saravanakumar K, Dhakal HN, Santulli C, “Compression after impact strength of repaired GFRP

composite

laminates

under

repeated

impact

loading”,

Composite

Structures

2015;

133:911–20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.022.

4.

S. Abrate, “Impact on Composite Structures”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998.

5.

S. Abrate, “Impact on laminated composite materials”, Applied Mechanics Review, 44 (4) (1991) 155–190.

6.

S. Abrate, “Impact on laminated composites: recent advances”, Applied Mechanics Review, 47 (1994) 517–544.

7.

W.J. Cantwell, J. Morton, “Geometrical effects in the low velocity impact response of CFRP”, Composite Structures 12 (1) (1989) 39–59.

8.

Airoldi A, Cacchione B, “Modelling of impact forces and pressures in Lagrangian bird strike analyses”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2006; 32:1651–77.

9.

Anghileri M, Castelleti LML, Invernizzi F, Mascheroni M, “A survey of numerical models for hail impact analysis using explicit finite element codes”, ”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005; 31:929–44.

10. Farenthold EP, Hernandez RJ, “Simulation of orbital debris impact on the space shuttle wing leading edge”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2006; 33:231–43.

11. Schonberg WP, “Hole size and crack length models for spacecrafts walls under oblique hypervelocity projectile impact”, Aerospace Science & Technology, 1999; 3:461–71.

12. Tiberkak R, Bachene M, Rechak S, Necib B, “Damage prediction in composite plates subjected to low velocity impact”, Composite Structures, 2008; 83(1):73–82.

13. Bull DJ, Scott AE, Spearing SM, Sinclair I, “The influence of toughening-particles in CFRPs on low velocity impact damage resistance performance”, Composites Part A 2014; 58:47–55.

14. Zheng Daihua, “Low velocity impact analysis of composite laminated plates”, PhD Thesis, The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron; 2007.

15. J. Jefferson Andrewa, Sivakumar M. Srinivasana, A. Arockiarajanb, Hom Nath Dhakalc, “Parameters influencing the impact response of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite materials: A critical review”, International Journal of Composite Structure, Volume 224, 15 September 2019, pp 1-26.

16. Tita V, de Carvalho J, Vandepitte D, “Failure analysis of low velocity impact on thin composite laminates: experimental and numerical approaches”, Composite Structures, 2008; 83(4):413–28.

17. Flores-Johnson, E. A., and Q. M. Li, “Experimental study of the indentation of sandwich panels with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer face sheets and polymeric foam core”, Composites Part B: Engineering 42.5(2011):1212-1219.

18. Xiao, J. R., B.A. Gama, and J. W. Gillespie, “Progressive damage and delamination in plain weave S-2 glass/SC-15 composites under quasi-static punch-shear loading”, Composite Structures 78.2(2007):182-196.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Studies on Parameters Affecting Low-Velocity Impact of Composite Materials

2081

19. Kaczmarek, H., and S. Maison, “Comparative ultrasonic analysis of damage in CFRP under static indentation and lowvelocity impact”, Composites Science and Technology 51.1(1994):11-26.

20. Bull, D. J., S. M. Spearing, and I. Sinclair, “Investigation of the response to low velocity impact and quasi-static indentation loading of particle-toughened carbon-fibre composite materials”, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 74(2015):38-46.

21. Aoki, Yuichiro, H. Suemasu, and T. Ishikawa, “Damage propagation in CFRP laminates subjected to low velocity impact and static indentation”, Advanced Composite Materials 16.1(2007):45-61.

22. Anna, Castellano, F. Aguinald, and P. M. Daniele, “Quantitative analysis of QSI and LVI damage in GFRP unidirectional composite laminates by a new ultrasonic approach”, Composites Part B: Engineering 151.15(2018):106-117.

23. Kim JK, “Methods for improving impact damage resistance of CFRPs”, Key engineering materials: Trans Tech Publ. 1998. p.

149–68.

24. Cantwell W, Morton J, “The impact resistance of composite materials—a review”, Composite Materials 1991; 22:347–62.

25. Richardson M, Wisheart M, “Review of low-velocity impact properties of composite materials”, Composites A Applied Science & Manufacturing, 1996; 27:1123–31.

26. Wisnom M, “The role of delamination in failure of fibre-reinforced composites”, Phil Transactions R Society A. 2012; 370:1850–70.

27. Baker AAB, Composite materials for aircraft structures, AIAA 2004.

28. Adams DF, Miller AK, “An analysis of the impact behavior of hybrid composite materials”, Material Science & Engineering, 1975; 19:245–60.

29. Smith JC, McCrackin FL. Scniefer HF, “Stress-strain relationships in yarns subjected to rapid impact loading”, Part V. Wave propagation in long textile yarns impacted transversely, Text Res J 1958; 28(4):288–302.

30. Ye L, Mai Y-W, Su Z, “Composite technologies for 2020”, Woodhead Publishing; 2004. p. iii. ISBN 9781855738317, https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845690625.

31. Hancox NL, “An overview of the impact behavior of fibre-reinforced composites. In: Reid SR, Zhou G, editors. Impact behavior of fiber-reinforced composite materials and structures”, CRC Press, Woodhead Publishers Ltd.; 2000.

32. Nash NH, Young TM, McGrail PT, Stanley WF, “Inclusion of a thermoplastic phase to improve impact and post-impact performances of carbon fibre reinforced thermosetting composites — a review”, Material Design 2015; 85:582–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.001.

33. Barbezat M, “The influence of loading rate on the behaviour of epoxy composites”, PhD thesis (in French) Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique F∼d∼rale de Lausanne; 1990.

34. Wong DWY, Lin L, McGrail PT, Peijs T, Hogg PJ, “Improved fracture toughness of carbon fibre/epoxy composite laminates using dissolvable thermoplastic fibres”, Composites Part A 2010; 41(6):759–67.

35. Ronald FG, “A review of recent research on mechanics of multifunctional composite materials and structures”, Composite Structures, 2010; 92(12):2793–810.

36. Chung DDL, “Structural composite materials tailored for damping”, Journal of Alloys & Compounds, 2003; 355(1–2):216– 23.

37. Ma P, Siddiqui NA, Marom G, Kim J, “Dispersion and functionalization of carbon nanotubes for polymer-based www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org

2082

Sunith Babu L, Jaya Christiyank G & Vishwanath Koti nanocomposites: a review”, Composites Part A 2010; 41:1345–67.

38. Kostopoulos V, Tsotra P, Karapappas P, Vavouliotis A, Tsantzalis S, Tanimoto T, et. al, “On the improvement of toughness of CFRPs with resin doped with CNF and PZT particles”, Composite Science & Technology 2007; 67:822–8.

39. Quaresimin M, Ricotta M, Martello L, et al, “Energy absorption in composite laminates under impact loading”, Composites Part B 2013; 44:133–40.

40. Caprino G, Lopresto V, Langella A, Durante M, “Irreversibly absorbed energy and damage in GFRP laminates impacted at low velocity”, Composite Structures, 2011; 93:2853–60.

41. Wang Wenjie, Chouw Nawawi, Jayaraman Krishnan, “Effect of thickness on the impact resistance of flax fibre-reinforced polymer”, Journal of Reinforced Plastic Composites 2016; 35(17):1277–89.

42. Stavropoulos C, Papanicolaou G. J, Material Science 1997; 32:931. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018553617046.

43. Cantwell WJ, Morton J, “Impact perforation of carbon fibre reinforced plastic”, Composite Science & Technology 1990; 38(2):119–41.

44. Gong S, “The elastic response of orthotropic laminates shells to low velocity impact”, Composite Engineering 1994; 4:247– 66.

45. Saghafi H, Minak G, Zucchelli A, “Effect of preload on the impact response of curved composite panels”, Composites Part B 2014; 60:74–81.

46. Shivakumar KN, Elber W, Illg W, “Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in composite laminates”, AIAA J 1984; 23(5):442–9.

47. Singh H, Mahajan P, “Analytical modelling of low velocity large mass impact on composite plate including damage evolution”, Composite Structures 2016; 149:79–92.

48. Instron Documentation, 2013, 03, Accessories for CEST Impact Systems, catalogue no. 7519.311.

49. Fan J, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ, “Modelling perforation in glass fiber reinforced composites subjected to low velocity impact loading”, Polymer Composites 2011; 32(9):1380–8.

50. M.A. Islam, M.A. Kader, P.J. Hazell, J.P. Escobedo, A.D. Brown, M. Saadatfar, “Effects of impactor shape on the deformation and energy absorption of closed cell aluminium foams under low velocity impact”, Materials & Design, Vol 9, June 2020, 108599.

51. Zhou G, Lloyd JC, McGuirk JJ, “Experimental evaluation of geometric factors affecting damage mechanisms in carbon/epoxy plates”, Composites Part A 2001; 32:71–84.

52. Mines RAW, Roach AM, Jones N, “High velocity perforation behaviour or polymer composite laminates”, International Journal of Impact Engineering 1999; 22:561–88.

53. Benzeggagh ML, Benmedakhene S, “Residual strength of a glass/polypropylene composite material subjected to impact”, Composite Science Technology, 1995; 55:1–11.

54. Ambur DR, Kemmerly HL, “Influence of impactor mass on the damage characteristics and failure strength of laminated composites plates”, 39th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, Structural Dynamics: Materials Conference 1998:98–1784.

55. Robinson P, Davies G, “Impactor mass and specimen geometry effects in low velocity impact of laminated composites”, International Journal of Impact Engineering 1992; 12:189–207.

Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Studies on Parameters Affecting Low-Velocity Impact of Composite Materials

2083

56. Zabala H, Aretxabaleta L, Castillo G, Aurrekoetxea J, “Loading rate dependency on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional and woven carbon fibre epoxy composites”, Composite Structures 2015;121:75–82.

57. Zhou J, Hassan MZ, Guan Z, Cantwell WJ, “The low-velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich panels”, Composite Science Technology 2012; 72:1781–90.

58. Navarro P, Aubry J, Marguet S, Ferrero J-F, Lemaire S, Rauch P, “Experimental and numerical study of oblique impact on woven composite sandwich structure: Influence of the firing axis orientation”, Composite Structures 2012; 94(6):1967–72.

59. Yang IY, Cho YJ, Im KH, Cha CS, Kim YN, “Penetration fracture characteristics of CFRP curved shells according to oblique impact”, In: Putra IS, Suharto D, editors. Fracture and strength of solids VI, pts 1 and 2. Zurich-Uetikon: Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2006. p. 291e6.

60. Siva Kumar K, Balakrishna Bhat T, “Response of composite laminates on impact of high velocity projectiles”, Key Engineering Materials Trans Tech Publications 1997:337e48.

61. Moy P, Karasz FE, Polymer Engineering Science 1980; 20:315e9.

62. Ray BC. J, Colloid Interface Science 2006; 298:111e7.

63. Imielińska K, Guillaumat L, “The effect of water immersion ageing on low velocity impact behaviour of woven aramid–glass fiber/epoxy composites”, Composite Science Technology 2004; 64(13–14):2271–8.

www.tjprc.org

SCOPUS Indexed Journal

editor@tjprc.org