Closed form prediction of peak load and delamination onset under small mass impact
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Small mass impact on plates is a common response type caused by hailstones and runway debris. The response in such cases is wave controlled and the load and deflection are out of phase and independent of plate size and boundary conditions. Previous solutions to the problem have been based on laborious numerical approaches not suitable for design. This paper presents a closed form solution based on three asymptotic cases with deformation purely by indentation, bending or shear. Solutions are presented for a Hertzian contact law, suitable for monolithic plates, and for a linear contact law, suitable for sandwich panels. A good agreement is shown with “exact” numerical solutions and experimental results. The solution is also combined with an existing quasi-static delamination threshold load criterion. Comparison with several published experiments indicates that the criterion also may be applicable to small mass impacts.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Structural Analysis and Optimization · Mechanical Behavior of Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Mass criterion for wave controlled impact response of composite plates10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00020-8 ↗
2. Corrigendum in Composites Part A 2001;32(2):29110.1016/S1359-835X(00)00159-7 ↗
3. Davies GAO, Robinson P. Predicting failure by debonding/delamination. In: Debonding/Delamination of Composites. AGARD-CP-530. Neuilly sur Seine: AGARD; 1992. p. 5-1–28
4. Impact damage prediction in carbon composite structures10.1016/0734-743X(94)00039-Y ↗
5. Analytical prediction of large mass impact damage in composite laminates10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00073-2 ↗
6. Beks F-A. Examination of impact response and damage of composite laminates. FFATN 1996-29. Bromma: The Aeron Res Inst of Sweden; 1996
7. Bredberg A. Prediction of impact response and damage process in composite plates using LSDYNA. FKH-2000-0019. Linköping: Saab AB; 1999
8. Impact on laminated composite materials10.1115/1.3119500 ↗
9. Olsson R. Impact response of composite laminates––a guide to closed form solutions, FFA TN 1992-33. Bromma: The Aeron Res Inst of Sweden; 1993
10. Abrate · 1998
11. Improved theory for contact indentation of sandwich panels10.2514/3.13218 ↗
12. Frischbier J. Theorie der Stossbelastung orthotroper Platten und ihre experimentelle Überprüfung. Mitteilung 51. Bochum: Inst. für Mechanik, Ruhr-Universı́ty; 1987
13. Impact response of orthotropic composite laminates predicted from a one-parameter differential equation10.2514/3.11105 ↗
14. A simplified analysis of the effect of transverse shear on the response of elastic plates to impact loading10.1016/0020-7683(87)90055-2 ↗
15. Engineering method for prediction of impact response and damage in sandwich panels10.1177/1099636202004001192 ↗
16. A theoretical study of the Brinell hardness test10.1098/rspa.1989.0056 ↗
17. Goldsmith · 1960
18. On the choice of shear correction factor in sandwich structures10.1177/1099636202004001180 ↗
19. Olsson R, Paget C. Response and damage due to medium velocity impact on composites. FOI-R–0235–SE. Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency; 2001
20. Davies P et al. Impact behaviour of composite sandwich panels to impact loading. Impact and Dynamic Fracture of Polymers and Composites. ESIS 19, London: Mech. Engng. Publ.; 1995. p. 341–58
21. Olsson R. Experimental verification of a theory for the impact response of composite plates, FFA TN 1991-17. Bromma: The Aeron Res Inst of Sweden; 1991
22. Prestandardization study on mode II interlaminar fracture toughness test for CFRP in Japan10.1016/0010-4361(95)93669-B ↗
23. Mode II interlaminar fracture of graphite/epoxy and graphite/PEEK10.1177/073168448600500302 ↗
24. Investigations of delamination criticality and the transferability of growth criteria10.1016/S0263-8223(96)00079-7 ↗
25. Mode II fracture toughness of a brittle adhesive layer10.1016/0020-7683(94)90168-6 ↗
26. 1990 · vol. 3 · 51
27. Bostaph Murri G, O’Brien TK. Interlaminar GIIc evaluation of toughened-resin matrix composites using the end-notched flexure test. AIAA Paper 85-0647. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 26th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Orlando, FL, 1985. p. 1.197–20210.2514/6.1985-647 ↗
28. Analysis and experimental characterization of the center notch flexural test specimen for Mode II interlaminar fracture10.1177/002199838902300801 ↗
29. Reeder JR. A bilinear failure criterion for mixed mode delamination. Composite materials: Testing and design (Eleventh volume). ASTM STP 1206. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1993. p. 302–22
30. Poisson’s ratio as a damage parameter in the static tensile loading of simple crossply laminates10.1016/0266-3538(90)90073-E ↗
31. Hiley MJ, Curtis PT. Mode II damage development in carbon fibre reinforced plastics. AGARD-CP-530, Nevilly sur Seine: AGARD, 1992. p. 17-1-11
32. Characterization of impact damage resistance of CF/PEEK an CF/toughened epoxy laminates under low and high velocity impact tests10.1177/073168449701600203 ↗
33. Williams JG. Effect of impact damage and open holes on the compression strength of tough resin/high strain fiber laminates. Tough composite materials. NASA CP 2334. 1984. p. 61–79
34. Malvern LE, Sun CT, Liu D. Delamination damage in central impacts at subperforation speeds on laminated kevlar/epoxy laminates. Composite materials: fatigue and fracture, Second volume. ASTM STP 1012. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1989. p. 387–40510.1520/STP10427S ↗
35. Comparison of the low and high velocity impact response of CFRP10.1016/0010-4361(89)90913-0 ↗
36. The influence of target geometry on the high velocity impact response of CFRP10.1016/0263-8223(88)90022-0 ↗