Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Reliability of composite structures impact loading

L. Guillaumat
LA.M.E.F.-E.N.S.A.M. Esplanade des Arts et Metiers, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a method to study the response of laminated composite structures under
impact loading. The importance of the mass, velocity of the striker and the dimensions of the composite structure is
shown for dierent responses such as the contact force between the striker and the composite structure, the
displacement of the projectile, and the damage within the composite structure. The proposed method is based on an
experimental design technique. Some examples are proposed to illustrate how the technique allows us to improve
our understanding of the behaviour of impacted composite structures. 7 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Impact; Composite; Experimental design; Modelling; Damage

1. Introduction
Design of structures is often made with a deterministic approach. However, this kind of design is not
always ecient for composite materials because of the
variability of their mechanical behaviour. In fact, some
tools exist for designing structures taking into account
the scatter of both mechanical characteristics of the
material and loading. For this, it is necessary to well
know all the loads applied to the structure. The three
most important types of loading are accidental shocks,
fatigue and vibrations.
The aim of this paper is to study some responses of
composite panels under low velocity impact loading.
The analysis of the mechanical response of composite structures loaded with low velocityhigh mass
impacts is a multiparameter problem. Impact loading
can be dened in terms of the geometry, mass and

E-mail address: l-guillaumat@lamef.bordeaux.ensam.fr (L.

Guillaumat).

speed of the impactor, the size of the composite plate,

and the boundary conditions [16]. The main question
is how to identify the critical parameters. One way of
quantifying the inuence of factors on one or more responses is to use the experimental design method. This
enables dierent variables to be assessed and the most
inuential ones to be identied with a minimum of experiments. The evolution of responses as a function of
variables is modelled by simple mathematical expressions (empirical polynomials) but these are not
based on physical mechanisms. The aim of this paper
is to present a tool for dimensioning composite structures. However, it should be emphasised that the
results will only be valid within the experimental
domain studied, and extrapolation is risky. Nevertheless, by identifying the above mentioned models, the
optimisation of impact response of composite structures may be achieved.
The inuence of plate dimensions as well as the inuence of the massvelocity combination are studied
because the critical parameter used to characterise an
impact is the kinetic energy of the impactor [7].

0045-7949/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 6 6 - 2

164

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

Table 1
Two-variable factorial matrix
Test No.

X1

X2

1
2
3
4

1
+1
1
+1

1
1
+1
+1

2. Experimental set-up

Fig. 1. Drop tower set-up.

The impact tests have been performed using drop

weight set-ups (Fig. 1).
An electric motor is used with a magnet to raise the
mass. The drop height is determined by the position of
a rst infra-red captor which stops the motor at the
desired level. A second captor located on the set-up
close to the specimen, activates a mechanism which
avoids a second impact on the structure.
The contact load between the striker and the composite specimen versus time is measured by means of an
accelerometer and a piezoelectric captor which are
attached to the drop weight (Fig. 2). Two laser captors
provide the striker displacement and the deection at
the centre of the composite structure versus time. The
tests have been lmed by a high speed camera system
Camsys+ (200011,000 frames/s). The plate is put on

Fig. 2. Instrumented drop weight.

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

Table 2
Complete two-variable factorial matrix and the vector of the
responses Y
Test No.

X0

X1

X2

X1
X2

1
2
3
4

1
1
1
1

1
+1
1
+1

1
1
+1
+1

+1
1
1
+1

Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4

two steel opposite supports. Two exible sheets made

of metal with a rubber end maintain the plate. These
boundary conditions allow rotation and vertical movement.

3. Test matrix
A large number of experiments are frequently performed in order to measure mechanical, physical or
chemical phenomena. The experimental design method
enables test campaigns to be set up to minimise variance in results while reducing the number of tests.
By analysing the results from such tests, empirical
polynomial models can be established relating the variables of the mechanical system to the structural responses. The basis of this approach lies in the fact that
the model variance s2 can be expressed as the product of the experimental variance and a term which
depends only on the organisation of the tests (A) (1).
varY As2

s is estimated by repetition of one of the tests. The

accuracy of this estimation improves with the number
of repeats. This indicates that the variance of the
model can be minimised by choice of an optimal experimental distribution of the tests.
Setting up an experimental design method involves
several steps. The nature and limit values of the variables must rst be xed. The degree of the polynomial
must then be chosen. Thereafter, the matrix is established according to strict rules [8]. In order to facilitate
the determination of the relative inuence of the dierent parameters, the variables are expressed in centred,
reduced co-ordinates. Their amplitude of variation is
therefore normalised to the interval [1, +1].
The rst phase uses a factorial test matrix to study
some basic responses of the composite structures under
impact loading (Table 1).
The model corresponding to this matrix is a rst
order polynomial:
Y b0 b1
X1 b2
X2 b12
X1
X2

165

The parameter X1 represents the drop velocity and X2

is the mass. The coecient b12 quanties the coupling
between them.
From the matrix shown in Table 1, a second matrix
can be build allowing the calculation of bi and bij coefcients (2) (Table 2). The coecients are calculated by
multiplying the vector Y of all the responses with
respect to the number of the test by the column corresponding to the selected coecient (for instance: column X1 for the coecient b1, (3)). The number in
brackets are the elements of the column X1 (Table 2).
b1 1
Y1 1
Y2 1
Y3 1
Y4
3
For the second phase, a Doehlert matrix [9,10] is used
to study the inuence of the plate dimensions. It is a
test matrix known as a response surface. The basic
principle is to select a position at one point in an experimental domain and to examine the neighbouring
areas.
These matrices have spherical symmetry. The factors
are assumed to be quantitative and known. The Doehlert matrix has the advantage that it can be translated
into the variables space with a minimum of new tests.
The two variables in this second phase are the span
(X1) and the width (X2). The test matrix associated
with these variables requires nine tests (Fig. 3, Table 3):
Test numbers 7, 8 and 9 are used to establish the experimental variance s2 (1).
In addition, the associated polynomial is of second
order. This assumes that the responses are possibly
non-linear (4).
Y b0 b1
X1 b2
X2 b11
X1
X1 b22
X2

X2 b12
X1
X2

Fig. 3. Test distribution according to Doehlert matrix.

166

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

Table 3
Doehlert test matrix
Test No.

X1
X2

1
0

0.5
0.866

0.5
0.866

1
0

0.5
0.866

0.5
0.866

0
0

0
0

0
0

All the coecients bi are calculated as shown previously.

4. Materials
Two composites are used here. Both are composed
of glass bres reinforced in an isophthalic polyester
resin.
All the plates are constituted of eight layers which
give a total thickness of about 3.5 mm. The stacking
sequence for the rst plate, called material 1, is:
[0,90]4, and for the second plate called material 2: [03,
90]s.
First, a product is spread on a table to avoid the
bonding of the resin with it. The rst layer is put on a
table and the resin is deposited by means of a roller.
Further layers were similarly added. The resin polymerises at room temperature.

5. Test campaign
In a preliminary study on the laminated material 1,
the inuence of the mass was determined as well as the
velocity on dierent responses, such as contact time,
contact force, central plate displacement, delaminated
area between plies of dierent orientations where
appropriate, number (n1) of cracks parallel to the
width of the plate and number (n2) of cracks parallel
to its length (Fig. 4).
This rst phase was not intended to establish models

of mechanical behaviour but particular attention was

directed towards the combination of the two variables
mass and velocity. From the test matrix (Table 1) (normalised variables), the organisation of the tests is
dened (Table 4) for material 1 (physical variables).
The second step used the Doehlert test programme
matrix (Table 5) (physical variables) from test matrix
(Table 3) (normalised variables) for material 2. The responses investigated are the contact time, the maximum contact load, the deection of the plate centre
and the delaminated area.

6. Results and analysis

6.1. Material 1
Fig. 5 shows a typical evolution of the contact load
between the striker and the plate versus time measured
by the accelerometer and the load captor. In fact, to
obtain only the interaction between the striker and the
structure, the accelerometer signal must be ltered (500
Hz) to eliminate the vibratory response of the drop
weight.
The lms given by the high speed camera show that
the undulations on the curve load versus time (Fig. 5)
can be attributed to a transverse eigen mode induced
by the impacter during the impact loading. A nite element analysis conrms this assumption by giving the
rst transverse eigen mode at about 500 Hz (Fig. 6).
Experimental results according to the experimental
design for material 1 are presented in Table 6.
From these data, the coecients bi and bij related to
the mass and velocity variables can be determined
together with their coupling from Eq. (2) (Table 7).
It can be noticed that the coupling (b12) is signicant
for all the variables related to the mechanical behaTable 4
Test programme

Fig. 4. Orientation of cracks with respect to the plate.

Test No.

Drop height (m)

Mass (kg)

1
2
3
4

0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5

1
1
2
2

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

167

Table 5
Doehlert test programme matrix

Width (mm)
Span (mm)

Centre

Step

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

No. 7

No. 8

No. 9

250
250

150
150

400
250

325
379.9

175
379.9

100
250

175
120

325
120

250
250

250
250

250
250

Table 6
Results from impact test on laminate 1
Test No.

Load (N)

Deection (mm)

Contact time (ms)

Delaminated area (cm2)

n1

n2

1
2
3
4

1000
1500
1266
1900

8.4
13.3
12.9
22.1

10.0
10.8
15.0
15.5

0
0.58
1
2.28

20
22
27
32

37
70
90
106

viour of the structure (load, deection and damage).

Therefore, it is risky with these responses, to consider
only the kinetic energy as the main parameter.
In addition, Fig. 7 shows that the damage observed
is made up essentially of delaminations at several interfaces and cracks oriented parallel to the width and
length of the panel (Fig. 4). Moreover, from the lms
of the camera (Fig. 8), we can establish a chronological
evolution of the damage during the impact loading
(Fig. 9). At point no. 1 the matrix cracking begins. At
point no. 2 the delamination appears. Later, we observe the evolution of the delamination area as following: point 3 0.75 cm2, point 4 1.46 cm2, point 5
1.83 cm2.
6.2. Material 2
The inuence of the plate dimensions on the mechanical responses under impact loading is very important. For instance, for a large span (no. 2, Table 5) the
evolution of the load versus time shows several loading
and unloading (Fig. 10a). We can observe a loss of
contact between the striker and the structure each time
the load is equal to zero (between two peaks). But, for
a small span, the response of the system is very dierent (Fig. 10b). The oscillations corresponding to the
transverse eigen mode are very small. Moreover, the
duration of the test (6 ms) is smaller than the previous
one (25 ms). In fact, the exural stiness of the structure for a small span is higher than for a large one,
and consequently, the response is faster.
For this part of the study, the damage of the material is the same for all the plates as discussed previously. First, we observe the cracking of the matrix
(Fig. 11) then, the delamination appears and grows
during the test (Fig. 12). Furthermore, the delamina-

tion is always inside the area where the matrix cracks

are located, assuming that a coupling exists between
them.
A 3D analysis of the delamination has been achieved
using the de-ply technique. This technique allows direct
observation of delaminations at each interface in the
composite [11,12]. We use a solution of zinc iodide to
penetrate the delaminations. The laminate is exposed
to temperatures in the range of 1508C for a period of
12 h in order to vaporise the solvent. During this
period, the zinc iodide crystallises and is deposited on
the delamination surfaces. In order to realise a partial
pyrolysis of the matrix, the composite is baked at
about 3508C for about 1 h. After that, all the laminae
can be separated with a sharp blade and examined
under a microscope (Fig. 13a). From all the observations of each interface of the laminate we can realise
a 3D picture of the delamination. The assembling
(Fig. 13b) shows that the delamination exist nearly at

Fig. 5. Relationship between contact force and time from

both accelerometer and load sensor.

168

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

Fig. 6. Calculation of the transverse vibration mode of the panel induced by the impact loading.

Fig. 9. Chronological evolution of the damage the material 1.

Fig. 7. Laminate 1 damage.

Fig. 8. Material damage versus time.

Table 7
Representation of coecients related to each variable
Load (N)
b0
b1
b2
b12

1416
283
166
33

Deection (mm)

Contact time (ms)

Delaminated area (cm2)

n1

n2

14.18
3.52
3.33
1.1

12.8
0.3
2.4
0.1

0.97
0.47
0.67
0.18

25
1.7
4.2
0.7

75
12
22
4.3

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

169

6.2.1. Deection of the plate centre (cm) (5)

Y 2:41 0:69X1 1:85X2 0:38X 21 0:43X 22
0:73X1 X2

Fig. 10. Evolution of the contact load between striker and

composite 2 versus time for: (a) the plate with respect to test
2 and (b) the plate with respect to test 5.

all the interfaces. Moreover, the area increases towards

the back surface of the laminate and is the largest in
the furthest interface from the impact surface. The
delamination propagated in the bre direction of the
layer below the interface. These phenomena are well
known [13,14].
The following results of the polynomials calculated
from the Doehlert test campaign (7.4 kg and 0.5 m
height) for material no. 2 were obtained.

We can observe that the coecient b2 (1.85) is higher

than b1 (0.69). It means that the deection is rather
dependent on the span. The coupling between the two
variables can be considered as signicant because the
value of the coecient b12 (0.73) is close that one of
b1. Fig. 14 illustrates this point.
6.2.2. Maximum contact load (V) (6)
Y 3:23 0:8
X1 3:48
X2 0:16
X 21 1:92

X 22 0:02
X1
X2

This response is related to the previous one. In fact,

if the span is small the load will be very high because

Fig. 11. Evolution of the matrix cracking versus time (material 2).

Fig. 12. Evolution of the delamination versus time (material 2).

170

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

Fig. 13. 3D observation of the delamination by the de-ply technique. (a) A photograph of one ply with a mark, (b) assembling of
all the marks.

Fig. 14. Model of the deection of the plate centre versus span and width.

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

171

Fig. 15. Multi-impact loading on the same structure. (a) Comparison between the rst and second impact (b) Responses from second impact up to the sixth.

the exural stiness of the structure is high. That is

why minus sign appears in front of X2. Furthermore,
the coupling is insignicant (0.02).
6.2.3. Contact time (ms) (7)
Y 24 7:96
X1 20:76
X2 4:75
X 21 5:11

X 22 6:78
X1
X2

The analysis of this polynomial shows that the contact

time depends more on the span b2 20:76 than on
the width b1 7:96). As shown previously, the
increase of the span decreases the exural stiness of
the structure which explains why the striker remains
longer on it.
6.2.4. Delamination area (cm2) (8)
Y 4:37 2:06:X1 13:41:X2 0:86:X 21
12:77:X 22 3:56:X1 :X2

This response is a damage mode of the structure.

Therefore, it has the same evolution as the contact
load: there is a minus sign with respect to X2.
Finally, the results presented here show that with
larger span and smaller width, the structure is less
damaged by the impact loading for the same couple,
massvelocity. The exural stiness of the plate
decreases more of the kinetic energy of the drop weight
which is transformed into elastic energy.
In addition, 10 impact tests have been performed on

the same structure. Fig. 15a shows the responses after

the rst and the second impact. We can notice that
only the rst peak is dierent according to the number
of shocks. Actually, when the striker touches the plate,
the rst time the load increases suddenly, while for the
second time, the load increases with a slower rate: this
is due to the fact that the local stiness decreases after
the rst impact because the local damage remains constant with the following impacts (Fig. 15b). This result
demonstrates that the local damage induced by the
impact loading does not have a large inuence on the
global behaviour of the plate.

7. Conclusions
The mechanical behaviour of composite structures
varies widely according to their dimensions. For all
the plates, the load versus time exhibits some undulations which are attributed to a transverse eigen
mode of vibration.
The delamination grows only after the development of the matrix cracking, suggesting a coupling
between them. A 3D observation of the damage by
a de-ply technique shows that the delamination
exists nearly at each interface of the material.
The experimental design method enables:
1. quantitative informations to be obtained on the inuence of impact parameters, and coupling between
variables to be detected,
2. empirical models for impact responses to be established.
The coupling coecients for mass and velocity for
laminated composites are signicant for most re-

172

L. Guillaumat / Computers and Structures 76 (2000) 163172

sponses studied. This implies that the energy parameter will not always be sucient to describe an
impact loading.

[5]
[6]

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Albugues L., Haramburu E., Cahuzac C., Lahourcade P.J., and Pataki
H. for their support for this work and Couach-Plascoa
for providing composites specimens for the experimental phase.

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

References
[1] Bernard ML, Lagace PA. Impact resistance of composite
sandwich plates. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 1989;8:43245.
[2] Chun-Gon K, Eui-Jin J. Impact resistance of composite
laminated sandwich plates. Journal of Composite
Materials 1992;26(15):224761.
[3] Davies P, Choqueuse D, Pichon A. Inuence of the foam
core on composite sandwich static and impact response.
In: European Conference on Composites Testing and
Standardisation, 1315 Sept., Hamburg, Germany. 1994.
pp. 51321.
[4] Nemes JA, Simmonds KE. Low velocity impact response

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]

of foam-core sandwich composites. Journal of Composite

Materials 1990;26(4).
Mines RAW, Worrall CM, Gibson AG. The static and
impact behaviour of polymer composite sandwich beams.
Composites 1994;25(2):95110.
Shih WK, Jang BZ. Instrumented impact testing of composite sandwich panels. Journal of Reinforced Plastics
and Composites 1989;28:27098.
Robinson P, Davies GAO. Impactor mass and specimen
geometry eects in low velocity impact of laminated
composites. Int J Impact Engng 1992;12(2):189207.
Box GEP, Hunter WH, Hunter JS. Statistics for experiments. New York: Wiley, 1987.
Doehlert DH. Uniform shell designs. Applied Statistics
1970;19(3):2319.
Doehlert DH, Klee VL. Experimental designs through
level reduction of the d-dimensional cuboctahedron.
Discrete Mathematics 1972;2:30934.
Freeman SM. Characterization of lamina and interlaminar damage in graphite/epoxy composites by the de-ply
technique. ASTM STP 1980;787:5064.
Harris CE. Damage evaluation by laminate de-ply. In:
Manual on experimental methods for mechanical testing
of composites. CN, USA: Soc. Exp. Mechanics, 1989.
pp. 1479.
Gao SL, Kim JK. Three-dimensional characterization of
impact damage in CFRPs. In: Key engineering materials,
Vols 141143. Switzerland: Trans tech Publications,
1998, pp. 3554.
Kim CG, Jun EJ. Measurement of impact delamination
by de-ply technique, Exp Tech 1998:July/August;2628.