Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Low velocity impact analysis of Fiber Metal Laminates (FMLs) in thermal

environments with various boundary conditions
Hamed Zarei a, Mohadeseh Fallah b, Giangiacomo Minak c,, Hosein Bisadi a, AliReza Daneshmehr b
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak, Tehran, Iran
School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, North Kargar St, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Industrial Engineering (DIN), Universit di Bologna, 40 Fontanelle Ave, Forli, Italy
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 20 January 2016
Revised 7 April 2016
Accepted 18 April 2016
Available online 19 April 2016
Keywords:
GLARE
Low velocity impact
Ritz approach
Boundary conditions
Thermal environment
Temperature dependency

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the dynamic response of GLARE5-3/2 subjected to low velocity impact. Governing
equations are derived based on laminate theory and Hamiltons principle. The Hertzian contact law is
employed to capture contact force history and other impact characteristics. A Ritz based approach appropriate for in-plane loads and various boundary conditions is developed. The nonlinear system of equations is solved using the fourth order RungeKutta method. The validity of the present model is
demonstrated by good agreement of comparisons between its predictions and results in the literature.
The effect of various parameters such as impactor velocity, impactor radius, boundary conditions and
thermal environment are investigated in detail. In order to consider thermal environment effect, the temperature dependent material properties are taken into account. Boundary conditions and thermal environment affect the low velocity impact response of GLARE, hitherto not reported in the open literature.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Fiber Metal Laminates (FMLs) are hybrid composites that consist of alternating layers of metal-alloy sheets and fiber reinforced
epoxy prepreg, which is usually regarded as a family of high specific strength materials with a high weight saving potential. GLAss
REinforced aluminum laminate (GLARE) is an FML composed of
several aluminum layers and glass epoxy prepregs. Glass epoxy
prepregs are composed of unidirectional S2glass fiber embedded
in a FM94 adhesive. GLAREs are categorized in six standard classes
based on fiber orientation in prepreg and grades of aluminum-alloy
sheets, [1].
During the last decades the application of GLARE in the aerospace industry has become popular [2,3]. For example, GLARE
was selected for the upper fuselage skin structures of the Airbus
A380 as shown in Fig. 1, which causes a weight saving of 794 kg
[4]. Impact loadings in aerospace structures are commonly caused
by sources such as: runway debris, hail, maintenance, dropped
tools, collisions between service cars or cargo and the structure,
bird strikes, etc. [5]. Hence, impact analysis of FMLs should be considered during the design process. Moreover, aircraft structures
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zarei.m.h.87@gmail.com (H. Zarei), mohasedeh1992@gmail.
com (M. Fallah), giangiacomo.minak@unibo.it (G. Minak), bisadi@iust.ac.ir
(H. Bisadi), daneshmehr@ut.ac.ir (A. Daneshmehr).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.04.036
0263-8223/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

experience vast temperature ranges, from approximately
55 up

to 80 C [6]. In the present study, the low velocity impact response
of GLARE in thermal field with various boundary conditions is
numerically investigated. It should be noted that currently there
is no published study on the effect of temperature and boundary
conditions on the structural response of FMLs subjected to low
velocity impact [6].
The majority of studies on FMLs subjected to low velocity
impact are performed by experimental tests and FE simulations,
while there are a few studies in the literature which investigated
the impact response of FMLs based on analytical models [5,7]. As
is evident, carrying out experimental based research is very expensive and time consuming. We developed an analytical model that
can be used as validation for FEM models. The dynamic response
of structures can be classified according to the following categories
[8]; springmass models [9,10], energy-balance models [1113],
structural models based on plate theories [1416].
Vlot [17] demonstrated that the structure of an analytical model
is constrained by the impact regime. Moriniere et al. [18,19] developed a progressive quasi-static approach to evaluate the energy
threshold and the low velocity impact response of GLARE. Parameters such as contact time, maximum displacement, maximum
force, absorbed energy and impactor velocity were predicted in
their research. It was shown that aluminum layers dissipate 90%
of the absorbed energy, and composite layers delay crack initiation.

171

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

8
@w
>
< ux; y; z; t u0 x; y; t
z @x f z h1 x; y; t
v x; y; z; t v 0 x; y; t
z @w
f z h2 x; y; t
@y
>
:
wx; y; z; t w0 x; y; t

where u0 ; v 0 ; w0 ; h1 and h2 are five unknown functions which

denote the displacements and rotations of a point on the midplane

 2 
of the laminate, while f z z 1
43 hz
represents the transvers
shear strain distribution along the thickness. The straindisplacement relation of any point of the laminate and the stressstrain
relation of each lamina may be written as follows:

8
9
>
< exx >
=
Fig. 1. Airbus A380 materials overview [4].

8 f 9
>
< exx >
=
f
eyy e
z e
f z eyy
>
>
>
:c >
; >
: 0 >
;
: 1 >
;
: f >
;

cyz
cxz

In the present study, a rectangular GLARE FML impacted by a

sphere projectile as shown in Fig. 2 is formulated based on High
order Shear Deformation Theory (HSDT). According to HSDT, the
in-plane and transverse displacement components can be
expressed as [24]:

cxy

cxy

f z

>
:

1
yy

cfyz

@u0
@x
@v 0
@y

@ 2 w0
@x2

xy

2
w0
2 @@x@y

@h1
@x
@h2
@y

9
>
>
>
=

>
>
>
;
9
>
>
=

efyy
>
>
>
; >
: @h1 @h2 >
;
cfxy
@y
@x
0

f
cyz

f
cxz

>
:

@ 2 w0
@y2

8
>
>
<

8 f 9
>
< exx >
=

9
>
>
=

e0

yy
> >
>
>
0 ;
: @u0 @v 0 >
;
cxy
@y
@x

8 1 9
>
< exx >
=

>
:

8
>
>
>
<
1
eyy

>
>
: 1 >
>
;
>
:
c

ryy
>
rxy ;

h2

cxy

cfxz

8
>
>
<

8 0 9
>
< exx >
=

8
9k
>
< rxx >
=

2. Governing equations

8 1 9
>
< exx >
=

0
yy

xy


Moreover, GLARE has a structural efficiency 72% higher than
monolithic aluminum. The dynamic response of thin circular fully
clamped GLARE was studied by Tsamasphyros et al. [2022]. They
developed an analytical model to determine the static loadindentation curve and first failure due to fiber fracture applicable to circular plates. Ghasemi et al. [16,23] investigated the low velocity
impact response of GLARE based on First order Shear Deformation
Theory (FSDT) using a two degrees of freedom springmass model
to capture the impact force history. The effects of parameters such
as stacking sequence of laminate, mass and initial velocity of the
projectile were studied in their research.
In this research, the low velocity impact response of GLARE is
detected based on the Ritz approach. Moreover, the nonlinear
equations of motion are solved using the fourth order RungeKutta
method. An appropriate selection of shape functions in the Ritz
method makes it possible to analyze arbitrary boundary conditions. The thermal environment effects were also considered. The
presented model is well-verified with the published literature.
The effect of parameters such as boundary conditions, thermal
environment, initial velocity and radius of projectile were
investigated.

8 0 9
>
< exx >
=


7

h1
2

11
Q
6

4Q
12

16
Q

12
Q

22
Q

26
Q

9
3 8

16 k > exx >
Q
<
=

26 7
eyy
5
Q
>
>
:

66
exy ;
Q

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of a rectangular FML impacted by a spherical projectile.

172

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

"

k

ryz
rxz

44
Q


Q 45

45
Q

55
Q

#k 

cyz
cxz

Table 1
Geometrical and mechanical properties of target and projectile [27].
Target

in which frg and feg represent the stress and strain components

ij g
with respect to the laminate coordinate system. In addition, fQ
is the reduced stiffness matrix for the laminate.
In the low velocity impact, the time period of impact is longer
than the time period of the first mode shape of the plate. For this
case, Hertz contact law can be applied to trace the contact force
history and it is defined by [25]:
3

F c t K c a2

10

where a is the indentation of impactor and the contact stiffness, K c

can be defined by

4 1
K c ER2i
3

11

Geometrical properties
a = b = 200 mm
hAl = 0.5 mm
hGr/Ep = 0.35 mm

Projectile properties
Radius = 7.5 mm
Initial velocity = 1 ms
E = 210 GPa, m = 0.3,

q = 7800 mkg3
Stacking sequence: Al/0/90/90/0/Al/0/90/90/0/Al
Boundary condition: simply support (otherwise
is specified)
Mechanical properties of glass fiber epoxy
E1 = 36, E2 = 5, E3 = 5, G12 = 2.7, G13 = 2.7,
G23 = 1.92 (GPa)
m12 = 0.25, m31 = 0.27, m32 = 0.301

q = 1540 mkg3
Mechanical properties of Aluminum 2024-T3
kg
E = 72 GPa, m = 0.32, q = 2700 m
3

in which Ri is the impactor radius and

1 1
m21 1
m22

E
E1
E2

12

where Ei and mi are Youngs modulus and Poitions ratio of impactor,

respectively, and E33 is the transverse Youngs modulus of the target
which can be approximated by E22 .
3. Equations of motion
The equations of motion were derived using the dynamic version of the principle of virtual displacement which is:

Z
0

t2

dU dV
dKdt

13

t1

Z
dV

Z
dK

15

q0 dw dx dy

_ u_ v_ dv_ wd
_ w
_ dV
qud

16

in which q denotes the density of the target and q0 is the distributed

external force. In the impact problem the external force based on
Hertzian contact law is exerted on the target as concentrated force
and can be defined by

q0 F c dx
xc ; y
yc

17

where xc ; yc is the position of impact and d denotes the twodimensional Diracs delta function.

where dU, dV and dK denotes the virtual strain energy, the virtual
work done by external forces and the virtual kinetic energy, respectively. These quantities can be defined by:

4. Solution method

dU

In this study, the Ritz method was chosen to solve the equations
of motion. According to the Ritz method, the displacement field
will be approximated by a finite linear combination of the form:

rxx dexx ryy deyy rxy dcxy rxz dcxz ryz dcyz dV

14

12000
Pierson Experimental [14]

Pierson Analytical [14]

Present

10000

Contact Force (N)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

100

200

300

400

500
Time (s)

600

700

Fig. 3. Comparison of contact force history of a laminated plate.

800

900

1000

173

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

8
N
X
>
>
>
u0
U n tNun x; y
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
N
>
X
>
>
>
v

V n tN vn x; y
>
0
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
<
N
X
w0
W n tNw
n x; y
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
N
X
>
>
>
>
h1
X n tNhn1 x; y
>
>
>
n1
>
>
>
>
N
>
X
>
>
>
Y n tNhn2 x; y
: h2

the present study, polynomial functions are used in the form as follows [26]:

Nx; y

p X
q
X
/b xi yq
i

19

q0 i0

18

in which p is the degree set of the polynomial and /b is the boundary equation. Substituting Eqs. (1)(12) and (18) into Eq. (13) yields
a system of 5N 1 nonlinear coupled equations as follows:

Kv F
Mv

my
F c

20

where

n1

where U n t; V n t; W n t; X n t and Y n t are unknown coefficients

which should be determined. In addition, Nin ; i u; v ; w; h1 ; h2 are

the approximated functions which should be continuous, linearly
independent and satisfy only the essential boundary conditions,
and N is the number of approximations function which should be
chosen to guarantee the convergence of the displacement field. In

v ffU n g; fV n g; fW n g; fX n g; fY n ggT

21

n g; fX
n g; fY n ggT
v ffU n g; fV n g; fW

22

F f0; 0; F c Nw
n xc ; yc ; 0; 0g

23

700
V=1 m/s

V=2 m/s

V=4 m/s

600

Contact Force (N)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0

10

20

30
Time (s)

40

50

60

0.09
0.08

Middle deflection of target (mm)

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

100

200

300

400

500
Time (s)

600

700

800

Fig. 4. Effect of impactor velocity on low velocity impact response of GLARE 5-3/2.

900

1000

174

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

900
R=10 mm

R=20 mm

R=30 mm

800
700

Contact Force (N)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

40

50

60

70

Time (s)

0.025

Indentation (mm)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0

10

20

30
Time (s)

0.2
0.18

Middle deflection of target (mm)

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Time (s)

Fig. 5. Effect of impactor radius on low velocity impact response of GLARE 5-3/2.

900

1000

1100

175

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

600

Contact Force (N)

400

300

200

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

500

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500
Time (s)

600

700

800

900

-1
1000

800

900

1000

18
K.E Of FML

K.E Of Impactor

S.E of FML

T.E of FML

16
14

Energy (mJ)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

100

200

300

400

500
Time (s)

600

700

Fig. 6. Low velocity impact response of a GLARE 5-3/2 with CCCC boundary condition.

3
2

3
2

F c K c a K c y
w K c

N
X
y

W n tNw
n xs ; ys

!32
24

n1

where y denotes the displacement of impactor and the arrays of K

and M matrices are defined in Appendix A. The time dependent
equation (20) was solved using the fourth-order RungeKutta
method with the following initial condition:

8
>
< U n 0 0; V n 0 0; W n 0 0; X n 0 0; Y n 0 0
_ n 0 0; X_ n 0 0; Y_ n 0 0
U_ n 0 0; V_ n 0 0; W
>
:
_
y0 0; y0
V0

S:

25

26

x 0; a

v 0 w0 h2 0

y 0; b u0 w0 h1 0
(

C:

In which V 0 is the initial velocity of impactor. As mentioned earlier, in the Ritz method, only the essential or geometric boundary
condition must be satisfied. According to Hamiltons principle,
the essential boundary conditions related to high order shear
deformation theory (HSDT) are defined by:

@w
; hn ; ht
un ; ut ; w;
@n

where n and t denotes the normal and tangent direction of each

edge, respectively. Altogether the essential boundary conditions
for Simply Support (S) and Clamped (C) boundary conditions are:

x 0; a

0
u0 v 0 w0 @w
h1 h2 0
@x

0
h1 h2 0
y 0; b u0 v 0 w0 @w
@y

27

28

It should be noted that for Free edges, (F) there is no restriction.

5. Results and discussion
5.1. Validation of the model
In this part, the solution procedure was verified by comparing
its results with results reported in Ref. [14]. The composite laminate is made up of CFRP having stacking sequence

176

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

700

600

400
0
300

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

Contact Force (N)

500

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-1
900

700

800

900

Time (s)

18
K.E Of FML

K.E Of Impactor

S.E of FML

T.E of FML

16
14

Energy (mJ)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (s)

Fig. 7. Low velocity impact response of a GLARE 5-3/2 with CCCF boundary condition.

45=90=
45=03s , in-plane dimensions a 127 mm; b 76:2 mm

and thickness h 4:65 mm which is impacted by a 12:7 mm diameter rigid impactor with V 0 7:70 ms and m 314 g.
The contact force history of the present model is compared with
the results of Pierson et al. [14] and depicted in Fig. 3.
The comparisons show that the results of the presented model
are in good agreement with existing results and the differences
may be caused by the use of different plate theory and different
solution method. Classic plate theory and Fourier series were used
in their study whereas high order shear deformation theory and
Ritz method are employed in the present study.
5.2. Parametric study
In this section, various parameter effects such as initial velocity
and radius of projectile, boundary conditions and temperature
changes are investigated. The rectangular GLARE 5-3/2 was considered as a target which is impacted by a spherical projectile. The
geometrical and mechanical properties of the target and impactor
are listed in Table 1.

5.3. Effect of impactor velocity

In this part, the effect of initial velocity of impactor at fixed
kinetic energy is studied. To achieve this purpose, the GLARE was
impacted by a spherical projectile with three initial velocity,
V 1; 2 and 4 ms :
The impactor mass was considered m 16; 4 and 1 g, respectively. Associated results are shown in Fig. 4. Results indicate that,
the increase of initial velocity causes an increase of maximum contact force (MCF); moreover, the Maximum Deflection of Middle of
Target (MDMT) and the contact time (CT) decrease while the initial
kinetic energy is fixed. Therefore at the fixed kinetic energy, the
MCF and the MDMT are proportional to the impactor velocity
and impactor mass, respectively.
5.3.1. Effect of impactor radius
The influence of projectile radius is investigated herein and the
results are illustrated in Fig. 5. Three radiuses, R 10; 20 and
30 mm were chosen and m 35 g was considered as the projectile
mass. According to Eq. (11), target contact stiffness increases when

177

800

700

0.8

600

0.6

500

0.4

400

0.2

300

200

-0.2

100

-0.4

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

700

800

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

Contact Force (N)

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

-0.6
900

Time (s)
18

K.E Of FML

K.E Of Impactor

S.E of FML

T.E of FML

500

600

16
14

Energy (mJ)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

100

200

300

400

900

Time (s)

Fig. 8. Low velocity impact response of a GLARE 5-3/2 with CFCF boundary condition.

the projectile radius increases. Therefore when the projectile

radius increases, the indentation and the CT decreases whereas
the MCF increases. It should be noted that when the mass and
the initial velocity of impactor are unchanged, varying the projectile radius slightly has no effect on the overall center of target
deflection.
5.3.2. Effect of boundary conditions
In this section, the effect of boundary conditions on the low
velocity impact response of GLARE are investigated and the results
are depicted in Figs. 69. Among all the possible boundary conditions of a rectangular plates, only four cases are studied as CCCC,
CCCF, CFCF and CFFF. The first two letters represent the boundary
conditions of vertical edges located at x 0 and x a, the next
two letters correspond to the horizontal edges located at y 0
and y b. In all mentioned cases, the target and the impactor are
unchanged. Hence the contact stiffness is fixed. The impact
responses are summarized in Table 2.

As is evident, changing the boundary conditions will change the

impact response and contact number and its duration as well. The
results indicate that when the number of fixed edges decreases,
since the target is more flexible, more kinetic energy is absorbed
in the form of strain energy and the residual velocity of the impactor decreases. The maximum impactor indentation increases in the
mentioned case as well. According to Eq. (10), the MCF increases
when the maximum impactor indentation increases. Therefore,
there is maximum energy absorption, maximum indentation, and
MCF in the case of CFFF. Moreover, maximum and minimum residual velocity of the impactor correspond to the CCCC and CFFF cases
respectively. According to the law of conservation of energy in the
impact duration, the kinetic energy of the impactor is transferred
to potential energy of target which contains the kinetic energy of
the laminate, strain energy of the laminate and the work done by
external impact force. Therefore the value of potential energy after
last contact presents the laminate energy absorption. As shown in
Figs. 69, at each time the kinetic energy of the impactor plot and

178

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

800

700

500

400

300

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

Contact Force (N)

600

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-1
700

600

700

Time (s)
18
K.E Of FML

K.E Of Impactor

S.E of FML

T.E of FML

16
14

Energy (mJ)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (s)

Fig. 9. Low velocity impact response of a GLARE 5-3/2 with CFFF boundary condition.

Table 2
Low velocity impact results of GLARE5-3/2 with different boundary conditions.
 m

BCs

Eabsorb (mJ)

MCF (N)

amax (mm)

V resid

CCCC
CCCF
CFCF
CFFF

12.33
13.57
13.84
15.63

557
636
738
777

0.018
0.020
0.022
0.023

0.51

0.43

0.41

0.25

the potential energy of the laminate are symmetric and their summation are constant. Moreover, when there is no contact between
the impactor and the laminate, the impactor moves with constant
velocity and in the other periods, the impactor velocity changes
nonlinearly. Therefore, the number of jumping in the impactor
velocity, the kinetic energy of impactor and the potential energy
of laminate plots are same with the contact numbers. In addition
in these periods the sum of kinetic energy of the laminate and
strain energy of the laminate remains constant, which means the
laminate has free vibration motion.

5.3.3. Influence of thermal environments

In aircraft, many applications experience vast temperature
ranges. In service, the temperature of the aircrafts skin can vary
from
55 up to 80 C due to solar radiation and convection, which
will affect the thermal and mechanical properties of GLARE [28]. In
this section, the impact response of GLARE under thermal environment is investigated. To achieve this purpose, three cases, simply
supported edges (SSSS), full clamped (CCCC) and (CCFF) FMLs subjected to thermal environment prior to impact loading, are considered. The in-plane forces caused by temperature changes affect the
geometrical stiffness of the structures. Therefore, the work done by
external forces in the presence of in-plane loads can be written as
follows

V V1 V2

29

in which V 1 represents the work done by the contact force that has
been previously defined and V 2 is the work done by in-plane forces
as follows [24]

179

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

80

70
E UD Glass Epoxy

E UD Glass Epoxy

-20

12

UD Glass Epoxy

E Aluminum

G Aluminum

60

Modulus (GPa)

50

40

30

20

10

-40

20
Temperature (C)

40

60

80

Fig. 10. Mechanical properties of UD glass epoxy and aluminum versus temperature [28].

120
UD Glass Epoxy

UD Glass Epoxy

Aluminum

Expansion Coefficient ( m/m)

100

80

60

40

20

-40

-20

20
Temperature (C)

40

60

80

Fig. 11. Thermal properties of UD glass epoxy and aluminum versus temperature [28].

1
V2

2

Z
X

NTx

 2
 2
  !
@w
@w @w
T @w
T
dxdy
Ny
2Nxy
@x
@y
@x
@y
30

N Tx

n
6 T7 X
6 Ny 7
4
5
k1
NTxy

zk1

zk




ij k fagk DTdz
Q

31

Consequently, the virtual work can be expressed as follows



Z 
@w @w
@w @w
NTy
d
d
NTx
@x
@x
@y
@y
X



@w @w
@w @w
T

dxdy
Nxy
d
d
@x
@y
@y
@x

dV 2

Therefore, in thermal environments the effect of in-plane loads

should be included in the geometrical stiffness matrix which is
defined in Appendix A.
In this part, the impact response of GLARE at three temperatures,
55, 22 and 80 C is studied. The temperature-dependent
mechanical and thermal properties of GLARE constituents are
shown in Figs. 10 and 11. A varying temperature influence can be
deduced from the results plotted in Fig. 12.
Results are tabulated in detail in Table 3. The percentage difference D in Table 3 is defined as:

%D
32

aT f
aT 0
;
aT 0

a amax ; V resid ; wmax ; MCF

33

in which T f and T 0 are final temperature and room temperature

respectively. Results reveal that as temperature increases, since
the strength of the target decreases, the indentation value increases

180

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

600

T=-55 C
T=22 C
T=80 C
T=-55 C
T=22 C
T=80 C
T=-55 C
T=22 C
T=80 C

500

Contact Force (N)

400

300

200

100

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

50

60

70

Time (s)
0.025

Indentation (mm)

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0

10

20

30

40
Time (s)

Fig. 12. Thermal field effect on the low velocity impact response of GLARE5-3/2: dotted line (SSSS) solid line (CCFF) dash line (CCCC).

as well as the maximum deflection of the target, while the maximum contact force and residual velocity decrease. Moreover, the
positive temperature field causes compressive force and consequently reduces the structural stiffness. As is evident, the effect of
varying temperature on contact forces and indentation history is
small (less than 5%), while its effect on residual velocity and maximum target deflection is noticeable. Moreover, the SSSS case is
more impressible so that its maximum deflection increases 81% as
the temperature changes from 22 to 80 C. In general, the same
trend was observed for all quantities in the three cases.
6. Conclusion
In this study, the dynamic response of GLARE 5-3/2 subjected to
low velocity impact is investigated. The equations of motion are
derived using the higher order shear deformation theory, the principle of Hamilton, Hertzian contact law and the Ritz approach. The
fourth order RungeKutta is employed to solve the nonlinear coupled system of equations. The influence of various involved param-

eters such as impactor velocity, impactor radius, boundary

conditions and thermal environment are studied. The most important results are highlighted as follows:
 At fixed kinetic energy, increasing the initial velocity of projectile leads to less contact duration as well as maximum deflection of impacted position and more contact force.
 As the impactor mass is unchanged, impactor radius has no
noticeable effect on the overall deflection of the impacted
position.
 An increase in the impactor radius leads to a reduction in indentation values and contact duration, and increased contact forces.
 The contact duration and number of contacts between impactor
and target will vary when the boundary conditions change.
 As the number of clamped edges decreases (in case of CCCC to
CFFF), the target will be more flexible and the energy absorption
and indentation value increase.
 An increase in the temperature leads to an increase in the
indentation value and a decrease in the contact force.

181

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

1

0.8

Impactor Velocity (m/s)

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (s)
0.12

Midle Deflection (mm)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000
Time (s)

1200

1400

1600

1800

Fig. 12 (continued)

Table 3
Impact results of GLARE 5-3/2 in thermal field with various boundary conditions.
 m

BCs

DT (K)

MCF ND (%)

amax mmD (%)

V resid

SSSS

77
0
58

567 (2.35)
554 (0.00)
543 (
1.99)

0.0195 (
2.01)
0.0199 (0.00)
0.0202 (1.51)

0.33 (3.13)

0.32 (0.00)

0.31 (
3.13)

0.045 (
28.57)
0.063 (0.00)
0.114 (80.95)

CCCC

77
0
58

513 (2.19)
502 (0.00)
490 (
2.39)

0.0183 (
1.61)
0.0186 (0.00)
0.0188 (1.08)

0.20 (11.11)

0.18 (0.00)

0.16 (
11.11)

0.027 (
27.03)
0.037 (0.00)
0.051 (37.84)

CCFF

77
0
58

573 (2.32)
560 (0.00)
548 (
2.14)

0.0196 (
2.0)
0.0200 (0.00)
0.0203 (1.5)

0.36 (2.86)

0.35 (0.00)

0.33 (
5.71)

0.038 (13.64)
0.044 (0.00)
0.052 (18.18)

 The temperature changes effect on the deflection history is

higher than the contact force, indentation and impactor velocity
history.
 The impact response of SSSS case is most effective when the
temperature changes.

D %

wmax mmD %

 The same trend was observed for three boundary conditions

(SSSS, CCCC, and CCFF) in thermal field.

182

H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

Appendix A

M uu
mn 

u u
X I 0 N n N m dx dy
uv
Mmn  0
R
w
u
Muw
mn 
X I 1 N n;x N m dx dy
R
uh1
h1 u
Mmn  X If 0 N n N m dx dy
2
Muh
mn  0
v
u
Mmn  0

Mvv
mn 

1
M wh
mn 

mn

v v

1 h2
M hmn
0

h2 u
M mn
0
R
h2 v
M mn  X If 0 N vn N hm2 dx dy
R
h2 w
h2
M mn

X If 1 N w
n;y N m dx dy

v
K umn


Z 
X

Z 
X

2 h1
M hmn
0
R
h2 h2
M mn  X If f N hn2 N hm2 dx dy

w
I2 N w
n;y N m;y dx dy

h2

K vmn


A12 N vn;y N um;x A16 N vn;x N um;x A26 N vn;y N um;y A66 Nvn;x Num;y dx dy

2
K uh
mn 

vu
K mn


K vv
mn 

Z 
X

Z 
X

Z 
X

Z 
v w
v w
B12 Nvn;y Nw
m;xx B16 N n;x N m;xx B22 N n;y N m;yy
X

v w
v w
B26 Nvn;x Nw
m;yy 2B26 N n;y N m;xy 2B66 N n;x N m;xy dx dy

v
K w
mn 

K ww
mn 

Z 
X

w
w
w
w
w
D11 Nw
n;xx N m;xx D12 N n;yy N m;xx 2D16 N n;xy N m;xx

w
w
w
w
w
2D16 Nw
n;xx N m;xy 2D26 N n;yy N m;xy 4D66 N n;xy N m;xy


w
T w
w
T
w
w
T
w
w

NTx Nw
n;x N m;x
N y N n;y N m;y
N xy N n;x N m;y
N xy N n;y N m;x dxdy


1
1
1
1
E11 N hn;x
N um;x E16 Nhn;y
Num;x E66 N hn;y
N um;y E16 N hn;x
N um;y dx dy


2
2
2
2
E12 N hn;y
Num;x E16 Nhn;x
Num;x E26 Nhn;y
Num;y E66 Nhn;x
Num;y dx dy

Z 
h1
w
h1
w
1
F 11 Nhn;x
Nw
m;xx F 16 N n;y N m;xx F 12 N n;x N m;yy
X

h1
w
h1
w
1
F 26 Nhn;y
Nw
m;yy 2F 16 N n;x N m;xy 2F 66 N n;y N m;xy dx dy

1
K wh
mn 

Z 
h2
w
h2
w
2
F 12 Nhn;y
Nw
m;xx F 16 N n;x N m;xx F 22 N n;y N m;yy
X

h2
w
h2
w
2
F 26 Nhn;x
Nw
m;yy 2F 26 N n;y N m;xy 2F 66 N n;x N m;xy dx dy

2
K wh
mn 


A12 N un;x N vm;y A26 N un;y N vm;y A16 Nun;x N vm;x A66 Nun;y Nvm;x dx dy


A22 N vn;y N vm;y A26 N vn;x N vm;y A26 Nvn;y Nvm;x A66 Nvn;x Nvm;x dx dy

Z 

Z 

w
w
w
w
w
D12 Nw
n;xx N m;yy D22 N n;yy N m;yy 2D26 N n;xy N m;yy

Z 
vw
v
w
v
w
v
K mn


B12 Nw
n;xx N m;y B22 N n;yy N m;y 2B26 N n;xy N m;y
X

v
w
v
w
v
B16 Nw
n;xx N m;x B26 N n;yy N m;x 2B66 N n;xy N m;x dxdy
h1
K vmn



2
2
2
2
E22 Nhn;y
N vm;y E26 Nhn;x
Nvm;y E26 Nhn;y
Nvm;x E66 Nhn;x
Nvm;x dx dy

u
w
u
w
B11 Nun;x Nw
m;xx B12 N n;x N m;yy B16 N n;y N m;xx

u
w
u
w
2B16 Nun;x Nw
m;xy B26 N n;y N m;yy 2B66 N n;y N m;xy dx dy

Z 
u
w
u
w
u
K uw
B11 N w
mn 

n;xx N m;x B12 N n;yy N m;x 2B16 N n;xy N m;x
X

u
w
u
w
u
B16 Nw
n;xx N m;y B26 N n;yy N m;y 2B66 N n;xy N m;y dx dy
1
K uh
mn 

Z 

K wu
mn 


A11 N un;x N um;x A16 Nun;y N um;x A16 N un;x N um;y A66 Nun;y Num;y dx dy

Z 

Nw
m;x dx dy

R
h1 w
h1
M mn

X If 1 N w
n;x N m dx dy
R
h1 h1
h1 h1
M mn  X If f N n N m dx dy

8 9
8
9
I0 >
1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I1 >
z >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Z
h
< I2 =
< z2 >
=
2
q0

>
>
If 0 >
f z >

2h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If 1 >
>
>
>
zf z >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:I ;
:
2;
ff
f z
K uu
mn 

h1

X If 1 N n

1v
M hmn
0

X I 0 N n N m dx dy

h2 v
X I f 0 N n N m dx dy
R
wu
Mmn 
X I1 N un N w
m;x dx dy
v 
R I N v N w dx dy
Mw
1
mn
n m;y
X
R
w w
w
w
Mww
mn  X I 0 N n N m I2 N n;x N m;x

h2 w
2
M wh
mn 
X If 1 N n N m;y dx dy
R
h1 u
u h1
M mn  X If 0 N n N m dx dy

R
w
v
Mvmn

X I1 N w
n;y N m dx dy
Mv h1  0
h2
Mvmn



1
1
1
1
E12 Nhn;x
Nvm;y E26 N hn;y
N vm;y E66 Nhn;y
Num;y E16 Nhn;x
Num;y dx dy

h1 u
K mn


1v

K hmn

Z 
X


1
1
1
1
E11 Nun;x Nhm;x
E16 N un;y N hm;x
E16 N un;x N hm;y
E66 N un;y Nhm;y
dx dy

Z 
X


1
1
1
1
E12 Nvn;y N hm;x
E16 N vn;x N hm;x
E26 Nvn;y Nhm;y
E66 Nvn;x Nhm;y
dx dy

Z 
h1
w
h1
w
h1
F 11 Nw
n;xx N m;x F 12 N n;yy N m;x 2F 16 N n;xy N m;x
X

h1
w
h1
w
h1
F 16 Nw
n;xx N m;y F 26 N n;yy N m;y 2F 66 N n;xy N m;y dx dy

h1 w
K mn


H. Zarei et al. / Composite Structures 149 (2016) 170183

Z 
1 h1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K hmn

H11 Nhn;x
Nhm;x
H16 Nhn;y
Nhm;x
H16 Nhn;x
Nhm;y
H66 Nhn;y
Nhm;y
X

K 55 N hn1 Nhm1 dx dy

1 h2
K hmn


h2 u

K mn

2v

K hmn

Z 
X

Z 
X


2
2
2
2
E12 N un;x N hm;x
E26 Nun;y Nhm;y
E16 N un;x N hm;x
E66 N un;y N hm;x
dx dy

Z 
X


2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
H12 Nhn;y
Nhm;x
H16 Nhn;x
Nhm;x
H26 Nhn;y
N hm;y
H66 Nhn;x
Nhm;y
dxdy


2
2
2
2
E22 Nvn;y Nhm;y
E26 N vn;x N hm;y
E26 N vn;y N hm;x
E66 N vn;x N hm;x
dx dy

Z 
h2
w
h2
w
h2
F 12 Nw
n;xx N m;y F 22 N n;yy N m;y 2F 26 N n;xy N m;y
X

h2
w
h2
w
h2
F 16 Nw
n;xx N m;x F 26 N n;yy N m;x 2F 66 N n;xy N m;x dx dy

2w
K hmn


2 h1
K hmn


Z 

2 h2
K hmn



1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
H12 Nhn;x
Nhm;y
H26 Nhn;y
Nhm;y
H16 Nhn;x
Nhm;x
H66 Nhn;y
N hm;x
dxdy

Z 
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
H22 Nhn;y
Nhm;y
H26 Nhn;y
Nhm;x
H26 Nhn;x
Nhm;y
H66 Nhn;x
Nhm;x
X

K 44 N hn2 Nhm2 dx dy

8
9
8 9
1 >
Aij >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bij >
>
>
z >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Z
n
<D = X
< z2 >
=
zk1
ij
k


Q

dz i; j 1; 2; 6
ij
> Eij >
>
> k1 zk
f z >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> F ij >
>
>
>
zf z >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: >
>
;
>
:
2;
Hij
f z
K ij

n Z
X
k1

zk1

zk

k f 0 z2 dz i; j 4; 5
Q
ij

References
[1] Vermeeren CAJR. An historic overview of the development of fibre metal
laminates. Appl Compos Mater 2003;10:189205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1025533701806.
[2] Asundi A, Choi AYN. Fiber metal laminates: an advanced material for future
aircraft. Mater Process Technol 1997;63:38494.
[3] Vlot A, Vogelesang LB, de Vries TJ. Towards application of fibre metal laminates
in large aircraft. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 1999;71:558.
[4] Wu G, Yang J-M. The mechanical behavior of GLARE laminates for aircraft
structures. JOM 2005;57:729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11837-005-0067-4.
[5] Sadighi M, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Impact resistance of fibermetal
laminates: a review. Int J Impact Eng 2012;49:7790.

183

[6] Chai GB, Manikandan P. Low velocity impact response of fibremetal laminates
a review. Compos Struct 2014;107:36381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2013.08.003.
[7] Morinire FD. Low-velocity impact on fibremetal laminates. Delft University
of Technology; 2014.
[8] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[9] Malekzadeh K. Analytical prediction of low-velocity impact response of
composite sandwich panels using new TDOF springmassdamper model. J
Compos
Mater
2006;40:167189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0021998306060170.
[10] Pang SS, Zhao Y, Yang C, Griffin SA. Impact response of composite laminates
with a hemispherical indenter. Polym Eng Technol 1991;31:14616.
[11] Shivakumar KN, Elber W, Illg W. Prediction of low-velocity impact damage in
thin circular laminates. AIAA J 1985;23:4429. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/
3.8933.
[12] Abrate S. Modeling of impacts on composite structures. Compos Struct
2001;51:12938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00138-0.
[13] Foo CC, Seah LK, Chai GB. A modified energy-balance model to predict lowvelocity impact response for sandwich composites. Compos Struct
2011;93:138593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.11.008.
[14] Pierson MO, Vaziri R. Analytical solution for low-velocity impact response of
composite plates. AIAA J 1996;34:163340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/
3.13282.
[15] Choi IH, Kim I-G, Ahn S-M, Yeom C-H. Analytical and experimental studies on
the low-velocity impact response and damage of composite laminates under
in-plane loads with structural damping effects. Compos Sci Technol
2010;70:151322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.05.007.
[16] Payeganeh GH, Ashenai Ghasemi F, Malekzadeh K. Dynamic response of fiber
metal laminates (FMLs) subjected to low-velocity impact. Thin-Walled Struct
2010;48:6270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2009.07.005.
[17] Vlot A. Low-velocity impact loading: on fibre reinforced aluminium laminates
(ARALL and GLARE) and other aircraft sheet materials. Delft University of
Technology; 1993.
[18] Morinire FD, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Energy distribution in glare and
2024-T3 aluminium during low-velocity impact. Int. Congr. Aeronaut. Sci.
Energy 2012:19.
[19] Morinire FD, Alderliesten RC, Sadighi M, Benedictus R. An integrated study on
the low-velocity impact response of the GLARE fibremetal laminate. Compos
Struct 2013;100:89103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.12.016.
[20] Tsamasphyros GJ, Bikakis GS. Quasi-static response of circular glare plates
subjected to low velocity impact. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2014;21:3946.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2012.677104.
[21] Tsamasphyros GJ, Bikakis GS. Analytical modeling to predict the low velocity
impact response of circular GLARE fibermetal laminates. Aerosp Sci Technol
2013;29:2836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2013.01.005.
[22] Tsamasphyros GJ, Bikakis GS. Dynamic response of circular GLARE fibermetal
laminates subjected to low velocity impact. J Reinf Plast Compos
2011;30:97887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0731684411411226.
[23] Ashenai Ghasemi F, Raissi S, Malekzadeh K. Analytical and mathematical
modeling and optimization of fiber metal laminates (FMLs) subjected to lowvelocity impact via combined response surface regression and zeroone
programming. Lat Am J Solids Struct 2013;10:391406.
[24] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells. CRC Press;
1997.
[25] Cesari F, Dal Re V, Minak G, Zucchelli A. Damage and residual strength of
laminated carbonepoxy composite circular plates loaded at the centre.
Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38:116373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesa.2006.04.013.
[26] Wang CM, Liew KM. Buckling of triangular plates under uniform compression.
Eng Struct 1994;16:4350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(94)90103-1.
[27] Sabouri H, Ahmadi H, Liaghat GH. Ballistic impact perforation into GLARE
targets : experiment, numerical modelling and investigation of aluminium
stacking sequence. Veh Struct Syst 2011;3:17883. http://dx.doi.org/10.4273/
ijvss.3.3.05.
[28] Hagenbeek M. Characterisation of fibre metal laminates under thermomechanical loadings. Delft University of Technology; 2005.