Numerical impact strain response of multi-layered steel–aluminium plate using signal processing

  • S. AbdullahEmail author
  • M. F. Abdullah
  • A. S. Zulkefli
  • N. H. Mazlan
Technical Paper


This paper investigates the impact strain response resulting from the numerical Charpy impact test of double- and triple-layered steel–aluminium plate employing time–frequency analysis. The potential of the laminated steel–aluminium plate in weight reduction is evaluated using a single-layered specimen as a reference. The signal processing technique in the time–frequency domain is capable of revealing the behaviour and strength of the laminated plate. The time domain signal from the numerical Charpy impact test is transformed into the frequency domain using the power spectrum density and time–frequency domain by the Hilbert–Huang spectrum. The relationship of strain energy from the finite element method and the power spectrum density showed the R2 value of 0.8899, indicating that the power spectrum density can be used as an alternative in calculating the strain energy. In this study, the frequency distribution in the power spectrum density was compared with the Hilbert–Huang spectrum. The triple-layered specimen was found to show better performance with 23% higher maximum strain and 11% more strain energy to fracture, compared to the double-layered specimen. Therefore, the analysis in both frequency and time–frequency domains provide a better understanding of the impact behaviour of the double- and triple-layered plate.


Charpy impact Strain signal Layered plate Time–frequency domain Hilbert–Huang spectrum 



The authors wish to express their gratitude to Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia via Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia under research funding LRGS/2013/UPNM-UKM/DS/04 for supporting this research project.


  1. 1.
    Mantena P, Mann R, Nori C (2001) Low-velocity impact response and dynamic characteristics of glass-resin composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 20(1):513–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fujii K, Yasuda E, Tanabe Y (2001) Dynamic mechanical properties of polycrystalline graphites and a 2D-C/C composite by plate impact. Int J Impact Eng 25:473–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Børvik T, Deya S, Clausen AH (2009) Perforation resistance of five different high-strength steel plates subjected to small-arms projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 36:948–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feng MD, Qiu HG, Fei HZ, Yu ZZ, Shu CC, Hua ZW (2008) Crack initiation and propagation of cast A356 aluminium alloy under multi-axial cyclic loadings. Int J Fatigue 30:1843–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maria L, Montero S, Mertensb R, Vranckena B, Xiebin W, Brecht VH, Jean PK, Jan VH (2016) Changing the alloy composition of Al7075 for better processability by selective laser melting. J Mater Process Technol 238:437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Öberg EK, Dean J, Clyne TW (2015) Effect of inter-layer toughness in ballistic protection systems on absorption of projectile energy. Int J Impact Eng 76:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flores-Johnson EA, Saleh M, Edwards L (2011) Ballistic performance of multi-layered metallic plates impacted by a 7.62-mm APM2 projectile. Int J Impact Eng 38:1022–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim H, Kang MJ, Jung HJ, Kim HS, Bae CM, Lee SH (2013) Mechanisms of toughness improvement in Charpy impact and fracture toughness tests of non-heat-treating cold-drawn steel bar. Mater Sci Eng A 571:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim H, Park JY, Kang MJ, Lee SH (2016) Interpretation of Charpy impact energy characteristics by microstructural evolution of dynamically compressed specimens in three tempered martensitic steels. Mater Sci Eng A 649:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tanguy B, Besson J, Piques R, Pineau A (2005) Ductile to brittle transition of an A508 steel characterized by Charpy impact test Part II: modeling of the Charpy transition curve. Eng Fract Mech 72:413–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ali MB, Abdullah S, Nuawi MZ, Ariffin AK, Mohammad M (2011) Evaluating Charpy impact energy signals using power spectrum densities: a finite element method approach. Int J Mech Mater Eng 6(1):92–101Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shterenlikht A, Hashemi SH, Yates JR, Howard C, Robert M (2005) Assessment of an instrumented Charpy impact machine. Int J Fract 132:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peng ZK, Peter WT, Chu FL (2005) A comparison study of improved Hilbert–Huang transform and wavelet transform: application to fault diagnosis for rolling bearing. Mech Syst Signal Process 19:974–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antonino-Daviu JA, Riera-Guasp M, Pineda-Sanchez M, Pérez RB (2009) A critical comparison between DWT and Hilbert–Huang-based methods for the diagnosis of rotor bar failures in induction machines. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 5:1794–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang WX (2008) Interpretation of mechanical signals using an improved Hilbert–Huang transform. Mech Syst Signal Process 22(5):1061–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li L, Wang F, Jia Y, Zhao C, Kong D (2016) Energy spectrum analysis of blast waves based on an improved Hilbert–Huang transform. Shock Waves 27:1–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee SK, Kim YW, Koo MH, Gimm HI, Yoo HH (2010) Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT) transient analysis of composite panel undergoing high-velocity impact. J Mech Sci Technol 24(12):2395–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang Y, Wang P, Guo C (2017) Low-velocity impact failure mechanism analysis of 3-D braided composites with Hilbert–Huang transform. J Ind Text 46(5):1241–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hufenbach W, Ibraim F, Langkamp A, Bohm R, Hornig A (2008) Charpy impact tests on the composite structures: an experimental and numerical investigation. Compos Sci Technol 68:2391–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jang YC, Hong JK, Park JH, Kim DW, Lee Y (2008) Effects of notch position of the Charpy impact specimen on the failure behavior in heat affected zone. J Mater Process Technol 201:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR (1999) A new view of nonlinear water waves: the Hilbert spektrum. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 31:417–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aripin MA, Sajuri Z, Abdullah S, Omar MZ, Zamri WFH, Jamil WNM, Abdullah MF (2016) Microscale groove effect on shear strength of epoxy-bonded dissimilar metal plate. J Adhes Sci Technol 30(18):2001–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jamil WNM, Aripin MA, Sajuri Z, Abdullah S, Omar MZ, Abdullah MF, Zamri WFH (2016) Mechanical properties and microstructures of steel panels for laminated composites in armoured vehicles. Int J Automot Mech Eng 13(3):3741–3753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahman NA, Abdullah S, Zamri WFH, Abdullah MF, Omar MZ, Sajuri Z (2016) Ballistic limit of high-strength steel and Al7075-T6 multi-layered plates under 7.62-mm armour piercing projectile impact. Lat Am J Solids Struct 13:1658–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jang YC, Hong JK, Park JH, Kim DW, Lee Y (2008) Effects of notch position of the Charpy impact specimen on the failure behavior in heat affected zone. J Mater Process Technol 201:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nuawi MZ, Bahari AR, Abdullah S, Ihsan AK, Ali MB (2012) Mesokurtosis zonal nonparametric signal analysis for dynamic characterisation of metallic material. J Kejuruter 24:21–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Centre for Materials Engineering and Smart ManufacturingUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)BangiMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Pertahanan Nasional MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations