Low Velocity Response of GFRP and Hybrid Laminates Under Impact Testing

  • H. ShettyEmail author
  • D. Sethuram


This paper analyses the improvements in falling weight impact resistance characteristics of the laminates when highly flexible Polycarbonate (PC) sheet is sandwiched between Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) laminates. Towards this, low-velocity impact (LVI) tests at different impact energies were conducted on various thicknesses of GFRP and hybrid laminates. For each given incident impact energy, the load—time data were extracted and the transient absorbed energy, as well as displacement, are computed by numerical integration. The impact energy obtained from this data is computed for all the laminates. Experimental investigation reveals that the hybrid laminate shows a significant increase in the maximum impact energy that can be absorbed before complete perforation as compared to bare GFRP laminate. Other impact resistance characteristics such as initial stiffness and peak load as a function of incident impact energy have been analyzed and the influence of PC insertion in the laminate (hybrid) on these parameters are experimentally investigated.


Hybrid laminates Low-velocity Impact Incident Impact energy Absorbed energy Initial stiffness 

List of Symbols


Volume fraction of fibre


Volume fraction of matrix


Wight fraction of fibre


Density of fibre


Density of matrix


Volume fraction of GFRP


Volume fraction of PC sheet


Thickness of GFRP laminate


Thickness of PC sheet


Thickness of hybrid laminate


Density of GFRP laminate


Density of PC sheet


Density of hybrid laminate

\(v\left( t \right)\)

Indenter velocity at time, t


Incident impact velocity at height ‘h’


Mass of indenter

\(F\left( t \right)\)

Contact force measured at time, t

\(\delta \left( t \right)\)

Indenter displacement at time, t

\(\delta_{i }\)

Indenter displacement from reference at time t = 0

\(E_{a} \left( t \right)\)

Absorbed energy at time, t


Impact energy that causes complete perforation in J


Maximum absorbed energy at the onset of complete perforation in J


Peak load absorbed by the laminate during LVI in N

\(\left( {\frac{P}{\Delta }} \right)_{i}\)

Initial stiffness of laminate during LVI in N/m


Impact energy in J


Absorbed energy in J



  1. 1.
    Balaganesan G, Chandra V (2016) Energy absorption of repaired composite laminates subjected to impact loading. Compos Part B Eng 98:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dogan A, Arikan V (2017) Low-velocity impact response of E-glass reinforced thermoset and thermoplastic based sandwich composites. Compos Cart B Eng 127:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flores M, Mollenhauer D, Runatunga V, Beberniss T, Rapking D, Pankow M (2017) High-speed 3D digital image correlation of low-velocity impacts on composite plates. Compos Part B Eng 131:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jang B, Kim C (2017) Real-time detection of low-velocity impact-induced delamination onset in composite laminates for efficient management of structural health. Compos B Eng 123:124–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang B, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhang J, Liang W (2015) Experimental and numerical investigation of interplay hybrid composites based on woven fabrics and PCBT resin subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos Struct 132:464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang B, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhang J, Tong L, Liang W (2015) study on the low-velocity impact response and CAI behavior of foam-filled sandwich panels with hybrid face sheet. Compos Struct 132:1129–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu J, Liu X, Zhou H, Li L, Liu Z (2018) Experimental and numerical study on soft-hard-soft (SHS) cement based composite system under multiple impact loads. Mater Des 139:234–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang B, He L, Gao Y (2017) Simulation on impact response of FMLs: effect of fiber stacking sequence, thickness, and incident angle. Sci Eng Compos Mater. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang C, Duodu EA, Gu J (2017) Finite element modeling of damage development in cross-ply composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact. Compos Struct 173:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abi MR, Tay TE, Ridha M, Lee HP (2017) On the relationship between failure mechanism and compression after impact (CAI) strength in composites. Compos Struct 182:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang Z, Xu L, Sun X, Shi M, Liu J (2017) Fatigue behavior of glass-fiber reinforced epoxy composites embedded with shape memory alloy wires. Compos Struct 178:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Almansour FA, Dhakal HN, Zhang ZY (2017) Effect of water absorption on Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of flax/basalt reinforced vinyl ester hybrid composites. Compos Struct 168:813–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang S, Huang L, An Q, Geng L, Liu B (2018) dramatically enhanced impact toughness of two-scale laminate-network structured composites. Mater Des 140:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhandarov S, Mader E (2016) determining the interfacial toughness from force-displacement curves in the pull-out and micro bond tests using the alternative method. Int J Adhes Adhes 65:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng N, Huan Y, Liu H-Y, Gao J, Mai Y-W (2017) Improvement of interlaminar fracture toughness in carbon fiber/epoxy composites with carbon nanotubes/polysulfone interleaves. Compos Sci Technol 140:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonnenfeld C, Mendil-Jakani H, Agogue R, Nunez P, Beauchene P (2017) Thermoplastic/thermoset multilayer composites: a way to improve the impact damage tolerance of thermosetting resin matrix composites. Compos Struct 171:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carboni M, Gianneo A, Giglio M (2015) A Lamb waves based statistical approach to structural health monitoring of carbon fibre reinforced polymer composites. Ultrasonics 60:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moumen A, Tarfaoui M, Lafdi K, Benyahia H (2017) Dynamic properties of carbon nanotubes reinforced carbon fibers/epoxy textile composites under low-velocity impact. Compos B Eng 125:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imielińska K, Guillaumat L (2004) The effect of water immersion aging on low-velocity impact behavior of woven aramid–glass fibre/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 64:2271–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang L, Hu H (2017) Low-velocity impact response of multilayer orthogonal structural composite with auxetic effect. Compos Struct 169:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li Z, Khennane A, Hazell PJ, Brown AD (2017) Impact behavior of pultruded GFRP composites under low-velocity impact loading. Compos Struct 168:360–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahmoud B, Colungo Torrecilla M, Navarro P, Marguet S, Tawk I, Ferrero J-F (2017) Semi-continuous strategy for the modelling of damage mechanisms in unidirectional composites under low-velocity impacts. Compos B Eng 130:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park H (2017) Investigation on low-velocity impact behavior between graphite/epoxy composite and steel plate. Compos Struct 171:126–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ravandi M, Teo WS, Tran LQN, Yong MS, Tay TE (2017) Low-velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy composite laminates. Compos B Eng 117:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salvetti M, Sbarufatti C, Gilioli A, Dziendzikowski M, Dragan K, Manes A et al (2017) On the mechanical response of CFRP composite with embedded optical fibre when subjected to low-velocity impact and CAI tests. Compos Struct 179:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shrestha P, Park Y, Kim C (2017) Low-velocity impact localization on composite wing structure using error outlier-based algorithm and FBG sensors. Compos B Eng 116:298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun W, Guan Z, Ouyang T, Tan R, Zhong X (2018) Effect of stiffener damage caused by low-velocity impact on compressive buckling and failure modes of T-stiffened composite panels. Compos Struct 184:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thorsson SI, Sringeri SP, Waas AM, Justusson BP, Rassaian M (2018) Experimental investigation of composite laminates subject to low-velocity edge-on impact and compression after impact. Compos Struct 186:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walsh J, Kim H-I, Suhr J (2017) Low-velocity impact resistance and energy absorption of environmentally friendly expanded cork core-carbon fiber sandwich composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 101:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang HR, Long SC, Zhang XQ, Yao XH (2018) Study on the delamination behavior of thick composite laminates under low-energy impact. Compos Struct 184:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao Y, Liu W, Seah LK, Chai GB (2016) Delamination growth behavior of a woven E-glass/bismaleimide composite in a sea water environment. Compos B Eng 106:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Safri SNA, Sultan MTH, Jawaid M, Jayakrishna K (2018) Impact behavior of hybrid composites for structural applications: a review. Compos B Eng 133:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sikdar S, Banerjee S (2016) Identification of disbond and high-density core region in a honeycomb composite sandwich structure using ultrasonic guided waves. Compos Struct 152:568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bandaru AK, Ahmad S, Bhatnagar N (2017) Ballistic performance of hybrid thermoplastic composite armors reinforced with Kevlar and basalt fabrics. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 97:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hung P, Lau K, Cheng L, Leng J, Hui D (2018) Impact response of hybrid carbon/glass fibre reinforced polymer composites designed for engineering applications. Compos B Eng 133:86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Song ZG, Zhang LW, Liew KM (2016) Dynamic responses of CNT reinforced composite plates subjected to impact loading. Compos B Eng 99:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gu GX, Takaffoli M, Hsieh AJ, Buehler MJ (2016) Biomimetic additive manufactured polymer composites for improved impact resistance. Extreme Mech Lett 9:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Keranen M, Gnyba M, Raerinne P, Rantala JT (2004) Synthesis and characterization of optical sol-gel adhesive for military protective polycarbonate resin. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 31:369–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alex J. Hsieh, Daniel DeSchepper, Paul Moy, Peter G. Dehmer, John W. Song (2004) The effects of PMMA on ballistic impact performance of hybrid hard/ductile all-plastic and glass-plastic based composites. US army research laboratory ARL-TR-3155, Report no. A878024, Feb 2004Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sai Sarva, Adam D. Mulliken, Mary C. Boyce, Alex J. Hsieh (2004) Mechanics of transparent polymeric material assemblies under projectile impact: simulation and experiments. US army research laboratory AMSRD-ARL-WM-MD, Report no. A003334, Dec 2004Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhou J, Hassan MZ, Guan Z, Cantwell WJ (2012) The low-velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol 72(14):1781–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Technical report CSMST(EXT), National Aerospace Laboratories,
  43. 43.
    Technical report, National Analytical Laboratories, and Research Center, NABL Accredited/ISO 9001:2008/OHSAS 18001:2007Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mullaoglu Fehmi, Usta Fatih, Turkmen Halit S, Kazanci Zafer, Balkan Demet, Akay Erdem (2016) Deformation behavior of the polycarbonate plates subjected to impact loading. Procedi Eng 167:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPES UniversityBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations