Compressively Pre-stressed Navy Relevant Laminated and Sandwich Composites Subjected to Ballistic Impact

  • Eric Kerr-Anderson
  • Selvum Pillay
  • Basir Shafiq
  • Uday K. Vaidya
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 192)

Abstract

Assembled structures such as ship decks, walls, and masts are often times under different degrees of pre-stress or confinement. Structural composite integrity can be compromised when subjected to impacts from events such as wave slamming, tool drops, cargo handling, and ballistic fragments/projectiles. It has been shown by several researchers that when a highly pre-stressed structure is subjected to impact, the damaged area and impact response changes. The main focus of this study was the impact of compressively pre-stressed structures which can also be considered as compression-during-impact. The results showed that for various laminate configurations, there was a compressive pre-stress threshold above which impact damage caused more damage than witnessed in typical compression after impact (CAI) tests. Both fiberglass and carbon laminates pre-stressed to higher than 30% of ultimate compressive strength, failed from impact at 300 m/s; but the carbon laminates developed shear cracks above 10% of the ultimate compressive strength. The work is of benefit to naval and other composite designers to be able to account for failure envelopes under complex dynamic loading states, i.e. pre-stress and impact for various composite configurations.Book chapter for paper presented at Office of Naval Research (ONR) Workshop/Conference, June 23–24, 2011, Instit Clement Ader (ICA), Toulouse, France, Organized by – Serge Abrate, Bruno Castanié and Yapa D.S. Rajapakse.

Keywords

Sandwich composites High velocity impact Pre-stress Compression 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to support from the ONR Solid Mechanics program managed by Dr. Yapa D.S. Rajapakse, Office of Naval Research. Some aspects of the compression fixture for crashworthiness studies were funded through the Department of Energy, Graduate Automotive Technology Education (GATE) program and we gratefully acknowledge this support.

References

  1. 1.
    Mouritz AP et al (2001) Review of advanced composite structures for naval ships and submarines. Compos Struct 53(1):21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrate S (1998) Impact on composite structures, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vaidya UK (2011) Impact response of laminated and sandwich composites. Courses Lect Int Cent Mech Sci 526:97–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartus SD, Vaidya UK (2005) Performance of long fiber reinforced thermoplastics subjected to transverse intermediate velocity blunt object impact. Compos Struct 67(3):263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naik NK, Shrirao P (2004) Composite structures under ballistic impact. Compos Struct 66(1–4):579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    NASA reference publication 1092 (1983) Standard tests for toughened resin composites. Langley Research Center, Hampton, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration pp 1–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM D 7137 (2005) Standard test method for compressive residual strength properties of damaged polymer matrix composite plates. American Society for Testing and Materials, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adams D (2007) Testing tech: compression after impact testing. High-Performance Composites Nov: 4–6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Critchfield M, Judy T, Kurzweil A (1994) Low-cost design and fabrication of composite ship structures. Mar Struct 7(2–5):475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chamis CC, Lewis Research Center (1984) Simplified composite micromechanics equations for strength, fracture toughness, impact resistance and environmental effects. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, NASA TM-83696Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agarwal BD, Broutman LJ, Chandrashekhara K (2006) Analysis and performance of fiber composites, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenwood JH, Rose PG (1974) Compressive behaviour of kevlar 49 fibres and composites. J Mater Sci 9(11):1809–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piggott MR (1981) A theoretical framework for the compressive properties of aligned fibre composites. J Mater Sci 16(10):2837–2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones R et al (1993) Assessment of impact damage in composite structures. Department of Defence, Defence Science Technology Organisation, Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Fishermens BendGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riedel W et al (2006) Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in composites: Part II—experimental investigations and simulations. Int J Impact Eng 33(1–12):670–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morye SS et al (2000) Modelling of the energy absorption by polymer composites upon ballistic impact. Compos Sci Technol 60(14):2631–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li CF et al (2002) Low-velocity impact-induced damage of continuous fiber-reinforced composite laminates. Part I. An FEM numerical model. Compos Part A 33(8):1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    He T, Wen HM, Qin Y (2007) Penetration and perforation of FRP laminates struck transversely by conical-nosed projectiles. Compos Struct 81(2):243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    He T, Wen HM, Qin Y (2008) Finite element analysis to predict penetration and perforation of thick FRP laminates struck by projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 35(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tabiei A, Aminjikarai SB (2009) A strain-rate dependent micro-mechanical model with progressive post-failure behavior for predicting impact response of unidirectional composite laminates. Compos Struct 88(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aymerich F, Dore F, Priolo P (2008) Prediction of impact-induced delamination in cross-ply composite laminates using cohesive interface elements. Compos Sci Technol 68(12):2383–2390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schoeppner GA, Abrate S (2000) Delamination threshold loads for low velocity impact on composite laminates. Compos Part A 31(9):903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duan Y et al (2006) A numerical investigation of the influence of friction on energy absorption by a high-strength fabric subjected to ballistic impact. Int J Impact Eng 32(8):1299–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hazell PJ, Appleby-Thomas G (2009) A study on the energy dissipation of several different CFRP-based targets completely penetrated by a high velocity projectile. Compos Struct 91(1):103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fujii K et al (2003) Effect of characteristics of materials on fracture behavior and modeling using graphite-related materials with a high-velocity steel sphere. Int J Impact Eng 28(9):985–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sevkat E et al (2009) A combined experimental and numerical approach to study ballistic impact response of S2-glass fiber/toughened epoxy composite beams. Compos Sci Technol 69(7–8):965–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gama BA, Gillespie JW (2008) Punch shear based penetration model of ballistic impact of thick-section composites. Compos Struct 86(4):356–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trudel-Boucher D et al (2003) Low-velocity impacts in continuous glass fiber/polypropylene composites. Polym Compos 24:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Higgins RM, McCarthy MA, McCarthy CT (2008) Comparison of open hole tension characteristics of high strength glass and carbon fibre-reinforced composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 68(13):2770–2778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Craven R et al. (2009) Buckling of a laminate with realistic multiple delaminations and fibre fracture cracks using finite element analysis. ICCM Int Conf Compos MaterGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cui H-P, Wen W-D, Cui H-T (2009) An integrated method for predicting damage and residual tensile strength of composite laminates under low velocity impact. Comput Struct 87(7–8):456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Elder DJ et al (2004) Review of delamination predictive methods for low speed impact of composite laminates. Compos Struct 66(1–4):677–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gillespie JW, Monib AM, Carlsson LA (2003) Damage tolerance of thick-section S-2 glass fabric composites subjected to ballistic impact loading. J Compos Mater 37(23):2131–2147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou G, Rivera LA (2007) Investigation on the reduction of in-plane compressive strength in thick preconditioned composite panels. J Compos Mater 41(16):1961–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou G (2005) Investigation for the reduction of in-plane compressive strength in preconditioned thin composite panels. J Compos Mater 39(5):391–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Williams GJ, Bond IP, Trask RS (2009) Compression after impact assessment of self-healing CFRP. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 40(9):1399–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aoki Y, Yamada K, Ishikawa T (2008) Effect of hygrothermal condition on compression after impact strength of CFRP laminates. Compos Sci Technol 68(6):1376–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Daniel IM et al (2011) Characterization and constitutive modeling of composite materials under static and dynamic loading. AIAA J 49(8):1658–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xiao JR, Gama BA, Gillespie JW (2007) Progressive damage and delamination in plain weave S-2 glass/SC-15 composites under quasi-static punch-shear loading. Compos Struct 78(2):182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown KA et al. (2007) Modelling the impact behaviour of thermoplastic composite sandwich structures. In: 16th International Conference on Composite Materials, ICCM-16 – “A Giant Step Towards Environmental Awareness: From Green Composites to Aerospace”, July 8, 2007 – July 13, 2007. International Committee on Composite Materials, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    LSTC, Ls-dyna user manual 971, May 2007Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matzenmiller A, Lubliner J, Taylor RL (1995) A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in fiber-composites. Mech Mater 20(2):125–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sun CT, Chattopadhyay S (1975) Dynamic response of anisotropic laminated plates under initial stress to impact of a mass. J Appl Mech 42(3):693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rossikhin YA, Shitikova MV (2006) Dynamic stability of a circular pre-stressed elastic orthotropic plate subjected to shock excitation. Shock Vib 13(3):197–214Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zheng D, Binienda WK (2008) Analysis of impact response of composite laminates under prestress. J Aerosp Eng 21(4):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rossikhin YA, Shitikova MV (2009) Dynamic response of a pre-stressed transversely isotropic plate to impact by an elastic rod. J Vib Control 15(1):25–51MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khalili SMR, Mittal RK, Panah NM (2007) Analysis of fiber reinforced composite plates subjected to transverse impact in the presence of initial stresses. Compos Struct 77(2):263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    García-Castillo SK, Sánchez-Sáez S, Barbero E (2011) Behaviour of uniaxially preloaded aluminium plates subjected to high-velocity impact. Mech Res Commun 38(5):404–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Minak G et al (2010) Residual torsional strength after impact of CFRP tubes. Compos Part B Eng 41(8):637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Minak G et al (2010) Low-velocity impact on carbon/epoxy tubes subjected to torque – experimental results, analytical models and fem analysis. Compos Struct 92(3):623–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mizukawa K et al (1985) Impact strength of thin-walled composite structures under combined bending and torsion. Compos Struct 4(2):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kepler JA, Bull PH (2009) Sensitivity of structurally loaded sandwich panels to localized ballistic penetration. Compos Sci Technol 69(6):696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kulkarni MD, Goel R, Naik NK (2011) Effect of back pressure on impact and compression-after-impact characteristics of composites. Compos Struct 93(2):944–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Robb MD, Arnold WS, Marshall IH (1995) The damage tolerance of GRP laminates under biaxial prestress. Compos Struct 32(1–4):141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Whittingham B et al (2004) The response of composite structures with pre-stress subject to low velocity impact damage. Compos Struct 66(1–4):685–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mitrevski T et al (2006) Low-velocity impacts on preloaded GFRP specimens with various impactor shapes. Compos Struct 76(3):209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    García-Castillo SK et al (2009) Impact behaviour of preloaded glass/polyester woven plates. Compos Sci Technol 69(6):711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Loktev AA (2011) Dynamic contact of a spherical indenter and a prestressed orthotropic uflyand–mindlin plate. Acta Mech 222(1–2):17–25MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mikkor KM et al (2006) Finite element modelling of impact on preloaded composite panels. Compos Struct 75(1–4):501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Choi I-H et al (2010) 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 70(10):1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Choi I-H (2008) Low-velocity impact analysis of composite laminates under initial in-plane load. Compos Struct 86(1–3):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ghelli D, Minak G (2010) Numerical analysis of the effect of membrane preloads on the low-speed impact response of composite laminates. Mech Compos Mater 46(3):299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chai H (1982) The growth of impact damage in compressively loaded laminates. PhD Dissertation. California Institute of Technology, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McGowan DM, Ambur DR (1999) Structural response of composite sandwich panels impacted with and without compression loading. J Aircr 36(3):596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhang X, Davies GAO, Hitchings D (1999) Impact damage with compressive preload and post-impact compression of carbon composite plates. Int J Impact Eng 22:485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Herszberg I, Weller T (2006) Impact damage resistance of buckled carbon/epoxy panels. Compos Struct 73(2):130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Heimbs S et al (2009) Low velocity impact on CFRP plates with compressive preload: test and modelling. Int J Impact Eng 36(10–11):1182–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pickett AK, Fouinneteau MRC, Middendorf P (2009) Test and modelling of impact on pre-loaded composite panels. Appl Compos Mater 16(4):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wiedenman N (2006) Ballistic penetration of compressively loaded composite plates. J Compos Mater 40(12):1041–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Starnes JH Jr, Rose CA (1997) Nonlinear response of thin cylindrical shells with longitudinal cracks and subjected to internal pressure and axial compression loads. In: Proceedings of the 1997 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Part 4 (of 4), AIAA, Kissimmee, FL, 7–10 Apr 1997Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bartus SD(2006) Simultaneous and sequential multi-site impact response of composite laminates. PhD dissertation. University of Alabama at Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vaidya U, Kerr-Anderson E, Pillay S (2010) Effect of pre-stressing and curvature on e-glass/vinyl ester composites, In: Proceedings mechanics of composite materials, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    ASTM D 6641(2001) Standard test method for determining the compressive properties of polymer matrix composite laminates using a combined loading compression (clc) text fixtureGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Kerr-Anderson
    • 1
  • Selvum Pillay
    • 1
  • Basir Shafiq
    • 2
  • Uday K. Vaidya
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Processing and Applications Development (MPAD) Composites Center, Department of Materials Science & EngineeringUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Puerto Rico at MayaguezMayaguezUSA

Personalised recommendations