Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Impact resistance and damage characteristics of composite laminates

Tien-Wei Shyr *, Yu-Hao Pan
Institute of Textile Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Abstract
This paper presents an investigation into the damage characteristics and failure strengths of composite laminates at low velocity
impact tests. Three E-glass fabrics, non-crimp fabric, woven fabric, and nonwoven mat, were selected as reinforcements for the
composite laminates. Impact tests were conducted using a guided drop-weight test rig in ascending energy to 24 J/layer nominal
impact energy. Metallographic microscopy was used to observe the damage characteristics of the perpendicular cross-section of the
impacted laminates after a micropowder polishing treatment. When the loadtime and the energytime histories were compared
with the fractographics, it was found that ber breakage had occurred prior to the major damage. When the impact energy increased
over the threshold energy of the major damage, matrix cracking, delamination, and ber breakage were observed at the back
surface, below a nearly undamaged zone, which were attributed to the bending stresses.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Low-velocity impact; Impact damage; Composite laminate

1. Introduction currence of initial damage in the form of matrix crack-

Composite laminates are expected to absorb low ve-
locity impacts either during assembling or in use. When
laminate is subjected to even barely visible impact
damage, micro-damage is incurred, which can have a
signicant eect on the strength, durability, and stability
of the laminates [13]. The impact energy could be ab-
sorbed at any point of the entire structure, well away
from the point of impact [4]. Cantwell and Morton
proposed a pine tree damage pattern and a reversed pine
tree damage pattern for the impact-induced matrix
cracks in thick and thin thickness laminated composites,
respectively [5]. Freitas proposed a pine tree damage
pattern with vertical matrix cracks on the bottom layer
[3].
Under low velocity impact loading conditions, the
time of contact between projectile and target are relative
long. The load history can yield important information
concerning damage initiation and growth [610]. Several
investigators used the force history to compare the
structural response from impact tests. As pointed out in
the literature, the rst load drop, in terms of Hertzian
failure or signicant damage, corresponds to the oc-
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +886-4-24516336.
E-mail address: twshyr@fcu.edu.tw (T.-W. Shyr).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00114-4
ing, ber breakage, and local puncture or indentation.
[816]. Davies and Zhang pointed out that the rst
damage threshold is probably due to the initialization of
delamination failure [7]. Belingardi and Vadori dened
two thresholds from the load history [10]. The rst one
was at the rst load drop for the rst material damage,
and the second one was the maximum force value for the
rst lamina failure.
Davies et al. proposed an equation for a critical force
threshold, Pc2 8p2 Eh3 GIIc =91  m2 [6], where Pc is the
threshold load, E and m are the equivalent inplane
modulus and Poisson ratio, h is the laminate thickness,
and GIIc is the critical strain energy release rate. The
model indicates that the square of the critical force
threshold is proportional to the cube of the laminate
thickness. The predictions from this equation for de-
lamination initiation agreed well with their experimental
data [7,8]. Sjoblom also predicted that the critical
damage initiation load should increase with t3=2 [17].
However, some results showed that the delamination
threshold load varied with the laminate thickness to the
3/2 power [9,18]. Fiber failure occurs under the impacter
due to locally high stresses and indentation eects.
Belingardi and Vadori dene a term of saturation im-
pact energy, which is the maximum energy bearable by
the material without perforation [10]. Dorey gives a
simple equation for the energy required for ber failure
194 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203

and for penetration, E r2 wtL=18Ef [19], where r is The nonwoven mat, TGFM-300 P/E, was made from E-
exural strength, Ef is exural modulus, w is width, L is glass chopped strands with a layer of 300 g/m2 . Each
unsupported length, and t is specimen thickness. laminated composite was made up with its own unique
Glass fabrics are widely used as reinforcements to E-glass fabric. Two dierent thicknesses of composites
improve the impact damage tolerance of laminates were laminated by seven and thirteen layers fabric.
[10,11,2022]. The inherent crimp in woven fabric, Composite laminates were made by a hand-lay method
which interlaces two yarns at a 90 angle, results in the impregnated with an unsaturated polyester resin system,
poor in-plane shear resistance and yarn-to-fabric tensile and cured at room temperature for more than 24 h. All
translation eciency [23]. A non-crimp fabric called the sample codes of the composite laminates with the
multiaxial warp-knit fabric (MWK) was developed and fabric structure, number of fabric layer, thickness, and
investigated in order to study its impact resistance [24 ber content (Vf ) are given in Table 1. The R800-lami-
27]. The impact resistance of glass mat composite is nate was laminated with a stacking sequence of 45
poor, but it has the benet of reducing the manufac- angle rotation between adjacent woven fabrics.
turing cost. Glass mat used to reinforce epoxy to im- Impact tests were conducted using a guided drop-
prove its impact damage resistance was studied as well weight test rig with a pair of adjustable rebound catchers
[28]. to prevent multiple impacts on the test specimens. An
Composite materials have several failure modes, and impact machine, Dynatup Model 8250, was used for the
the strain rate sensitivity can result in a change from one test at an ambient temperature of 23 C. A specimen,
failure mode to the other. In recent literature there are 10.16 cm 15.24 cm, was clamped in a rectangular x-
some excellent reviews of published papers on this par- ture with an open window of 7.62 cm 12.70 cm. The
ticular subject that can be used as general references [29 specimen was struck once with an indenter with a weight
34]. Nondestructive techniques such as the C-scan of 47.53 kg, which had a hemispherical nose, 1.27 cm in
ultrasonic method providing whole eld information of
the damage zone are used, unfortunately many of the
features of the damage area are lost. These reviews as
well as a number of very recently published papers Table 1
Lists of sample code, ber content (Vf ), thickness (T ), incipient impact
suggest that the impact behavior and the damage char- velocity (Vi ), and incipient impact energy (Ei ) of the composite lami-
acteristics of composite laminates are still open prob- nates used
lems. Sample Vf T (cm) Vi (m/s) Ei (J)
The main goal of this work is to understand the im- codea
pact behavior and the damage characteristics in dierent MWK-7a 0.46 0.74 1.58 60.67
fabric structures with various thickness of the laminates, MWK-7b 2.22 117.00
under low velocity impact, medium-heavy incipient im- MWK-7c 2.69 173.00
pact energy conditions. Non-crimp fabric, woven fabric, MWK-13a 0.45 1.30 2.13 107.00
and discontinuous nonwoven mat were used to under- MWK-13b 3.02 214.00
stand the eciency of impact resistance. Detailed maps MWK-13c 3.70 320.00
of impact damage were observed, using a destructive M800-7a 0.40 0.58 1.57 60.67
method to identify the damage characteristics. The sec- M800-7b 2.26 120.97
tioned surface was polished with micropowders enabling M800-7c 2.70 172.66
damage to be easily identied. M800-13a 0.37 1.12 2.16 110.33
M800-13b 3.03 215.00
M800-13c 3.69 322.50
2. Experimental R800-7a 0.40 0.58 1.57 61.00
R800-7b 2.22 116.73
Three E-glass fabrics, multiaxial warp-knit blanket, R800-7c 2.70 172.66
woven fabric, and nonwoven mat, were selected for the R800-13a 0.40 1.03 2.15 109.33
study. MWK fabric, DBLT 1150-E11-1, was produced R800-13b 3.04 217.67
by DEVOLD AMT AS. A single layer of MWK fabric R800-13c 3.69 322.50
consisted of four individual plies of E-glass fabric with N-7a 0.28 0.31 1.55 57.10
dierent angles of 0 (295 g/m2 ), 45 (276 g/m2 ), 90 (283 N-7b 2.25 120.31
g/m2 ), and )45 (276 g/m2 ), which were sewn together by N-7c 2.68 170.69
polyester yarn. The basic weight of a single layer was N-13a 0.24 0.65 2.13 107.82
1141 g/m2 . The woven fabric and the nonwoven mat N-13b 3.01 215.31
were made by Taiwan Glass Ind. Corp. Woven fabric, N-13c 3.64 314.88
TGFW-800, was a plain construction, which was made a
7 and 13 are the layer number of the composite laminates. a, b, and
from E-glass lament bundles with a layer of 800 g/m2 . c are 8, 16, and 24 nominal impact energy, respectively.
 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203 195

diameter. Three nominal impact energies, 8, 16, and 24
J/layer, were used for the tests. The actual incipient
impact velocities (Vi ) and impact energies (Ei ), when the
indenter just contacted the specimen, for each sample
are given in Table 1. Histories of the impact loadtime
and impact energytime, established by integrating im-
pact load and displacement, were recorded digitally. The
impacted specimens were then sectioned perpendicularly
through the impact location with a diamond-coated
blade, using a water spray to minimize local heating.
The sectioned surface was ground successively on ner
abrasive silicon carbide paper (400, 800, 1000, 1200, and
1500 grit). After that, the ground surfaces were nally
polished with 0.3 lm Al2 O3 powders. The photographs
of the impacted surface and the sectioned surface were
taken using a camera with two 500 W light sources and a
metallographic microscope.
3. Results and discussion
The impact damage mechanism in a laminate con-
stitutes a very complex process. It is a combination of
matrix cracking, surface buckling, delamination, ber
shear-out, and ber fracture, etc., which usually all in-
teract with each other. The delamination caused by the
mismatching of the bending stiness was propagated
and aligned along the direction of the bers [3537]. The
delamination pattern is dependent upon the structure of
the fabric. A buttery shape with its major axis parallel
with the ber direction was observed in the impacted
MWK laminate (see Fig. 1a). The delamination, in-
creased in size with an increase of the load, rotated from
the depressed location down to the bottom layer (see
Fig. 1ab). A rhombus-shape delamination, aligned with
the warp and weft directions, was observed on the

Fig. 1. Photographs of the overall damage region after impact testing.

196 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203

Fig. 2. Impact loadtime and impact energytime histories of non-penetrated laminate.

impacted woven fabric laminate. Fig. 1c and d shows the

damaged area of the impacted M800 specimens. The
interlaced yarns resulted in an uneven and crimped
surface of the woven fabric, which restricted the growth
of the delamination. The impact energy could not
transfer eciently to the in-plane direction. Therefore,
the delamination area of M or R laminate was less than
that of the MWK laminate. Compared to the M800
delamination pattern, R800 specimen had a dierent
rhomboid angle due to the ber orientation (see Fig. 1e
f). The woven fabric-stacking angle did not show sig-
nicant dierence in delamination area (see Fig. 1cf).
Fig. 1g shows the overall damage region of the impacted
N-7a specimen. All of the impacted N-laminates were
penetrated under the conditions. The damage mor-
phology of the penetrated N-laminates was similar, and
the delamination area of the penetrated N-laminates was
small. This indicates that the random and discontinuous
ber cannot eciently transfer impact energy to the in-
plane direction. It is clear that the structure of the rein-
forced material strongly aects the delamination pattern Fig. 3. The Hertzian failure force of the laminates at various nominal
and area. The delamination area of the specimens is in impact energies.
the order of MWK-laminate > M800-laminate/R800-
laminate > N-laminate. elsewhere [11,35]. The threshold force of the thirteen-
For low velocity impact testing, the load and energy layer laminate for the Hertzian failure is about three
histories can yield important information concerning times higher than that of the seven-layer laminate. These
damage initiation and growth [9,10]. Typical impact results agree with the Davies and Robinson equation
loadtime and energytime histories are shown in Fig. 2. and Sj obloms prediction that the critical load for the
Hertzian failure can be observed at point Ph of the load initial delamination propagation is proportional to the
time curve, where the load increases until the rst sud- t3=2 (laminate thickness) [6,17,38]. The threshold energy
den drop occurs. The threshold force of the Hertzian for the Hertzian failure increases (Eh ) with an increase of
failure (Fh ) varies with dierent samples (see Fig. 3). This the incipient impact energy and with the increase of
indicates that each sample has its own unique load- layers in the laminate. It is worth noting that the energy
bearing capability. These results had also been reported levels of the Hertzian failure of MWK-laminate, M800-
 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203
laminate, and R800-laminate are similar, when the
laminates have the same number of layers (see Fig. 4).
After the Hertzian failure, the loadtime curve went
up with large oscillations. Fig. 5 shows that, in the case
of MWK-7a, the load increases up to the maximum
value (Fl ) at point Pl of the curve and then decreased
smoothly without a sudden load drop. A small inden-
tation cone, matrix cracks, and delamination damage
can be observed from the perpendicular cross-section
surface of the impacted laminate (see Fig. 6a). This
Fig. 4. The Hertzian failure energy of the laminates at various nominal
impact energies.
Fig. 5. Impact load and energy histories of MWK-7a laminate.
197
phenomenon agrees with other reports [35,39,40]. Fiber
breakage was found on the centrally depressed zone,
although the major damage was not started in the
MWK-7a laminate (see Fig. 7). Fiber breakage occurs
under the indenter due to locally high stresses and in-
dentation eects. Delamination was the major failure
mode at that time.
Once the load increases up to the maximum value (Fl )
and drops suddenly, an irregular plateau, between the Pl
and Pe points, with many large oscillations followed (see
Fig. 2). Here, Pl and Pe were the points at the maximum
value of the loadtime curve and energytime curve,
respectively. The perpendicular cross-section surface of
the non-penetrated specimen show a dark area, which is
the impact damage region (see Fig. 6b). The damage
region includes a centrally depressed cone, surface
buckling, matrix cracking, delamination, and ber fail-
ure. Matrix cracks, in the form of shear failure mode,
propagated radially from the top down, which inclined
about 45 out of the vertical position, and intercon-
nected with the delamination (see Fig. 8). Delamination
damage proceeded with the ascending impacted force,
and fabric lamina was penetrated layer by layer (see Fig.
6). A nearly undamaged conical zone just under the
centrally depressed cone is observed in the non-pene-
trated cases, located inside the inclined matrix cracks
(see Fig. 8). There are some micro matrix cracks, but the
forms of delamination and ber breakage are not found
in this conical zone. Below this nearly undamaged
conical zone, matrix cracking, delamination, and ber
failure were found (see Fig. 9). Fiber failure occurred at
the indentation central line. Shear cracks showed up
away from the indentation central line, but tensile cracks
were located around the indentation central line. This
198 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203

Fig. 6. Photographs of perpendicular cross-section surfaces of the impacted laminates.

indicates that the impact damage in the bottom layers is
attributed to the bending stresses. The matrix failure
mode was similar to the pattern proposed by Freitas,
which had a pine tree damage pattern with vertical
matrix cracks on the bottom layer [3]. A typical impact
damage mode for laminate composites during this stage
is depicted in the schematic representation shown in Fig.
10. A conical shape in the thickness direction with the
in-plane damage area increased from the impact surface
to the backside. A nearly undamaged zone is visible
inside the conical shape. Below the undamaged zone, the
laminate suered a bending stress, which resulted in
matrix cracking, delamination, and ber failure. Del-
amination and fabric failure were the major failure
modes of laminate during that time.
The threshold load for the major damage was read at
the maximum value of the loadtime curve (except
MWK-7a) (see Fig. 2). It was independent of incipient
impact energies, but it varied with the dierent samples
(see Fig. 11). The major damage energy (El ) of the
 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203 199

Fig. 7. Metallographic photographs shows ber breakage at the rst two layers.

specimen, corresponding to the maximum impact load,

Fig. 8. Metallographic photographs show a nearly undamaged zone
inside the inclined matrix cracks.
and the subjected maximum energy (Ee ) of the speci-
mens were read (see Figs. 12, 13). The El values of the
laminates had a similar level when the laminates were
subjected to 16 and 24 J/layer nominal impact energies.
They were approximately 107, 160, 60, 131, 67, 135, 13,
and 25 J for MWK-7, MWK-13, M800-7, M800-13,
R800-7, R800-13, N-7, and N-13, respectively. The or-
der of El values of the laminates were as follows: MWK-
laminate > R-laminate > M-laminate > N-laminate. It is
worth noting that the El value of each sample subjected
to 8 J/layer nominal impact energy were about 15%35%
lower than the above values, although ber breakage
was occurred on the centrally depressed zone.
When impact energy reached a maximum value Ee ,
the major damage on the specimen approached to stop.
If the specimen were not penetrated, the indenter re-
bounded from the plate. The load shows a dramatic

Fig. 9. Metallographic photograph shows matrix crack, delamination, and ber breakage at the bottom layers.
200 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203

Fig. 10. Schematic representation shows a typical impact damage

mode for composite laminate.

Fig. 12. The major damage energy (El ), corresponding to the maxi-
mum impact load, of the laminates at various nominal impact energies.

Fig. 11. The maximum impact load of the laminates at various nom-
inal impact energies.

decrease at point Pe of the curve, and the energytime

curve went down (see Fig. 2). When the specimen was
penetrated, the indenter did not rebound, and the en-
ergytime curve continued going up, which was due to
the friction of the edges of the perforation hole against
the lateral surface of the indenter (see Fig. 14). Ac-
cording to the experimental denition of impact energy
perforation, the perforated energy (Ep ) is read at the
penetrated point Pp , where the loadtime curve is nearly
constant and the energy increases with a constant slop
[10]. The loadtime curve of nonwoven laminate also
presents lots of small oscillations before and after the
maximum impact point Pl (see Fig. 14b). The increments
of delamination area and penetration depth are clearly
evident with the ascending of the incipient impact energy
in the impacted specimens (see Fig. 6cd). Two perfo-
ration failure zones for the specimen can be observed
through the thickness: region I, ber shear-out and ber
Fig. 13. The maximum subjected energy of the laminates at various
nominal impact energies.
breakage; and region II, tensile ber failure and de-
lamination. The delamination damage can be observed in
the penetrated N-laminate as well. In the study of the
energy required for the ber failure, Dorey proposed a
simple equation in which the absorbed energy is pro-
portional to the thickness of the specimen [19]. In the
non-penetrated tests, the nal absorbed energies of
MWK-7c vs. MWK-13c, M800-7a vs. M800-13a, and
R800-7a vs. R800-13a agreed with the above equation
(see Fig. 15). Here, the nal absorbed energy is calcu-
lated from the rebound energy reduction in the maxi-
 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203 201

Fig. 14. Impact load and energy histories of the penetrated laminates.

mum energy. However, the relationship between perfo-
rated energy and thickness was not easily found in the
penetration cases. One of major reasons could be due to
the elastic energy, which was included in the perforation
energy [24,41]. The thresholds of the perforation ener-
gies (Ep ) for various laminates are shown in Fig. 16. The
fabric structure eect on perforation is obvious. The
order of perforation energy of the samples is as follows:
N-laminate < M800-laminate < MWK-laminate. The ef-
fect of woven fabric stacking angle in laminates, M800-
laminate and R800-laminate, on perforation energy
is not signicant. The energy dierence between the
threshold of the major damage and laminate perforation
varies with the number of layers of the laminates (see
Fig. 17). It can be seen that this energy dierence is
smaller than the threshold energy of the major damage
in all the cases of the seven-layer laminates, but this
energy dierence is signicantly lager than the threshold
energy of the major damage in all the cases of the thir-
teen-layer laminates. It indicates that the major energy
absorption mechanism varies with the number of layers
of the laminate.
202 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203
Fig. 15. The nal absorbed energies of the impenetrated laminates at
various nominal impact energies.
Fig. 16. The perforated energies of the penetrated laminates at various
nominal impact energy.
4. Conclusions
This study attempted to understand the impact be-
havior and damage characteristics in various reinforced
fabric structures with dierent numbers of layers, when
impacted by a low velocity impact by a 47.53 kg ind-
enter. The experimental results, based on loadtime and
energytime histories and metallographic microscopy
allowed us to identify three critical thresholds. The
Fig. 17. The energies of Hertzian failure (Eh ), the major damage (El ),
and perforation (Ep ) of the penetrated laminates.
threshold of delamination failure and the major damage
were identied from the force history, and the perfora-
tion energy threshold was identied from the energy
history. It is worth noting that the threshold energy of
the major damage was observed when the laminates
were subjected to 16 and 24 J/layer nominal impact
energies. However, the results did not coincide with the
laminates being subjected to 8 J/layer nominal impact
energies. The threshold force and energy of the major
damage still require further study.
In the view of the energy-absorbing mechanism, re-
sults show that ber fracture dominated the impact
failure model in the thirteen-layer laminate, whereas
delamination became more important in the seven-layer
laminate. Therefore, it is concluded that the layer
number is one of the important parameters for the en-
ergy-absorbing mechanism in composite laminates.
The impact damage absorption energy of laminates
varying with the fabric structure was claried. Due to
the impact resistance eciency, the non-crimp fabric is a
valuable option for composite laminates for increasing
their impact resistance property.
References
[1] de Freitas M, Reis L. Failure mechanisms on composite specimens
subjected to compression after impact. Compos Struct 1998;42:
36573.
[2] Hitchen SA, Kemp RMJ. The eect of staking sequence on impact
damage in a carbon bre/epoxy composite. Composite 1995;26:
20714.
[3] de Freitas M, Silva A, Reis L. Numerical evaluation of failure
mechanisms on composite specimens subjected to impact loading.
Composites: Part B 2000;31:199207.
[4] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. Comparison of the low and high velocity
impact response of CFRP. Composites 1989;20(6):54551.
[5] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. Detection of impact damage in CFRP
laminates. Compos Struct 1985;3:24157.
 T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan / Composite Structures 62 (2003) 193203
[6] Davies GAO, Zhang X, Zhou G, Watson S. Numerical modeling
of impact damage. Composites 1994;25(5):34250.
[7] Davies GAO, Zhang X. Impact damage prediction in carbon
composite structure. Int J Impact Eng 1994;16(1):14970.
[8] Zhang X. Impact damage in composite aircraft structures
experimental; testing and numerical simulation. Proc Inst Mech
Eng 1998;212:24559.
[9] Schoeppner GA, Abrate S. Delamination threshold loads for low
velocity impact on composite laminates. Composites: part A
2000;31:90315.
[10] Belingardi G, Vadori R. Low velocity impact tests of laminate
glass-ber-epoxy matrix composite material plates. Int J Impact
Eng 2002;27:21329.
[11] Davies GAO, Hitchings D, Zhou G. Impact damage and residual
strengths of woven fabric glass/polyester laminates. Composites:
Part A 1996;27A:114756.
[12] Matemilola SA, Stronge WJ. Low speed impact damage in
lament-wound CFRP composite pressure vessels. J Pressure
Vessel Technol 1997;119(4):43543.
[13] Alderson KL, Evans KE. Failure mechanisms during the trans-
verse loading of lament-wound pipes under static and low
velocity impact conditions. Composites 1992;23(3):16773.
[14] Hirai Y, Hamada H, Kim JK. Impact response of woven glass-
fabric composites. I. Eect of ber surface treatment. Compos Sci
Technol 1998;58(1):91105.
[15] Zhou G. The use of experimentally-determined impact force as a
damage measure in impact damage resistance and tolerance of
composite structures. Compos Struct 1998;42:37582.
[16] Cartie DDR, Irving PE. Eect of resin and bre properties on
impact and compression after impact performance of CFRP.
Composites: Part A 2002;33:48393.
[17] Sj
oblom P. Simple design approach against low velocity impact
damage. In: Proceeding of 32nd SAMPE Symposium, Anaheim,
CA, 1987, p. 52939.
[18] Olsson R. A review of impact experiments at FFA during 1986 to
1998. The Aeronautical research Institute of Sweden. FFA TN
1999-08, 1999.
[19] Dorey G. Impact damage in compositesdevelopment, conse-
quences, and prevention. In: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Composite
Materials and 2nd European Conf. on Composite materials.
London: Imperial College, vol. 3, 1988, p. 3.13.26.
[20] Zhou G. Prediction of impact damage thresholds of glass ber
reinforced laminates. Compos Struct 1995;31:18593.
[21] Zhou G. Eect of impact damage on residual compressive
strength of glass-ber reinforced polyester (GFRP) laminates.
Compos Struct 1995;35:17181.
[22] Zhou G. Compressive behaviour of large undamaged and
damaged thick laminated panels. Compos Struct 1997;38:58897.
[23] Scardino F. An introduction to textile structures and their
behavior. In: Chou TW, Ko FK, editors. Composite material
series, 3: Textile structural composites. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
1989, p. 122.
203
[24] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ. Inuence of reinforcement architecture on
damage mechanisms and residual strength of glass-epoxy/epoxy
composite systems. Compos Sci Technol 1998;58:80313.
[25] Shyr TW, Ouyang C, Pan YH. Impact damage and residual
strength of multiaxial warp knitted glass fabric reinforced
polyester laminate. In: Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM/12), Paris, 59 July
1998, Paper ID 944.
[26] Kang TJ, Kim C. Energy-absorption mechanisms in Kevlar
multiaxial warp-knit fabric composite under impact loading.
Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:184773.
[27] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ, Backhouse R, Mills A. Carbon-bre non-
crimp fabric laminates for cost-eective damage-tolerant struc-
tures. Compos Sci Technol 1998;58:12943.
[28] Morii T, Hamada H, Desaeger M, Gotoh A, Yokoyama A,
Verpoest I, Maekawa ZI. Damage tolerance of glass mat/epoxy
laminates hybridized with exible resin under static and impact
loading. Compos Struct 1995;32:1339.
[29] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. The impact resistance of composite
materialsa review. Composites 1991;22(5):34762.
[30] Cantwell WJ, Morton J. The signicance of damage and defects
and their detection in composite materials: a review. J Strain Anal
1992;27(1):2942.
[31] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composite materials. Appl Mech
Rev 1991;44(4):15590.
[32] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl
Mech Rev 1994;47(11):51744.
[33] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge university press; 1998.
[34] Richardson MOW, Wisheart MJ. Review of low-velocity impact
properties of composite materials. Composites: Part A 1996;
27A:112331.
[35] Lesser AJ. Eect of resin crosslink density on the impact damage
resistance of laminated composites. Polymer Compos 1997;18:
1627.
[36] Liu D. Impact-induced delaminationa view of bending stiness
mismatching. J Compos Mater 1988;22:67491.
[37] Abrate S. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge university press; 1998. p. 16162.
[38] Davies GAO, Robinson P. Predicting failure by debonding/
delamination. AGARD: 74th Structures and Materials Meeting
1992.
[39] Chaudhri MM, Chen L. The orientation of the Hertzian
cone crack in soda-lime glass formed by oblique dynamic and
qusi-static loading with a hard sphere. J Mater Sci 1989;24:
34418.
[40] Hirai Y, Hamada H, Kim JK. Impact response of woven glass-
fabric composites. II. Eect of temperature. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58(1):11928.
[41] Delfosse D, Poursartip A. Energy-based approach to impact
damage in CFRP laminates. Composites: Part A 1997;28A:647
55.