MIJST

MIST International Journal of Science and Technology

Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite

Laminates
Diganta Chanda1 and Md. Ashraful Islam2*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh
emails: 1digantachanda00@[Link]; and *[Link]@[Link]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: The response over the low-velocity impact of various shape impactors on a glass
fiber reinforced polymer composite has been numerically analyzed with a
Received: 17th August 2022 hemispherical, flat, partially flat and truncated shaped impactor used to analyze
Revised: 27th April 2023 the behavior of resistance of a GFRP composite at various speeds. The numerical
Accepted: 03rd May 2023
analysis was carried out using finite element analysis software, ABAQUS
Published: 25th June 2023
(Dynamic/Explicit). To assess the response of the composite laminates while
impacting, finite element models were developed. The Hashin failure criteria
Keywords: were used to represent braided glass-fiber reinforced composite plate damage.
Regarding projectile shape, the impact reaction of the composite was examined.
Glass fiber reinforced polymer The results also show that the mechanical response of woven glass fiber
composite
polymer composite under low-velocity projectile impact largely depends on the
Finite element analysis (FEA)
Hashin failure criteria impactor’s nose shape and the velocity of the impactor.
Low-velocity projectile impact

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

1. INTRODUCTION influence on the composite material (Singh & Shinde,

2022). Liu and Malvern (1987) proposed that the type of
A composite material is a macroscopic blend of two or
impact can be classified based on the amount of damage
more distinct materials with a distinguishable interface. A
sustained, particularly if damage is the primary concern.
laminate composite's distinguishing feature is its high basic
Penetration-induced fiber breakage characterizes high
strength (Sevkat et al., 2009). A plastic polymer resin is
velocity, while delamination and matrix cracking
used to combine thousands of tiny glass strands into
characterize low velocity (Liu & Malvern, 1987).
fiberglass and bind them rigidly in place. Epoxy, Polyester,
Robinson and Davies (1992) used laboratory coupon
Vinyl ester, Polyurethane and Polypropylene are some of
testing results to examine the damage tolerance of brittle
the most common plastic resins used in composites
composite structures, analyzing the effect of impactor
(Thiagarajan et al., 2012). According to Sjoblom et al.
weight and specimen design size on the low-velocity
(1988) and Shivakumar et al. (1985), low-speed impacts
impact performance of a variety of woven fiber reinforced
are quasi-static events involving upper limits that can vary
composite laminates. Safri et al. (2014) illustrated the
from one ms-1 to ten ms-1 depending on the mass and
deformation and damage mechanisms involved throughout
stiffness of the impactor, the stiffness of the target, and
the impact of objects in formulating appropriate composite
perhaps other criteria. The low-velocity effect, the
structures to improve the survivability of aircraft structures
structurally dynamic reaction of the target, is crucial
regarding low and high-velocity impacts. For epoxy
because the contact time allows the entire system to react
composites, this results in the transition to the impact of
to the hit, increasing the amount of energy elastically
energy can be measured if height and weight are known.
absorbed. (Sjoblom et al., 1988) (Shivakumar et al., 1985).
Though appropriate techniques for detection can be used
The laminate's impact resistance is determined by various
for quantification. The seriousness of such losses could be
parameters, including inter-laminar strengths, stacking
low-speed impacts considered to be dangerous loads
sequence, impacting item size, velocity and mass of the
because they influence the efficiency of the composite
impactor. Whenever a structure comprised of composite
(Cawley, 1989) (Amaro et al., 2012). Kurşun et al. (2016)
material is in interaction with a foreign object, fiber
was using an experimental procedure and ABAQUS
breakage, delamination, matrix cracking, and plastic
validation to investigate the impact issue, establishing that
deformations due to contact are only a few effects to
impactor shape has a major impact on damage pattern and
consider(Richardson & Wisheart, 1996). Materials in the
stress distribution. They also discovered that with a low-
matrix phase are usually continuous. A foreign body has an

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 | [Link] 31

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

velocity impact, a flat cylindrical impactor generates the subjected to a low-velocity/low energy impact. Three types
maximum damage to the laminate, whereas a smaller of damage were considered in their numerical model: fiber
contact area causes less damage (Kurşun et al., 2016). failure, matrix cracking and delamination (Bouvet et al.,
Finite element measurements have been extrapolated to 2012). There is a scarcity of studies that examined the
composites of multiple shapes, compositions, sizes, forces, influence of impactor shapes on the impact response of
and boundary conditions, without incurring the cost and composite sandwich plates, necessitating the collection of
time associated with physical processing. Once validated more data on the response of sandwich structures to low-
with experimental evidence, FE models may yield velocity impact. Therefore, a numerical investigation on
incredibly valuable findings in a wide range of scenarios the glass fiber reinforced polymer composite to analyze the
(Moura & Marques, 2002) (Sridhar & Rao, 1995). Hosur et behavior of resistance of a GFRP composite at various
al. (2005) performed a test for low-speed impacts with a speeds of energy impact.
hemispherical impactor on thin hybrid composites. They
Modeling the composite as an orthotropic elastic
found that the carriage performance of hybrid composites
material allowed for the preliminary elastic response of
was increased considerably in contrast to carbon/epoxy
the woven glass fiber laminate to be identified. The
strains with a marginal decrease in rigidity (Hosur et al.,
values of elastic modulus E 1, E2, E3, Poisson's ratios
2005). Another study presented the energy of impact, the
𝜗 12, 𝜗 13, 𝜗 23 and shear modulus G12, G13, and G 23 are
diameter of the impactor and sandwich boards, such as the
utilized to describe the composite. The density of the
core thickness of the foam and thickness of the face boards
glass fiber was calculated to be 1,800 kg/m 3. The mass
on impact behavior and impact damages (Wang et al.,
of all impactors is 1.5kg and is assigned to the
2013). The impact response of two hybrid composites with
reference point of the impactor.
comparable glass and graphite fabric compositions but
different lay-up arrangements were investigated by Sevkat 2. MATERIALS AND SYSTEM MODELING
et al. (2013). The results indicate a higher force, greater
delamination among hybrid layers and short contact The composite investigated in this simulation
duration for impactors with a larger contact surface (Sevkat comprised of four plies of GFRP composite laminates,
et al., 2013). Zhou (1995) has had a low-speed effect with where each ply was 0.1 mm thick. The fiber orientation
a flat-ended impactor on glass-enhanced laminates made of of this composite is 0/90/90/0. The dimension of the
tissue. The structural features of these structures for impact GFRP composite laminate is 72mm x 72 mm.
damage are influenced by geometry (Zhou, 1995).
Mitrevski et al. (2006) investigated the impact of impactor
form on the effects of thin tissue laminates carbon-epoxy
experimentally. The various impactor forms have greatly
impacted mechanisms for damage (Mitrevski et al., 2006).
A research study investigated the impact response of
woven glass–epoxy laminates, and their findings illustrate
the impact and Compression After Impact (CAI) influence
of the projectile diameter (Icten et al., 2013). The
glass/epoxy-laminated composite plate's low-
velocity impact loading behavior was examined in relation
to the effect of biaxial preloading experimentally and
numerically (Kurşun et al., 2015). Drop weight impact is
Figure 1: Dimension of GFRP composite plate
used in experimental tests for low-velocity effect, and the
weights may be of various shapes, as well as a pendulum The numerical model was analyzed using four distinct
type test. Another research study investigated the LVI types of impactors. All of these impactors' dimensions
phenomenon on hybrid composite beams using the Charpy are specified in millimeters, and the complete length of
effect method (Rawat et al., 2017). Sevkat et al. (2013) these impactors from top to bottom surface is 30 mm.
investigated the effects of drop weight on hybrid Epoxy polymer matrix is used in this glass fiber polymer
composites. The analysis was focused on experimentation composite. Uniform requirements might be used with an
and was validated using LS-DYNA (Sevkat et al., 2013). element removal technique for damage initiation to remove
Shashikumar (2015) investigated the performance of glass Abaqus rejected elements. Below are the values for XT, XC,
fiber reinforced polymer composite laminates under the YT, YC, SL, and ST.
low-velocity influence using the explicit finite element
Table 1
analysis tool LS-DYNA. The numerical and analytical Properties of the glass fiber laminates utilized in this study
conclusions were compared to existing experimental data (Fan et al., 2011)
from the literature study regarding overall impact force and
energy. The variation in empirical, laboratory and
E1 E2 E3 V12 V13 V23 G12 G13 G23
analytical values was less than 10%, suggesting that the
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
results were within a reasonable estimation range
(Shashikumar, 2015). Bouvet et al. (2012) used a
numerical model to capture the various types of damage 25 23 5 .15 .15 .15 5 5 5
that can occur in composite laminates when they are

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 32

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

Figure 2: (a) Truncated Impactor (b) Hemispherical Impactor (c) Partially flat Impactor (d) Flat Impactor

Table 2 the interaction between GFRP plates subjected to projectile

Damage initiation data of the glass fiber laminates utilized in impact, a surface-to-surface contact pair was created.
this study (Fan et al., 2011) between the projectile surface and the nodes-set at the target
center of each layer. In contrast, a general contact interaction
XT XC YT YC SL ST was constructed between the two adjacent layers. The
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) contact interaction characteristics applied in this study are
presented in Table 4.

320 240 320 240 320 320

A. Modeling Progressive Damage
There are four main modes of failure (though several
others may be referred to) since fiber-reinforced plastic
XT, and XC represent tensile and compressive strengths in (FRP) laminates are heterogeneous and anisotropic: mode-
the longitudinal direction. YT and YC represent tensile and cracking matrix happens in parallel with fibers because of
compressive strengths in the transverse direction. SL and ST stress, compression or shear, mode-derived, delamination
represent longitudinal and transverse shear strengths. of inter-laminar strain, fiber splitting and un-compressed
After damage initiation, the negative slope of fiber buckling mode-in-tension fiber, the impactor
equivalent load-displacement relation is used to perforates the impacted area completely. Identify the fault
simulate damage progression. The value required for mode since this would provide information not only on the
damage progression is given below impact event but also on the residual intensity of the
structure. In understanding damage mode starts and
develops, interactions between failure modes are also
Table 3 significant. Applying Hashin's failure criterion, the
Fracture energies for damage progression of composite composite's damage initiation was designed. These criteria
laminate(Fan et al., 2011) use a total of four different types of damage-initiation
mechanisms: matrix tension, matrix compression, fiber
tension, and fiber compression. The initial failure criteria
Transverse compressive

are as follows:
compressive fracture
Longitudinal tensile

Transverse tensile

Fiber tension:
fracture Energy

fracture Energy

fracture Energy

𝜎˜11 2 𝜏˜12 2
𝐹𝑓𝑡 = (
Longitudinal

) +𝛼( ) , 𝜎˜11 ≥ 0 (1)

𝑋𝑇 𝑆𝐿

Fiber compression:
Energy
(J/m2)

(J/m2)

(J/m2)

(J/m2)

𝜎˜11 2
𝐹𝑓𝑐 = ( ) , 𝜎˜11 < 0 (2)
𝑋𝐶

40000 40000 60000 60000 Matrix tension:

𝜎˜11 2 𝜏˜12 2
𝐹𝑚𝑡 = ( ) +( ) , 𝜎˜22 ≥ 0 (3)
𝑌𝑇 𝑆𝐿

This investigation defined contact and interaction using a

general contact method and a contact pair algorithm. Both Matrix compression:
2
methods use advanced tracking algorithms to ensure that 𝜎˜22 2 𝑌𝐶 𝜎˜22 𝜏˜12 2
𝐹𝑚𝑐 = ( ) + [( ) − 1] +( ) , 𝜎˜22 < 0 (4)
2𝑆 𝑇 2𝑆 𝑇 𝑌𝐶 𝑆𝐿
adequate contact conditions are properly maintained and
they may be employed concurrently in a model. To simulate The damage elastic matrix can be represented as,

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 33

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐸1 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝑣21 𝐸1 0

1
𝐶𝑑 = [(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝑣12 𝐸2 (1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐸2 0 ] (5)
𝐷
0 0 (1 − 𝑑𝑠 )𝐺𝐷

σ11 is the longitudinal effective stress tensor component,

̃ demonstrate stress deterioration. In the equation above, d f
̃22 is transverse effective stress tensor component and
σ stands for the current state of fiber damage, d m for the
τ̃12 is shear effective stress tensor component and 𝛼 current state of matrix damage, d s for the current state of
represents the contribution of shear stress to the fiber tensile shear damage, and Cd for the current state of the damaged
initiation criterion. G is the shear modulus, while D is the elastic matrix.
total damage variable, linking stress and strain to

Table 4
Contact interaction properties used in this study (Fan et al., 2011)

Contact Friction Pressure

Interaction Friction-coefficient Contact-stiffness
Algorithms Formulations Overclosure

Impactor-GFRP Contact pair Penalty 0.6 Hard Hard

GFRP-GFRP General-contact Penalty 0.3 linear 15 GPa

Through numerical modeling using the ABAQUS software, element type of the meshing is R3D4: A 4-node 3-D
the stress distribution on the GFRP laminate as a result of bilinear rigid quadrilateral.
the low-velocity impact will be determined (Dynamic,
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Explicit). Development and use of sophisticated numerical
techniques based on the Finite Element Method are among A. Mesh Sensitivity Analysis
the project's endeavors (FEM). The effect of material The element size is maximum on the edge of the composite
constants on the stress singularity will be examined using laminates and minimum in the center of the composite
the developed numerical model. Geometry modeling was laminates. The maximum size is 1 mm, and the minimum
done initially. There was a 0.1 mm distance between the size is 0.75 mm. As element size decreases, the peak load of
impactor tip and composite plate top surface, so there this model also can be observed. Peak load values for
may not occur any initial damage. Then the plate's element sizes of 0.5mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.1 mm are nearly
characteristics were unveiled. Following the creation of the constant having started at 0.75mm element size.
step, the model's boundary conditions were applied. The side
face of the composite plate is fixed (U1=U2=U3=0). The
impactor's only allowed direction of movement is in the Z
direction. Neither axis is rotated, as well as no X or Y
movement. The weight is assigned at the impactor's
reference point. Different speeds are supplied as a pre-
defined value for the loading situation. Meshwork was the
last phase. The element shape for composite laminate is
Hex, and the technique was structured. Reduced
integration with hourglass control, an 8-node quadrilateral

Figure 4: Mesh Independency test

B. Model Validation
The numerical data was validated with experimental data
and the final model was developed. The graph plotted in
Figure 5 shows the FE and experimental curve of impact
load on the composite plate against time. For both
conditions, the peak load was almost similar. But, there is a
Figure 3: Geometrical modeling of low-velocity impact on little discrepancy between the numerical result and the
GFRP composite laminate experimental results in the case of time. This happened due
to not assigning the velocity-time amplitude. The velocity-
in-plane general-purpose continuum shell, and finite time data was not given the pre-determined velocity used in
membrane stresses make up the SC8R element type used in the loading condition. Because of this numerical model
the meshing. The element shape for all four impactors is graph was slightly different from the research paper load
Quad-dominated, and the technique was a sweep. The against the time graph.

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 34

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

Figure 5: Simulation result and experimental (Fan et al., 2011) work comparison based on load against time

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 6: Load v/s Time at (a) 0.5 ms-1 (b) 1 ms-1 (c) 1.5 ms-1 (d) 2 ms-1 (e) 2.5 ms-1 velocity

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 35

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 7: Displacement v/s Time at (a) 0.5 ms-1 (b) 1 ms-1 (c) 1.5 ms-1 (d) 2 ms-1 (e) 2.5 ms-1 velocity

The load-time curves of four distinct types of impactor’s partially flat and flat-shaped impactor. Since the
low-velocity impact on the composite plate at different hemispherical impactor's tip surface area is the lowest, it
velocities are illustrated in Figure 6. The load-time curves produces the lowest peak load among the four impactors. As
have parabolic shapes, and the maximal contact force is seen in Figure 6 sequentially, it is clear that the peak load
greatest when the impact energy is low and increases as the increases with increasing velocity and the graph pattern
impact energy does. The response force applied from the changes slightly. Stress was produced throughout the
specimen to the impactor is sometimes called the contact perimeter owing to shear force for impactors with flat,
force. As was already noted, all information was gathered partially flat, and truncated shapes that struck the top
using the ABAQUS program to determine how the contact surface of composite plates. In contrast, the center of a
force varied with contact time. Due to its enormous surface hemispherical-shaped impactor produces stress when it
area, the flat impactor produces the maximum peak load. makes contact with the plate top surface.
The peak load of a partially flat impactor is hence lower than
All four plies of the composite plate experienced
the flat impactor because the tip surface area is less than
internal stress as a result of the collision and
the flat impactor. Since it has a smaller surface area, the
comparatively at a greater velocity, di-lamination in the
truncated impactor's peak load is less than that of the
composite plate was initiated.

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 36

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 8: Energy v/s Time at (a) 0.5 ms-1 (b) 1 ms-1 (C) 1.5 ms-1 (d) 2 ms-1 and (e) 2.5 ms-1 velocity
Figure 7 depicts displacement versus time curves for four energy absorbed by the laminates is dissipated through the
distinct shaped impactors at 0.5 ms-1, 1 ms-1, 1.5 ms-1, 2 ms- damage formation. Initially, energy increases over time
1
, and 2.5 ms-1, respectively. Hemispherical impactor has the because of increasing strain energy of the plate, but after
maximum displacement: As it has the least tip area, stress attaining maximum energy, the energy declines over
is concentrated and displacement is high. A little less time due to creep, friction and damage absorption.
displacement is produced by the impactor truncated, and the Among all impactors, energy variation tends to be identical
somewhat flat impactor produces even less. The impactor at relatively high velocities.
with a flat form has the least displacement because the tip
4. CONCLUSIONS
surface area of the flat impactor is the biggest among them.
With increasing time, displacement increases gradually, The low-velocity effect on the GFRP composite has been
but after maximum, displacement decreases with quantitatively modeled in this experiment using the finite
increasing time as the impactor returns to the initial element analysis software ABAQUS. This model was
position and some impactor ray beyond the initial developed to compare the variation of energy for the
position at comparatively higher velocity. entire model and study the stress field of the composite
plate at different velocities for various shape impactors.
Figure 8 shows the total energy of the whole model
Since a flat-shaped impactor has the maximum contact
against the time graph plotted for four distinct shaped
time with the least amount of displacement, it also
impactors at 0.5 ms-1, 1 ms-1, 1.5 ms-1, 2 ms-1, and 2.5 ms-1,
carries the most stress on the contact surface. The
respectively. As seen in Figure 8 impactor hit the composite
hemispherical shape impactor has the least amount of
plate with the initial kinetic energy of 0.1875J, 0.75J, 1.6875
contact time with the greatest amount of displacement,
J, 3J, and 4.6875J sequentially. During an impact event, the
generating the least amount of stress on the contact

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 37

 Chanda & Islam:
Numerical Modeling of Low-Velocity Impact on Composite Laminates

surface. In this research, five different pre-determined Liu, D., & Malvern, L. E. (1987). Matrix Cracking in Impacted
velocities were assigned to all impactors, and it was Glass/Epoxy Plates. Journal of Composite Materials, 21(7),
seen that with increasing velocity load in the contact 594–609. [Link]
surface and displacement increase. Also, with Mitrevski, T., Marshall, I. H., Thomson, R. S., & Jones, R.
(2006). Low-velocity impacts on preloaded GFRP
increasing velocity, the energy variation with respect to specimens with various impactor shapes. Composite
time tends to be indistinguishable for all four Structures, 76(3), 209–217.
impactors. For truncated, partially flat and flat [Link]
impactors stress is generated where the impactor’s Rawat, P., Singh, K. K., & Singh, N. K. (2017). Numerical
perimeter hits the plate, and for hemispherical investigation of damage area due to different shape of
impactors, stress is generated in the center of the impactors at low velocity impact of GFRP laminate.
composite plate where impacted. The inter-laminar Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(8), 8731–8738.
stress field was also analyzed, and it was seen that de- [Link]
lamination between plies occurred with increasing Richardson, M. O. W., & Wisheart, M. J. (1996). Review of low-
velocity impact properties of composite materials.
velocity. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 27(12), 1123–1131. [Link]
835X(96)00074-7
The authors woulld like to express their gratitude to the Robinson, P., & Davies, G. A. O. (1992). Impactor mass and
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khulna University specimen geometry effects in low velocity impact of
of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh. We laminated composites. International Journal of Impact
also would lilke to thank Palash Das and Samiul Alam for Engineering, 12(2), 189–207. [Link]
assisting in learning the ABAQUS software. 743X(92)90408-L
Safri, S. N. A., Sultan, M. T. H., Yidris, N., & Mustapha, F.
REFERENCES (2014). Low velocity and high velocity impact test on
composite materials – A review. The International Journal
Amaro, A. M., Reis, P. N. B., de Moura, M. F. S. F., & Santos, J. of Engineering and Science (IJES), 3(9), 50–60.
B. (2012). Damage detection on laminated composite [Link]
materials using several NDT techniques. Insight - Non- Sevkat, E., Liaw, B., & Delale, F. (2013). Drop-weight impact
Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, 54(1), 14– response of hybrid composites impacted by impactor of
20. [Link] various geometries. Materials & Design (1980-2015), 52,
Bouvet, C., Rivallant, S., & Barrau, J. J. (2012). Low velocity 67–77. [Link]
impact modeling in composite laminates capturing Sevkat, E., Liaw, B., Delale, F., & Raju, B. B. (2009). Drop-
permanent indentation. Composites Science and Technology, weight impact of plain-woven hybrid glass–
72(16), 1977–1988. graphite/toughened epoxy composites. Composites Part A:
[Link] Applied Science and Manufacturing, 40(8), 1090–1110.
Cawley, P. and R. A. (1989). Defect types and non-destructive [Link]
testing techniques for composites and bonded joints. Shashikumar R, et al. (2015). Finite element analysis of Low
Materials science and technology, 1989. 5(5): p. 413-425. Velocity Impact on Woven Type Gfrp Composite. 3(1), 105–
5(May), 413–425. 110.
de Moura, M. F. S. F., & Marques, A. T. (2002). Prediction of Shivakumar, K. N., Elber, W., & Illg, W. (1985). Prediction of
low velocity impact damage in carbon–epoxy laminates. low-velocity impact damage in thin circular laminates. AIAA
Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Journal, 23(3), 442–449. [Link]
33(3), 361–368. [Link] Singh, K. K., & Shinde, M. (2022). Low Velocity Impact on Fibre
835X(01)00119-1 Reinforced Polymer Composite Laminates (pp. 83–105).
Fan, J., Guan, Z., & Cantwell, W. J. (2011). Modeling perforation [Link]
in glass fiber reinforced composites subjected to low Sjoblom, P. O., Hartness, J. T., & Cordell, T. M. (1988). On
velocity impact loading. Polymer Composites, 32(9), 1380– Low-Velocity Impact Testing of Composite Materials.
1388. [Link] Journal of Composite Materials, 22(1), 30–52.
Hosur, M. V., Adbullah, M., & Jeelani, S. (2005). Studies on the [Link]
low-velocity impact response of woven hybrid composites. Sridhar, C., & Rao, K. P. (1995). Estimation of low-velocity
Composite Structures, 67(3), 253–262. impact damage in laminated composite circular plates using
[Link] nonlinear finite element analysis. Computers & Structures,
Icten, B. M., Kıral, B. G., & Deniz, M. E. (2013). Impactor 54(6), 1183–1189. [Link]
diameter effect on low velocity impact response of woven 7949(94)00404-Q
glass epoxy composite plates. Composites Part B: Thiagarajan, A., Palaniradja, K., & Alagumurthi, N. (2012). Low
Engineering, 50, 325–332. velocity impact analysis of nanocomposite laminates.
[Link] International Journal of Nanoscience, 11(3), 115–125.
Kurşun, A., Şenel, M., & Enginsoy, H. M. (2015). Experimental [Link]
and numerical analysis of low velocity impact on a Wang, J., Waas, A. M., & Wang, H. (2013). Experimental and
preloaded composite plate. Advances in Engineering numerical study on the low-velocity impact behavior of
Software, 90, 41–52. foam-core sandwich panels. Composite Structures, 96, 298–
[Link] 311. [Link]
Kurşun, A., Şenel, M., Enginsoy, H. M., & Bayraktar, E. (2016). Zhou, G. (1995). Damage mechanisms in composite laminates
Effect of impactor shapes on the low velocity impact impacted by a flat-ended impactor. Composites Science and
damage of sandwich composite plate: Experimental study Technology, 54(3), 267–273. [Link]
and modelling. Composites Part B: Engineering, 86, 143– 3538(95)80019-0
151. [Link]

MIJST, Vol. 11, June 2023 38