4.7 Article

Ballistic limit prediction using a numerical model with progressive damage capability

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 466-474

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.08.022

Keywords

ballistic limit; composite laminates; progressive damage; delamination; experimental; numerical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ultimate objective of this study is to provide further understanding of the behaviour of laminated composites of varying lamina orientations and stacking sequences, when under high-velocity impact. Emphasis is placed on the determination of ballistic limits of these composites. To this end, an experimental program is carried out and a computational model, with progressive damage modeling capabilities, is developed using LS-DYNA. Experiments are performed whereby striking velocities are measured, via high-speed photography, to determine the ballistic limits of carbon fiber-rein forced polymer (CFRP) laminates of various stacking sequences. The results are reproduced closely by a numerical simulation, indicating that the numerical analysis conducted, including the choice of material model and contact definition, is an accurate means for modeling the high-speed impact characteristics of CFRP laminates. It is found that the use of static elastic and strength properties to describe the material is reasonable, since strain rate effects are found to be negligible. The kinetic energy of the projectile, plotted over the simulated impact duration, is used as the prime parameter to compare the experimental and numerical results. The numerical results accurately predict the experimental ballistic limit for six of the seven tested laminate stacking sequences. Failure due to delamination is found to play a vital role with respect to the energy absorbing ability and lamina stacking sequence of CFRP laminates. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available