Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 1

1 INTRODUCTION
Composite materials are extensively used in a va-
riety of applications like aircraft and military, space,
automotive, sporting goods, marine structures, med-
ical equipments. Highly desirable characteristics of
composite materials like high strength to weight ra-
tio, high stiffness to weight ratio, resistance to corro-
sion, low coefficient of thermal expansion is the
driving force behind these applications. On account
of these potential advantages, composites have right-
fully emerged as important engineering materials for
applications where weight of the components or
structure is an important consideration. Now a days
light weight composites are used in military applica-
tions, aerospace applications, and aviation industry
so on (Skudra 1991; Chatelet 2002).
Much research activity has been directed towards
understanding the laminated composites response
due to impact loading as structural integrity and
safety are of primary importance. Laminated com-
posites have great potential in producing lightweight
body armors. These laminated composites may be
subjected to various impacts loading depending on
the type of impactor, impactor velocity, layup of
laminas and design requirements. The impact
response of materials is generally categorized into
low (large mass) velocity, intermediate velocity,
high/ballistic (small mass) velocity and hyper
velocity regimes. (Schwinghamer 1993, Schonberg
& Yang 1993; Naik & Shrirao 2004).
During ballistic impact the target absorbs energy
in many ways such as energy absorbed in tensile
failure of the composite, the energy converted into
elastic deformation of the composite, kinetic energy
absorbed by the moving cone formed on the back
face of the target called Back Face Signature (BFS),
frictional energy absorbed during penetration, ener-
gy absorbed due to matrix cracking & delamination
and shear plugging of the projectile into the target
(Morye 2002, Naik 2004). The ballistic impact event
is highly tedious to analyze due to the involvement
of many parameters such as projectile velocity, ma-
terial and geometrical properties of projectile and
the target, contact force, damage initiation and pro-
gression etc. Fiber failure, matrix failure and delam-
ination are the major failure modes that occur in
composite structures under ballistic impact. Failure
modeling of composites under ballistic impact has
been the subject of various studies (Yen 2002, Xiao
et al 2005, Zhu et al 2008, Sevkat et al 2009, Woo et
al 2011). However, few studies have been reported
on modelling of progressive failure in composites
under ballistic impact. The Chang-Chang failure cri-
teria are widely used for the prediction of impact
damage in composites (Hou 2000, Sevkat 2009, Feli
2011, Yen 2012). This failure criterion provides
separate failure equations for each failure mode
(Chang-Chang 1987).
Matzenmiller et al. (1995) proposed a constitutive
model, commonly referred to as MLT
(Matzenmiller, Lubliner, Taylor) model, for aniso-
Numerical simulation of progressive damage in laminated composites
due to ballistic impact
Bandaru Aswani Kumar
1
& Suhail Ahmad
2

Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi-110016
1
Research Scholar, [email protected] and
2
Professor, [email protected]








ABSTRACT: In the present study, a progressive damage failure model is considered for the analysis of com-
posite beam under ballistic impact velocity with a deformable projectile. The effect of projectile velocity on
the behaviour of composite beam is determined along with the energy absorbing mechanisms. An improved
failure model based on the progressive failure behaviour of the beam using three dimensional strains in com-
posite layers has been developed. A computer subroutine is developed for the same and linked with the finite
element software. Cohesive behaviour is also considered to model the delamination. Explicit time domain
analysis is carried out. The composite beam considered is made up of S2-Glass/Epoxy consisting of 24 plies
having cross ply and quasi-isotropic layup. The optimization study of ply layup arrangements has been carried
out to sustain the ballistic impact. The post-impact damage patterns, time histories of kinetic energy (KE) of
projectile and residual velocities are validated.
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 2
tropic damage to describe the elastic-brittle behav-
iour of fiber-reinforced composites considering fiber
and matrix tensile and compressive failure modes.
Van Hoof et al. (1998) provided non interactive fail-
ure criteria (based on maximum strain assumption)
due to tension, punch shear and crush loading which
occur in ballistic impact of composite materials. The
model was developed from concept proposed by
Matzenmiller et al. (1995), which was assumed that
each lamina was represented as a homogenized con-
tinuum. Williams & Vaziri (2001) implemented the
MLT model in LS-DYNA3D for impact damage
simulation using damage variable corresponding to
uniaxial loading of a unidirectional laminate. Yen
(2002) developed a computational constitutive mod-
el to characterize the progressive failure behaviour
of composite laminates under high velocity ballistic
impact conditions. A strain rate dependent lamina
model based on continuum damage mechanics
(CDM) was developed for modeling the progressive
failure behaviour of plain weave composite layers.
The developed model could be used effectively to
simulate the fiber failure and delamination under
high strain-rate and high-pressure ballistic impact
conditions. Yen and Cheeseman (2004) developed a
robust composite progressive failure model to expe-
rience the strain rate and pressure dependent behav-
iour of composite materials subjected to ballistic
impact. The developed composite model could pro-
vide insight into the damage development and pro-
gression that occurs during the ballistic impact.
Sevkat et al. (2009) carried out a combined numeri-
cal and experimental simulation of ballistic impact
on S2 glass/epoxy. Maximum stress theory was used
to model the failure in fiber and matrix and used fi-
nite element code for simulations. A quadratic inter-
action between stresses was assumed to model de-
lamination. The experimental work included various
tests on cross-ply and angle ply composites. The ex-
perimental results were compared with the numeri-
cal results and with Chang-Chang failure theory. An
analytical model was proposed. Sheikh et al. (2009)
studied behavior of single and multiple laminated
panels subjected to ballistic impact and measured
the incident and residual velocities to observe the
energy absorption during the impact process. Nu-
merical simulation performed using commercially
available finite element code ABAQUS 6.6 and a
user defined subroutine for material model. The sub-
routine was based on continuum damage mechanics
concept to model failure mechanism of laminated
composites. Krishnan et al. (2010) implemented
Johnson-Holmquist material model in LS-DYNA to
model the impact phenomenon. Fernandez et al.
(2011) developed a constitutive model for better
simulation of damage process due to the material
fragmentation and developed a semi implicit algo-
rithm to integrate the constitutive equations. Feli &
Asgari (2011) presented a new numerical simulation
of ballistic perforation of ceramic/composite targets
made up of 99.5% Alumina and composite back
plate of Twaron fibers. The failure modes consid-
ered for simulation were due to brittle fracture,
fragmentation of ceramic conoid, fracture of fibers
or matrixes and erosion of flattening of projectile
during perforation. Yen (2012) developed a ply-
level constitutive model for the analysis of progres-
sive damage in laminated composites under ballistic
impact conditions. Introduced failure-initiation crite-
ria and damage evolution laws for the major fiber-
failure modes (tensile, compressive, punch shear and
crush loading) and two failure modes of composite
matrix (in-plane shear and delamination through the
thickness) which are generally observed in ballistic
impact. Wu et al. (2012) developed an analytical
model for both global deformation failure as well as
wave-dominated local failure. A shear failure crite-
rion was employed to predict the perforation of FRP
laminates which fail in global deformation mode. It
was shown that the proposed model predictions were
in good agreement with the available experimental
observations.
Some gaps were observed in review of the litera-
ture. Not much work reported on the effect of layups
on the damage behaviour of the composite. Hence,
currently, a progressive failure model (Yen 2012), is
used to analyze the composite beam under ballistic
impact due to deformable projectile. The composite
beam under study is made up of S2-Glass/Epoxy
consisting of 24 plies made up of either cross plies
or quasi-isotropic layups. To perform this analysis,
geometrical and material properties are taken from
the literature. The effect of projectile velocity on the
behaviour of composite beam is determined for var-
ious energy absorbing mechanisms. A user defined
3D damage model (VUMAT) with solid element
(C3D8R) is developed and implemented in the FE
code. Dynamic explicit solver is used to predict the
type and extent of damage across the thickness. The
post-impact damage patterns, effect of impactor ve-
locity on the kinetic energy of the projectile, time
histories of kinetic energy (KE) of projectile and re-
sidual velocities are validated for the above two
composite arrangements for different projectile ve-
locities.
2 MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL
MODEL
2.1 Explicit time integration
The investigation has been carried out using ex-
plicit time integration approach. Explicit methods
require a small time increment size that depends
solely on the highest natural frequencies of the mod-
el and is independent of the type and duration of
loading. The equations involved are given below.
The general dynamic equation takes the form,
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 3

(1)
where [M] is the mass matrices; [K] is stiffness
matrix for beam; F is the force applied; and u is the
nodal displacement in the global coordinates.
All the three quantities are the instantaneous
function of time in dynamic analysis.
The equation of motion for the (k+1)
th
time
increment can be calculated directly using the cen-
tral difference method. In central difference ap-
proach, the displacement and acceleration are given
by the relations,
(2)


(3)
Thus the values of
1
2
k
u and
( 1) k
u are calculated
from the values of
1
2
k
u and
( ) k
u of the previous
step. The acceleration at the beginning of the incre-
ment is computed by
(4)
2.2 Failure Criteria
For the current study failure criteria given by Yen
(2012) is considered. In this failure model, failure
initiation criteria and damage evolution laws are in-
troduced to account for the major ber failure modes
such as tensile, compressive, punch shear and crush.
In addition, two matrices related failure modes like
in-plane shear and through the thickness delamina-
tion were also given. An improved progressive fail-
ure model based on the three dimensional strains
simulation for layered composite material was pro-
posed by Yen (2012). It is presently adopted as fol-
lows,
(5)
Where, parameters
i
f are the functions based on ei-
ther quadratic interaction between strains or maxi-
mum strain theory and
i
r are the damage thresholds
which are initially unity. The following failure
modes were given in the failure criteria by Yen
(2012).
2.2.1 Fiber failure modes
Three ber damage mechanisms are considered:
(a) Fiber shear punch (b) fiber failure in compres-
sion and (c) fiber crush.
(a) Fiber shear punch
The Equations 6 & 7 are given by the quadratic
interaction between the associated axial and shear
strains through the thickness. This ber failure is a
generalization of the criterion of Hashin for a unidi-
rectional layer.
2 2
2 13 13 1 11
1
1 13
0
T
E G
r
S S
(6)
2 2
2 23 23 2 22
2
2 23
0
T
G E
r
S S
(7)
Where, S
1T
, S
2T
, S
13
and S
23
are strengths in fiber
tension, compression, and shear strengths in 1-3
plane and in 2-3 plane respectively; r
1
and r
2
are
damage thresholds in 1-3 and 2-3 planes.
(b) Fiber failure in compression
In-plane compressive damage in the axial ber
directions is considered by the maximum strain cri-
terion, where,
11
is the compressive strain in (Eq.
(8)). Effect of through thickness compressive strains
on in-plane compressive damage is also considered.
2
'
2 1 11
3
1
0
C
E
r
S
(8)
where
'
11
is given by, , S
1C

is the strength of fiber on compression; and r
3
is
damage threshold in fiber compression direction.
(c) Fiber crush
The fiber crush damage occurs due to high compres-
sive pressure across thickness. It is modeled using
Equation 9 below:
2
2 3 33
4
3
0
C
E
r
S
(9)
where S
3C
is fiber crush strength; and r
4
is associ-
ated damage threshold.
2.2.2 Matrix failure modes
The lamina can undergo damage due to in-plane
shear stress with no fiber breakage. The matrix dam-
age mechanisms given are damage plane perpendic-
ular to the layer plane and damage plane parallel to
the layer plane for delamination.
The perpendicular matrix damage is given by
Equation 10 and it is associated with transverse ma-
trix cracking.
2
2 12 12
5
12
0
G
r
S
(10)
where S
12
is the strength of matrix in in-plane
shear, r
5
is the damage threshold.
Parallel matrix damage (delamination) is another
failure mode due to quadratic interaction between
the stresses through the thickness (Eq. 11).
1 1
( 1) ( )
( ) 2 2
2
k k
k k
k
t t
u u u
1
( 1) ( ) ( 1) 2
k
k k k
u u t u
( ) -1 ( ) ( )
M F - Ku
k k k
u
[ ] [ ] M u K u F
2
1
i i
f r
'
3
11 11 33
1
E
E
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 4
0 0
2 2
2
2 2 3 3 23 23 13 13
6
3 23 13
0
T SR SR
E G G
S r
S S S S S
(11)
where S
3T
is the through thickness tensile
strength; & are the shear strengths; and r
6
is
the damage threshold,. The damage surface due to
Eq. (11) is parallel to the composite layering plane.
2.3 Damage evolution
Damage is characterized by the degradation of
material stiffness. In the current work numerical
simulation adapted for damage evolution is based on
the model suggested by Yen 2012, which is based on
the Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) pro-
posed by Matzenmiller et al. (1995). In this model
simple relationship between effective stresses ( )
and nominal (true) stresses is given as under,
D (12)
where D is damage operator i.e.

(13)



Where,
1
,
2
and
12
are the damage variables
for fiber, matrix and shear failure modes. The stiff-
ness matrix K related to damage variables is given
by





(14)
The variables
i
are the damage variables with
i=16, introduced to relate the onset and growth
damage to stiffness losses in the material. E
i
and G
ij

are elastic constants. In damage evolution phase the
micro cracks either expand or new micro cracks de-
velop. An element is removed from the mesh if
reaches a critical value at all the reference points of
the element. It is deleted for further calculations.
This critical value has been taken as 0.99 in this
case. Otherwise, if it is allowed to reach unity, the
constitutive matrix will become singular.
2.4 Damage variable
The damage variable has been defined as:
(15)

where is damage variable for i
th
mode of damage;
m is the damage parameter which decides the shape
of the damage evolution curve. More is the value of
m, more abruptly the stress components will go
down (soften) after initiation of stresses. Damage in-
creases with loading and remains constant during
unloading.
Also, for a given mode j, a set of damage varia-
bles are updated. This is decided by using a coupling
matrix q defined by Equation 16. The matrix [q] is
defined for all modes of failure for completeness.



(16)


According to the current damage considered the
columns of the [q] matrix used represent damage
mode denoted by 1,3,5 and 6 (Table 1). For a given
mode say j
th
mode, the entries in j
th
column are
checked against i
th
damage variable (row). If i
th
en-
try in j
th
column is one (q
ij
=1), then damage variable
i
is changed or updated. Table 1 shows the mode
and damage variable updated/changed.

Table 1: Mode vs. Damage variables
Mode Damage variables updat-
ed/changed
1

6 4 1
, ,
3

5 4 1
, ,
5

6 5 4 3 2 1
, , , ,
6

4

2.4 Cohesive behaviour
Cohesive behaviour between the elements has been
considered to model delamination. The cohesive be-
haviour defined in terms of a traction separation law.
The available traction-separation model assumes ini-
tially linear elastic behavior followed by the initia-
tion and evolution of damage. The elastic behavior
is written in terms of an elastic constitutive matrix
that relates the nominal stresses to the nominal
strains across the interface. Given below are the
properties required for cohesive behavior modeling.
For mode I, Sevkat et al. (2009)

assumed that the
delamination tensile strength is infinite. That is to
say, in failure criterion for delamination shown be-
low,
0
nn
t is and
0
ns
t is 0.064GPa. Here,
0
nn
t is
strength of cohesive layer in out-of-plane tension
(Mode-I) and
0
ns
t is strength of cohesive layer in in-
plane shear (Mode-II and Mode-III). The criterion
adopted for modeling Cohesive Behavior is gov-
erned by the equation given below,

(17)
0
13
S
0
23
S
1
2
12
1
0 0
1
1
0 0
1
1
0 0
1
D
1 1 1 2 21 1
1 2 12 1 2 2
12 12
(1 ) (1 )(1 ) 0
1
(1 )(1 ) (1 ) 0
0 0 (1 )
d
K
E E
E E
G
1 /
1
m
j
r m
i
e
1 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0
0 0 1 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 0 1 0 1
q
2 2
0 0
max , 0
1 0
nn sh
nn ns
t t
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 5
where
nn
is the normal stress; and
sh
is the shear
stress.
3. NUMERICAL STUDY
The numerical study in the current investigation
was carried using finite element simulation. An ex-
plicit time integration scheme has been implemented
which is based on central difference approximation.
The failure criteria proposed by Yen 2012 has been
employed. The instantaneous stiffness matrix is up-
dated with the progress of damage and the response
is accordingly obtained.
The composite beam considered in the present
study for validation is made up of S2-Glass/Epoxy
consisting of 24 plies consisting of cross ply layups
of and quasi-isotropic layups of
The dimensions of the beam are 254mm x 25.4mm x
6.53mm (Fig. 1). A 22 caliber copper projectile
strikes the target beam. The elastic constants and
strength values for S2 glass/epoxy are given in Table
2 and 3 respectively.



Figure 1. Composite beam

Table 2. Engineering constants, Poissons ratios,
Density of S2 glass/epoxy

Table 3. Strength values of S2 glass/epoxy
S
1T
(GPa) S
1C
(GPa) S
2T
(GPa) S
2C
(GPa) S
3T
(GPa)
0.988 10 0.044 0.285 0.044
S
3C
(GPa) S
12
=S
13
(GPa) S
23
(GPa)
0.285 0.0606 0.022

A continuum three dimensional eight noded element
with reduced integration is used to mesh the portion
of beam, away from the site of impact. The deform-
able impactor is meshed with C3D8R elements. Co-
hesive modelling is used to model the delamination.
Fig-2 shows the finite element mesh for simulating
the ballistic impact onto cross ply and quasi-
isotropic composite beam.





Figure 2. Finite element simulation model

3.1 Validation study
3.1.1 Post-impact damage patterns
Three different cases were studied for the validation
(Figs 3-5). Case-I: Cross ply laminate impacted with
120 m/s, Case-II: Cross ply laminate impacted with
298m/s and Case-III: Quasi-isotropic laminate im-
pacted with 442 m/s. Numerical data used is same as
given above.
Case-I (Fig. 3): Cross ply laminate impacted with
120m/s current study shows the damage of the lami-
nate up to sixth laminate near impact location and no
delamination is observed. These predictions agree
well with the experimental and numerical studies
carried out by Sevkat et al. (2009). Nonlinear ortho-
tropic model was proposed by him for numerical
model.



(a) Current Model (b) Proposed Model (c) Experimental
(Sevkat et al. 2009)
Figure 3. Validation of post-impact damage patterns

Case-II (Fig. 4): At velocity of 298m/s cross ply
laminate shows the damage down to almost 11 lay-
ers and delamination is observed. Current numerical
model predicted more penetration than the experi-
mental results given by Sevkat et al. (2009). Howev-
er, delamination observed is in good agreement with
the nonlinear orthotropic model proposed by him.




(a) Current Model (b) Proposed Model (c) Experimental
(Sevkat et al. 2009)
Figure 4. Validation of post-impact damage patterns

Case-III (Fig. 5): For quasi-isotropic ply at 442m/s
velocity, complete penetration is observed and ma-
trix failure, fiber failure and delamination are also
observed along the thickness. Current model pre-
dicted the similar damage and in close agreement
with the experimental and numerical studies con-
ducted by Sevkat et al. (2009).




(a) Current Model (b) Proposed Model (c) Experimental
(Sevkat et al. 2009)
Figure 5. Validation of post-impact damage patterns

E
1

(GPa)
E
2
=E
3
(GPa)
G
12
=G
13
(GPa)
G
23
(GPa)

12
=
13

23

(Kg/
m
3
)
40 13 3.153 4.71 0.057 0.36 2000
0 0 0 0
3 3 3 3
0 / 45 / 90 / 45
s
0 0
3 3
2
0 / 90
s
254m
m
25.4mm
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 6
3.1.2 Time histories of kinetic energy of the projec-
tile
Figure 6, shows the predicted time history of pro-
jectile kinetic energy for cross ply laminate impact-
ed at 298m/s. Good agreement with Sevkat et al
2009 is observed as shown in fig-6. It is observed
that after given time interval the projectile is re-
bounded. When the projectile bounces back, the re-
sidual velocity is observed to be very small. It indi-
cates that most of the impactor energy is consumed
in damaging the target.















Figure 6. Kinetic energy-time histories for cross ply layup

Quasi-isotropic layup is also simulated using impact
velocities of 300 m/s, 330 m/s and the time histories
of the projectile kinetic energy of composite beam
are also validated. Figure 7a, b, shows the agreement
between the time histories of the kinetic energy of
the projectile and indicates that the energy transfer
increases with the increase in the impact velocity.
But there is a difference in the values of kinetic en-
ergy reported in the current work compared to
Sevkat et al. (2009). This may because fiber shear
punch failure is also considered in the present study
which is not the case in Sevkats study. Apart from
the energy absorbed by the damage mechanisms
considered by Sevkat et al (2009) some amount of
energy is also dissipated in the form of fiber shear
punch failure which is considered.













Figure 7a. Kinetic energy (KE) history for quasi-isotropic lay-
up at 300m/s















Figure 7b. Kinetic energy (KE) history for quasi-isotropic lay-
up at 330m/s
3.2.1 Velocity time histories & energy balance
Figure 8, shows the residual velocities are near the
velocities predicted by Sevkat et al. (2009). The pos-
itive residual velocity implies penetration of projec-
tile through the beam where as the negative residual
velocity indicates bounce back of the projectile.
The kinetic energy time histories of beam and the
projectile are shown in Figure 9. It is observed that
the impactor loses its kinetic energy with time while
the beam is gaining kinetic energy. After 60s the
energy imparted by the projectile is almost equal to
the energy dissipated. Hence, the transient period for
energy dissipation is almost 60s.













Figure 8. FE predicted residual velocities












Figure 9. Kinetic energy of impactor and the beam for cross
ply
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160


E
n
e
r
g
y

(
J
)
Time (ms)
Velocity 298m/s
Sevkat et al. (2009)
Present Study
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
50
100
150


K
E

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
l
e

(
J
)
Time (ms)
Velocity 300 m/s
Current Study
Sevkat et al. (2009)
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
50
100
150
200


K
E

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
l
e

(
J
)
Time(ms)
Velocity 330 m/s
Current Study
Sevkat et al. (2009)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160


Velocity 298 m/s
KE of Impactor
KE of Beam
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
J
)
Time ( sec)
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Current Study
Sevkat et al. (2009)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

o
f

I
m
p
a
c
t
o
r

(
m
/
s
)
Velocity of Impactor (m/s)
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 7

The history of the velocity of projectile impacted at
different values is shown in Figures 10a,b. The ve-
locity shows a decreasing trend in both the lay-ups.
The residual velocities of lay-up are in good
agreement with the Sevkat et al. (2009). Velocity
histories for
0 0 0 0
3 3 3 3
0 /45 /90 / 45
s
lay-up are provided in
the present study.













Figure 10a. Velocity time histories- Cross ply














Figure 10b. Velocity time histories- Quasi-isotropic

The energy of the system comprises of internal en-
ergy, kinetic energy and energy dissipated due to
viscosity and friction and the energy gone into caus-
ing damage. Internal energy is comprised of strain
energy and artificial internal energy. The total ener-
gy of the system (E
TOTAL
) is sum of above energy
components. Figures11a, b shows the energy bal-
ance with time. The energy absorbed at each time in-
terval is calculated. Based on this, the velocity at the
end of the corresponding time interval is calculated.
This procedure is continued for the entire contact
duration. At ballistic limit the target absorbs the en-
tire energy of the projectile. So the energy absorbed
by the target is made equal to the initial kinetic en-
ergy of the projectile. From this the velocity of the
projectile, which is the ballistic limit of the target, is
calculated.













Figure 11a. Energy balance for at 300 m/s














Figure 11b. Energy balance for at 330 m/s

4. CONCLUSIONS
The beam of S2 glass/epoxy material under bal-
listic impact has been studied for its failure behav-
iour. Two different layups are considered namely,
symmetric and quasi-isotropic. The failure behav-
iour is observed for validation studies. The follow-
ing conclusions are drawn.
1. The failure criteria considered in this study in-
cludes fiber shear punch failure also. This failure
mode is one of the major failures that occur dur-
ing the ballistic impact. The criteria adopted by
Sevkat et al. (2009) did not consider this failure
mode. The absence of fiber shear punch failure
in the above criteria can overcome the failure
model considered in present study.
2. For cross ply symmetric laminates, dissipation of
KE of the projectile became constant around
0.1ms where as for quasi-isotropic laminate it is
at 0.06ms. It indicates that quasi-isotropic layup
is lesser resistant due to damage.
3. The failure model adopted can be used effective-
ly to simulate the fiber failure and delamination
behavior under high strain-rate and high-
pressure ballistic impact conditions.
4. During ballistic impact tests delamination, ma-
trix failure, fiber breakage and projectile defor-
0 0
3 3
2
0 90 /
s
0 0 0 0
0 /45 /90 / 45
3 3 3 3
s
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
50
100
150
200


E
n
e
r
g
y

(
J
)
Time (ms)
Velocity- 330 m/s
Frictional Energy
Artificial Strain
Internal Energy
Total Energy
K. E. of projectile
0 0 0 0
0 /45 /90 / 45
3 3 3 3
s
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0
50
100
150
Velocity- 300 m/s
Frictional Energy
Artificial Strain
Internal Energy
Total Energy
K. E. of projectile


E
n
e
r
g
y

(
J
)
Time (ms)
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Time (ms)
Cross Ply
120 m/s
298 m/s
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 -50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350


V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Time (ms)
Quasi-isotropic
300 m/s
330 m/s
Bandaru Aswani Kumar, NSPDLCBI 8
mation are observed. The extent of these failure
modes were predicted with good accuracy by the
progressive damage failure model adopted.
5. Damage patterns for different layups are studied.
By studying these damage patterns the rein-
forcement methods can be implemented to sup-
press them.
6. The damage patterns obtained from FE simula-
tion are compared. FE model with the adopted
failure model agreed better with the experi-
mental and numerical studies conducted by
Sevkat et al. (2009).

REFERENCES
Chang F, Chang K. A progressive damage model for laminated
composites containing stress concentrations. Journal of
Composite Materials 1987;21:834-55.
Chatelet E, Lornage D, Jacquet-Richardet G. A three-
dimensional modeling of the dynamic behavior of compo-
site rotors. Int J Rotat Machin 2002;8(3):18592.
Feli, S. and Asgari, M. R. (2011), Finite element simulation of
ceramic/composite armor under ballistic impact, Compo-
sites Part B: Engineering 42(4), 771-780.
Fernndez-Fdz, D., Zaera, R. and Fernndez-Sez, J. (2011),
A constitutive equation for ceramic materials used in
lightweight armors, Computers & Structures 89 (2324),
2316-2324.
Grujicic, M., Bell, W.C. and Pandurangan, B. (2011), Design
and material selection guidelines and strategies for trans-
parent armor systems, Materials & Design 34, 808-819.
Hou, J.P., Petrinic, N., Ruiz, C. and Hallett S.R. (2000), Pre-
diction of impact damage in composite plates, Composites
Science and Technology 60 (2), 273-281.
Kachanov LM. On the time to failure under creep conditions.
Izv AN SSSR, Otd Tekhn 1958;8:2631.
Krishnan, K., Sockalingam, S., Bansal, S. and Rajan, S. D.
(2010), Numerical simulation of ceramic composite armor
subjected to ballistic impact, Composites Part B: Engi-
neering 41(8), 583-593.
Matzenmiller, A., Lubliner, J., Taylor, R.L.: A constitutive
model for anisotropic damage in fiber composites. Mechan-
ics of Materials 20(2),125-152 (1995)
Morye, S. S., Hine, P. J., Duckett, R. A., Carr, D. J. and Ward,
I. M. (2000) Modelling of the energy absorption by poly-
mer composites upon ballistic impact, Composites Science
and Technology 60, 2631-2642.
N.K.Naik, P.Shrirao (2004), Composite structures under bal-
listic impact, Composite Structures, 66, 579590.
Olsson R. (2000), Mass criterion for wave controlled impact
response of composite plates. Composites Applied Science
and Manufacturing, 31, 879-887.
Schonberg, W.P., and Yang, F., 1993, Response of Space
Structures to Orbital Debris Particle Impact, Int. J. Impact
Eng., Vol. 14, pp. 647-658.
Schwinghamer, R.J., 1993, Shield Design for Protection
against Hypervelocity Particles, NASA Tech Briefs, De-
cember 1993, pp. 76-77.
Sevkat, E., Liaw, B., Delale, F. and Basavaraju B. Raju
(2009), A combined experimental and numerical approach
to study ballistic impact response of S2-glass fi-
ber/toughened epoxy composite beams, Composites Sci-
ence and Technology 69 (78), 965-982.
Skudra AM, Bulavs F Y a, Gurvich MR, Kruklinsh AA. Anal-
ysis of composite beam systems. Berlin:Springer;1991
Van Hoof J, Woeswick M J, Straznicky P V, Bolduc M, Tylko
S. Simulation of ballistic impact response of composite
helmets. In Proceedings of the 5
th
International LS-DYNA
Users Conference; 1998.
Van Hoof J. Modelling impact induced delamination in com-
posite materials. Ottawa: CarletonUniversity; 1999.
Williams, K.V., Vaziri, R.: Application of a damage mechanics
model for predicting the impact response of composite ma-
terials. Computers and Structures 79(10), 997-1011 (2001).
Woo, K., Kim, I., Ha, S.C., Shin, H. and Kim, J.H. (2011),
High-velocity impact damage behavior of graphite-epoxy
composite laminates, Proceedings, 18
th
International Con-
ference on Composite Materials, August 21-26, Jeju Island,
Korea.
Wu, Q. G., Wen, H. M., Qin, Y. and Xin, S. H. (2012), Perfo-
ration of FRP laminates under impact by flat-nosed projec-
tiles, Composites Part B: Engineering 43, 221-227.
Xiao, R., Gama, B. A. and J. W. Gillespie, Jr. (2005), Pro-
gressive damage and delamination in plain weave S-2
glass/Sc-15 composites under quasi-static punch shear load-
ing, ASME Conference Proceeding.
Yen C. F. (2002), Ballistic impact modeling of composite
structures, In the Proceedings of the 7th LS-DYNA Users
Conference, 6-15 6-26.
Yen, C. F. (2012), A ballistic material model for continuous-
fiber reinforced composites, International Journal of Im-
pact Engineering 46, 11-22.
Zhu, L., Chattopadhyay, A., and Goldberg, R. K. (2008),
Failure model for rate-dependent polymer matrix compo-
site laminates under high velocity impact Journal of Aero-
space Engineering 21(3), 132139.