Authors:
Houcine Zniker The National Higher School of Mining of Rabat (ENSMR), BP: 753 Agdal-Rabat, Morocco
Laboratory of Material Physics and Subatomic, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, BP 133, 14000, Kenitra, Morocco

Search for other papers by Houcine Zniker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0566-516X
,
Ikram Feddal Optics, Materials and Systems Team, FS, Abdelmalk Essaadi University, B.P. 2121, M'Hannech II, 93030 Tétouan, Morocco

Search for other papers by Ikram Feddal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Mohammed Khalil El Kouifat The National Higher School of Mining of Rabat (ENSMR), BP: 753 Agdal-Rabat, Morocco

Search for other papers by Mohammed Khalil El Kouifat in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anouar El Magri Euromed Polytechnic School, Euromed Research Center, Euromed University of Fes, Fès 30000, Morocco

Search for other papers by Anouar El Magri in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Mohamed El Hasnaoui Laboratory of Material Physics and Subatomic, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, BP 133, 14000, Kenitra, Morocco

Search for other papers by Mohamed El Hasnaoui in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

Composite materials are vulnerable to impacts that may occur during their use. Such transverse loads represent a significant threat to these materials because they can cause damage that is difficult to detect. Thus, understanding the mechanical behavior of composite materials during impacts is crucial for improving their damage resistance. Therefore, this study investigates the response of two commonly used composite panels in maritime transportation—a PVC core sandwich composite and a laminated GFRP composite—under quasi-static indentation (QSI). Using numerical simulations with Abaqus/Explicit, this investigation aims to anticipate mechanical characteristics and damage patterns during low-velocity impact. Results show a strong correlation between numerical and experimental data. The force-displacement curves aid in understanding damage sequences, with predicted maximum loads at 1.43% and 6.45% accuracy for laminated and sandwich composites. Both exhibit significant damage, including permanent indentation, matrix cracks, fiber fractures, and prevalent delamination around the impact point.

Abstract

Composite materials are vulnerable to impacts that may occur during their use. Such transverse loads represent a significant threat to these materials because they can cause damage that is difficult to detect. Thus, understanding the mechanical behavior of composite materials during impacts is crucial for improving their damage resistance. Therefore, this study investigates the response of two commonly used composite panels in maritime transportation—a PVC core sandwich composite and a laminated GFRP composite—under quasi-static indentation (QSI). Using numerical simulations with Abaqus/Explicit, this investigation aims to anticipate mechanical characteristics and damage patterns during low-velocity impact. Results show a strong correlation between numerical and experimental data. The force-displacement curves aid in understanding damage sequences, with predicted maximum loads at 1.43% and 6.45% accuracy for laminated and sandwich composites. Both exhibit significant damage, including permanent indentation, matrix cracks, fiber fractures, and prevalent delamination around the impact point.

1 Introduction

Composite materials application in advanced engineering domains like the aviation, automotive, and sports industries has significantly increased during the past several years [1–5]. In general, the nature of fibers and matrix determines the composite material's performance. In the process of design optimization, structural engineers frequently do a full evaluation of material properties including both the hybrid composition of the composite laminate (consisting of fibers and matrix) and the sandwich structure (comprising skin and core) [6]. This enables them to make accurate projections regarding the structure's performance and safety parameters. The wide variety of composite materials available provides designers with multiple chances to improve the design while taking into account different elements, including production issues, economic implications, and desired performance levels [7].

Nevertheless, these materials are sensitive to impact loads throughout their operating life, resulting in possible damage that can considerably weaken the structure's stiffness and strength [8–10]. As a result, understanding the reaction of composite structures to low-velocity impacts has developed as an important and extensively researched field.

In addition, the damage process is very complex, and the impact loading produces a range of damage processes. Consequently, it is crucial to understand how damage develops in composite materials under low-velocity impact loads. It can be difficult to comprehend the damage sequence since impact tests are usually quick processes. Some researchers opted for the quasi-static perforation approach as an option to address these issues [11–13]. This method is less complicated than low-velocity impact (LVI) since it does not have oscillations and requires a lower rate of data collecting. Several studies have consistently shown a strong correlation between quasi-static indentation in laminated composites and low-velocity impact damage [14–16]. This relationship was also confirmed in the current investigation [17]. In previous studies, Aoki et al. [18] and Nettles et al. [19] compared the damage behaviors in CFRP laminates under static indentation testing and low-velocity impact testing using a range of post-damage inspection techniques. Despite minor dynamic and localized differences, the load-displacement histories, damage processes, and damage magnitude of the two test outcomes were very similar. While understanding the damage phenomena caused during impact has been made feasible by experimental investigations, their analysis and replication in the laboratory are expensive and do not ensure that all the factors influencing the structure's response under impact are taken into account. Thus, numerical simulation becomes useful in trying to comprehend the various phenomena involved and in cutting down on the expense of prototyping. As such, the development of numerical methods has been the subject of much research. Continuum and discrete methods are the two main approaches used in the numerical prediction of impact-related damage. Both methods analyze how damage develops using fracture mechanics, and stress-based criteria are commonly employed to identify when damage first appears. Recent years have seen a significant amount of study focused on these two separate techniques: cohesive zone modeling (CZM) and continuum damage mechanics (CDM) [20, 21].

To predict the behavior of composites, numerous models have been developed by researchers [22–26]. Mahdad et al. research's [27] combined experimental and numerical methods to study laminates with a polypropylene matrix's quasi-static indentation response. The results of the experiment demonstrated that using steel fibers raised the perforation threshold, highlighting the importance of fiber type in identifying damage locations. However, there were a few variations in the damage progression and perforation resistance of laminates reinforced with glass fibers. To get further insights, the researchers developed a computational model to understand the mechanics of damage evolution in these laminates. To this numerical model, the Matzenmiller-Lubliner-Taylor (MLT) damage model was introduced. The veracity of the simulation results was confirmed by the striking alignment of the numerical predictions made using the MLT model with the experimental observations. In another study, Mahdad et al. [28] studied the behavior of thermoplastic laminates reinforced with steel and glass fibers in a comprehensive study that included both experimental and numerical evaluations. The study concentrated on low-velocity quasi-static indentation loading. The research looked at two kinds of composite laminates with a polypropylene (PP) matrix: glass fiber laminates (GFPP) and steel fine wire mesh laminates (SWPP). According to the findings, the failure mode of SWPP laminates was predominantly related to plastic deformation. The GFPP laminate, on the other hand, demonstrated a more fragile behavior, which was associated with the inherent brittleness of glass fibers. The investigation further revealed significant damages around the indentation area, together with matrix cracking, fiber breakage, debonding, and fiber pull-out, as observed through scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The numerical predictions were successfully validated by comparing them with the experimental results, strengthening the credibility of their findings.

Using both experimental and numerical methods, Taghizadeh et al. [29] investigated the effects of multi-layering on sandwich panel composite structures with different corrugated core topologies under quasi-static indentation pressures. The experimental results have shown that the incorporation of multi-layering into composite sandwich panels enhances their energy absorption capacity and increases their structural resilience while simultaneously reducing their weight during quasi-static indentation. Increased peak load, instantaneous force, and dislocation displacement are the causes of this improvement, which lasts until total penetration is achieved. Specimens with rectangular cores performed best when a number of corrugated core designs were examined based on attributes like maximum force, energy absorption, and specific energy. Additionally, progressive damage studies using pre-established 3D failure criteria in ABAQUS software were carried out, and the results of the study and the numerical values agreed adequately.

Through employing the quasi-static indentation technique on laminated and sandwich composite materials, this research attempts to simulate the mechanical properties and damage mechanisms of composites under impact conditions. Our objective is to compare these numerical results with our experimental results in order to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed models in reproducing mechanical behaviour such as impact force and deformation, as well as the different types of damage identified during experimental studies under the quasi-static impacts.

2 Experiment

The validation of the numerical models relies on detailed presentation of the experimental results, which can be found in our previously published works [6, 30]. To avoid repetition, we will refrain from duplicating the pertinent information, except when regarding the description of particular essential attributes of the specimens and the experimental configuration. This research focuses on two types of composite panels that are commonly utilized in real-world marine transport structures. The initially presented composite variation is constructed of a cross-laminated (0/90) structure made of polyester as the matrix material and unidirectional fiberglass fabric as the reinforcing element. As shown in Fig. 1a, this composite has an average volume percentage of 50% and a total thickness of 8 mm. The second composite type constitutes a traditional sandwich structure, wherein 4 mm thick panels of the first composite are employed as the outer skins (refer to Fig. 1b). The sandwich's core material is PVC foam, which has a thickness of 20 mm and a density of 80 kg m−3. The cumulative thickness of the PVC core and the two laminated skins forming the sandwich composites amounts to 28 mm.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Composite materials: a: laminated composite; b: sandwich composite

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

As illustrated in Fig. 2, quasi-static indentation tests (QSI) were performed on laminate and sandwich panels utilizing an LR30KPlus type universal testing equipment. The test specimens were clamped between two steel plates with a 45-mm square hole in the middle on each side, as shown in Fig. 2. The indenter used was a hemispherical impactor with a diameter of 12.7 mm, made from a steel material with the following properties: E (Young's modulus) = 210 GPa and ν (Poisson's ratio) = 0, 27. This impactor was used to centrally apply the indentation load in line with the ASTM D6264-98 [31] standard. All tests were carried out at a 2 mm min−1 displacement rate until full perforation was obtained.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Experimental setup of the quasi-static perforation test

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

3 The composite damage models

3.1 Brief overview of the damage model

This study focuses on modelling the results of quasi-static indentation tests on PVC foam sandwich and GFRP laminated composites. The objective is to establish a validated model suitable for predictive studies. The experimental tests were simulated using the Abaqus/Explicit 2022 finite element code, which is employed to forecast the mechanical responses and damage mechanisms exhibited by the investigated composite materials. The elastic and failure properties used in the FE model were obtained from the previous work of Tarfaoui et al. [32], who conducted studies on the same materials. The mechanical properties required for the developed FE models are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mechanical properties required in the implementation of the FE model

Elastic moduli (MPa)Poisson's ratiosShear moduli (MPa)
E 11E 22E 33ν 12ν 13ν 23G 12G 13G 23
Laminated composite48.1611.2111.210.270.270.0964.424.429
PVC core0.0770.0770.110.30.30.30.0290.0290.029
Longitudinal and transverse strengths (MPa)Shear strengths (MPa)
XTXCYTYCS LS T
1,02197829.5171.87070
Fracture energy
GIC (N mm−1)GIIC (N mm−1)G IIIC (N mm−1)
0.4840.2960.296

Where the symbols E 11, E 22 and E 33 respectively represent the Young's modulus in the longitudinal (1) and transverse (2,3) directions. ν 12, ν 13, and ν 23 respectively represent the in-plane Poisson's ratio and transverse Poisson's ratio. The symbols G 11, G 22 and G 33 respectively represent the shear modulus in the longitudinal (1) and transverse (2,3) directions. XT denotes the tensile strengths in the fiber direction. Xc denotes the compressive strengths in the fiber direction. YT denotes the tensile strengths in the transverse direction. Yc denotes the compressive strengths in the transverse direction. SL denotes the longitudinal shear strengths of the composite, and ST denotes the transverse shear strengths of the composite. GIC, GIIC and GIIIC respectively represent the critical energy release rate in mode I, mode II, and mode III.

To simulate the laminated composite sheet, composed of unidirectional 0.33 mm-thick cross-ply plies, continuous shell elements (SC8R) were used to represent each individual ply, as well as cohesive surfaces to model the interfaces between plies with different fiber orientations (Fig. 3a). For the sandwich composite, the skins made from the previous laminate were also modelled using a continuous shell element (SC8R), while the PVC core was modelled using the C3D8R solid element (Fig. 3b). Loading tools (impactor) and support brackets were represented as rigid bodies with an element mesh (R3D3).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Numerical models for laminate and sandwich composites

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

To simulate the onset of damage in laminated and sandwich composites during quasi-static indentation impact loading, 3-D finite element models were created using the configurations shown in Fig. 4b and c. An embedding boundary condition was applied to the plates to reproduce the experimental conditions, as shown in Fig. 4a. When the damage variables reach their maximum for the folds and interface, the area corresponding to the fully damaged regions is removed from the mesh to take into account only the possibility of penetration. The displacement load was applied at the center of the plate with an incident indentation velocity of v = 1.2 mm min−1.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Numerical models developed for modelling quasi-static indentation testing: (a) schematic model for the impact test; (b) model developed for the laminated composite; (c) model developed for the composite sandwich

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

To model interlaminar damage within composite plies, the cohesive surface approach was employed for interfacial contact. This approach provides a simplified representation of cohesive connections with minimal interface thickness. The general ABAQUS contact algorithm was utilized to facilitate interactions between objects, employing the kinematic stress method for normal behavior and Coulomb friction for tangential behavior.

A friction coefficient of 0.3 was employed to simulate the interaction between the rigid impactor and the composite plate [33]. The quasi-static impact scenario was simulated by adding a loading velocity to the impactor's center of mass.

Figure 5 shows the flowchart of the numerical approach adopted to model interlaminar and intralaminar damage in a single mesh element, for a given computation time step.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Creating a flowchart diagram to depict the Finite Element (FE) model's setup for a solitary computation time step, with a sole element dedicated to simulating both interlaminar and intralaminar damage

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

3.2 The intralaminar damage model

3.2.1 Onset of intralaminar damage

To anticipate the occurrence of intralaminar damage, a model was utilized that is based on Hashin's 2-D theory [34]. This theory assumes that the composite material being analyzed is linearly elastic prior to damage initiation. Hashin's damage model combines four unique types of damage mechanisms to account for the initiation of intralaminar damage in unidirectional fiber sublayers. These damage mechanisms correspond to tensile and compressive fibre failures, as well as tensile and compressive matrix failures. The damage criteria for each of these mechanisms in Hashin's approach are formulated as follows:
  1. -For fiber Failure in tension, (σ11 ≥ 0):
Fft=(σ11Xt)2+α(σ12S12)21
  1. -For fiber failure in compression, (σ11 < 0)
Ffc=(σ11Xc)21
  1. -For matrix failure in tension (σ22 ≥ 0)
Fmt=(σ22Yt)2+(σ12S12)21
  1. -For matrix failure in compression (σ22 < 0)
Fmc=(σ222S23)2+[(Yc2ST)21](σ22Yc)(σ12SL)21

The equations presented above contain variables labelled Fft, Ffc, Fmt and Fmc, which correspond to the four types of damage: tensile fiber failure, compressive fiber failure, tensile matrix failure, and compressive matrix failure. Failure is expected when F is equal to or greater than 1. The parameters XT and Xc represent the laminate's tensile and compressive strengths in the longitudinal fiber direction, respectively. YT and YC represent the laminate's tensile and compressive strengths in the transverse direction, respectively. The laminate's shear strengths are represented by SL and ST = YC/2 in the longitudinal and transverse orientations of the fibers, respectively. The parameters σ11, σ22 and σ12 correspond to the effective stress tensor's normal and shear components, which are utilized to assess the previous criterion.

3.2.2 The evolution of intralaminar damage

Once damages have been initiated in a structure, they propagate and cause a decrease in its stiffness until it eventually collapses. The elastic behavior of a damaged structure is described by damage mechanics. Four damage models were developed to represent the damage induced by tensile fiber failure, compressive fiber failure, tensile matrix failure, and compressive matrix failure, namely dft, dfC, dmt and dmc, were incorporated in the model. When an element is undamaged, these variables have a value of 0, but when it is fully damaged, they have a value of 1. The damage variable, d, takes on a generic form after a specific damage procedure is initiated, as described by [35]:
d=εf(εε0)ε(εfε0)

The equation for the damage variable, d, involves the applied strain ε, the strain values associated with the onset of damage, ε0, and final failure, εf.

Currently, before the initiation of damage, the composite laminate is assumed to exhibit linear elasticity, with a stiffness matrix corresponding to a plane stress orthotropic material. However, once damage initiates and progresses, the material's response is computed from:
{σ}=[C(d)]{ε}
where [C (d)] is the damaged elasticity matrix which is written as:
[C(d]=[(1df)E1(1dm)(1df)ν12E20(1dm)(1df)ν12E2(1dm)E2000D(1ds)G1]
where
D=1(1dm)(1df)ν12ν21
The three damage parameters df, dm and ds that reflect fiber rupture, matrix rupture, and shear rupture, respectively, are determined using the damage variables (dft, dfc,dmtanddmc) by these equations:
Fiberfailure:df={dft,σ110dfc,σ11<0
Matrixfailure:dm={dmt,σ220dmc,σ22<0
Shearfailure:ds=1(1dft)(1dfc)(1dmt)(1dmc)

3.3 The interlaminar damage model (delamination)

Interlaminar damage in composite laminates commonly arises due to the initiation and subsequent growth of delamination between the layers. To faithfully depict this phenomenon, the Abaqus software makes use of its inherent surface-based cohesive element, which employs an energy release-based approach. The behavior of the interface element is captured through a cohesive surface law [36], where the traction (σ) is a function of the displacement (δ), as demonstrated in Fig. 6. Specifically, the cohesive law adopted for the interface element takes the form of a bilinear configuration, aligning with a linear softening material model.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Schematic diagram for the bilinear cohesive law

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

The damage progression in this scenario follows a two-step process. Prior to any delamination initiation, the relationship between traction and displacement adheres to linear elastic behavior. However, upon fulfilment of the damage criterion, specifically at a displacement value of “δ o,” the cohesive stiffness starts to degrade linearly. This degradation persists until the interface completely separates, leading to the propagation of delamination. The delamination propagation continues until it reaches the maximum failure displacement of “δ f”. The energy encompassed by the bilinear cohesive law is equivalent to the interlaminar fracture energy, Gc.

3.3.1 The initiation of interlaminar damage

In order to assess interlaminar damage in the two composites studied, a quadratic stress criterion was utilized. This criterion establishes when interlaminar damage begins, and was incorporated into the finite element analysis (FEA) code. The specific formulation of the criterion can be found in reference [37] and is applied when:
(σnσn0)2+(τsτs0)2+(τtτt0)2=1
where σn refers to the current normal stress acting on the ply, while τs and τt depict the present shear stresses operating within the ply. The cohesive strengths, denoted as σn0, τs0, and τt0, indicate the tensile strength of the interface and its shear strength, respectively.

3.3.2 The evolution of interlaminar damage

To model the behavior of the embedded cohesive surface law (as depicted in Fig. 6), it is necessary to determine the interlaminar fracture energy, Gc. This quantity denotes the area covered by the bilinear law. To determine the optimal value of Gc for the growth of delamination between the composite plies, the energy-based Benzeggagh-Kenane (B–K) [38] mixed-mode propagation criterion was used in this investigation. The standard is stated as follows:
GC=GIc+(GIIcGIc)(GIIGII+GI)η=1

In the equation, GIc represents the Mode I (opening tensile) interlaminar fracture energy, GIIc represents the Mode II (in-plane shear) interlaminar fracture energy, and η represents the B–K mixed-mode interaction exponent. These terms can be experimentally measured [39, 40] to obtain their respective values. The parameters GI and GII represent the current Mode I and Mode II energy release rates, respectively.

4 Results analysis

This section examines the damage evolution process and dynamic mechanical response of an all-composite sandwich construction with a honeycomb core that is subjected to quasi-static indentation impact loading. The construction of refined finite element models and the establishment of a numerical computing framework accomplish this. Moreover, a comparative analysis is carried out between specific results and conclusions made from previous research.

4.1 Load-displacement responses

A comparison of the experimental and numerical characteristics of the reaction of laminated and sandwich composites to quasi-static indentation impact loading was performed to assess the validity of the numerical simulation including force-displacement curves and damage mechanisms, as illustrated in Figs 79. The desired responses are reported and discussed below.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Comparison of experimental and numerical results of quasi-static perforation tests for laminated composites: (a) force-displacement curves, (b) cross-sectional views of composite plates to show damage progression during test

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

Figure 7a shows the numerical and experimental evolution of impact force as a function of impactor displacement for the sandwich composite. Points from A to E have been marked on the curve to demonstrate the sequence and progression of damage and rupture of the laminated composites during the quasi-static indentation impact event (Fig. 7b).

Figure 7a shows that the numerical simulation can reasonably predict the important characteristics of the experimental curve including a noticeable alignment between the initial slope of the curves and the peak force. The load evolution response is primarily decomposed into two phases. The first phase is elastic and linear (Zone I), corresponding to an elastic and linear behavior where there is a linear increase in impact force until the peak, at which the maximum load is reached. A non-linear phase follows Zone II, characterized by a decrease in load until rupture and complete perforation due to the initiation of damage.

The results shown in Fig. 8a provide a detailed view of the behavior of the sandwich composite during a quasi-static indentation impact event. The load-displacement curves for both experimental and numerical data were compared, and points (A–E) were marked on the curve to track the damage and failure sequence of the composite layers.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Comparison of experimental and numerical results of quasi-static perforation tests for sandwich composites: (a) force-displacement curves, (b) cross-sectional views of composite plates to show damage progression during test

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

The load response was analyzed in three stages. In the first stage, the force increased nonlinearly until it reached the first peak. The non-linearity of the behavior of these composite sandwiches lies in their composition of two distinct elements: on the one hand, the layers of laminates which provide the structural strength and rigidity, and on the other hand, the PVC foam which ensures the thermal insulation and impact absorption capacity. These two components have different mechanical characteristics, which can result in a non-linear response of the material under various loading conditions. laminate layers can deform elastically to a certain extent and then exhibit plastic deformations, while PVC foam can compress or deform more flexibly.

In the second zone, the force dropped nonlinearly. This was due to the distribution of fiber breakage, delamination and cracking of the matrix, as well as the fact that the foam core had become the main component capable of supporting the additional impact load. Subsequently, the impactor continued to depress the PVC foam, which caused the lower skin to interact with the impactor, thereby forming an obstacle to deflection. This induced a further increase in the load (Point G) until the lower skin ruptured, causing a second decrease in force until the end of the test.

The small differences between the numerical and experimental curves are probably caused by production flaws or damage related to material variations that were not taken into account while creating the Finite Element Model (FEM). A cross-sectional image of the overall damage footprint is shown in Fig. 8b, which can aid researchers in their understanding of sandwich composite failure mechanisms during quasi-static impact events. Up until a perforation develops on the affected side of the composite laminates, the degree of damage grows gradually.

Figure 9 shows the comparison between the experimentally measured maximum load and the corresponding numerical results for the laminated and sandwich composites. This figure indicates that the numerical results coincide with those obtained experimentally, with the maximum load prediction having a reasonable percentage error of 1.43% and 6.45% for the laminate composite and the sandwich composite, respectively.

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Comparison of maximum load in quasi-static perforation tests

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

4.2 Damage comparison

Following quasi-static perforation impact testing, the damage morphology resulting from the laminated and sandwich composites are visually compared in Figs 10 and 11. Hashin's damage criteria, a commonly used criterion for forecasting composite material failure, shows the locations on the figures where the fracture conditions have been met by red patches. The rainbow colors show the various intensities of damage, while the colors inside the red zone signify different degrees of damage. On the other hand, the blue areas show areas that are unharmed.

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

Comparison of damage obtained from numerical and experimental results for laminated composite plates after the quasi-static perforation tests

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

Comparison of damage obtained from numerical and experimental results for sandwich composite plates after the quasi-static perforation tests

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2024; 10.1556/1848.2024.00790

The laminated and sandwich composites both experienced severe damage, according to observations, which included delamination, fiber fractures, matrix cracking, and persistent depression. It was discovered that delamination was the most noticeable kind of damage. It was centered near the impact site and had a mild elliptical tendency, giving it a circular appearance. In agreement with the conclusions of other writers, the damage orientation is aligned with the fiber direction (0 and 90); [28] who noticed similar results in quasi-static through testing of PP granules reinforced with glass fiber (0/90).

The impactor caused major damage to the sandwich composite, primarily delamination, by penetrating the PVC foam. The impact caused the bottom face sheet to shrink, resulting in fractures and a permanent depression. The foam underwent plastic deformation, causing considerable damage to the core. These results emphasize how crucial it is to take core material effects into account when creating sandwich composites with impact resistance. The results of this study also show that, despite some deviations from the experimental findings because of material uncertainties and manufacturing flaws, the FEM model utilized in the simulation was successful in estimating the degree and kind of damage to the composites. Drawing insights from the outcomes of the finite element simulation, the damage diagrams of all composite laminates obtained by numerical simulations correspond well to those obtained by experiments.

The comparison of the damage observed from the numerical and experimental results reveals that the damage pattern is distinct in the two composites due to the difference in stress concentration due to the laminated and sandwich structure of the studied composites. For both tested composites, numerical and experimental results show that the extent and severity of damage at the impact point are greater due to the higher indentation force, as shown in Figs 9 and 10.

5 Conclusion

This work has discussed a study on the quasi-static indentation impact behavior of laminated and sandwich composites. This study employed both experimental and numerical simulation techniques to explore the scope and characteristics of the damage induced by quasi-static perforation impacts. Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the results obtained in this study.

  1. -Numerical modelling allowed for both qualitative and quantitative reproduction of the experimentally obtained force/displacement curves. The interpretation of these curves provided valuable insights into the experimentally identified damage sequences for the two composites tested during perforation impact tests.
  2. -The force-displacement curves obtained through numerical simulation were in good agreement with those obtained from experiments. The maximum load was predicted with reasonably percentage error of 1.43% and 6.45% for the laminated and sandwich composite, respectively.
  3. -The results indicate that both laminated and sandwich composites suffered significant damage, including permanent indentation, matrix cracking, fiber fractures, and delamination. Delamination was found to be the most prominent type of damage, and it was concentrated around the point of impact, presenting a circular shape with a slight elliptical tendency.

Data availability statement

The datasets produced and analyzed in the present study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

References

  • [1]

    A. Garofano, V. Acanfora, F. Fittipaldi, and A. Riccio, “On the use of a hybrid metallic-composite design to increase mechanical performance of an automotive chassis,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 38533870, May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08206-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    H. Zniker, I. Feddal, B. Ouaki, and S. Bouzakraoui, “Experimental and numerical investigation of mechanical behavior and failure mechanisms of PVC foam sandwich and GRP laminated composites under three-point bending loading,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 6678, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    V. K. Srivastava, P. K. Jain, P. Kumar, A. Pegoretti, and C. R. Bowen, “Smart manufacturing process of carbon-based low-dimensional structures and fiber-reinforced polymer composites for engineering applications,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 41624186, Jul. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-04950-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    M. Grujicic, G. Arakere, B. Pandurangan, V. Sellappan, A. Vallejo, and M. Ozen, “Multidisciplinary design optimization for glass-fiber epoxy-matrix composite 5 MW horizontal-Axis wind-turbine blades,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 11161127, Nov. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-010-9596-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    M. Ramesh, L. Rajeshkumar, and D. Balaji, “Influence of process parameters on the properties of additively manufactured fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials: a review,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 47924807, Jul. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-05832-y.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    H. Zniker, B. Ouaki, S. Bouzakraoui, M. EbnTouhami, and H. Mezouara, “Energy absorption and damage characterization of GFRP laminated and PVC-foam sandwich composites under repeated impacts with reduced energies and quasi-static indentation,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., vol. 16, 2022, Art no. e00844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    O. H. Hassoon, M. Tarfaoui, A. El Moumen, H. Benyahia, and M. Nachtane, “Numerical evaluation of dynamic response for flexible composite structures under slamming impact for naval applications,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 25, pp. 689706, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    C. Barile, C. Casavola, G. Pappalettera, and P. K. Vimalathithan, “Damage characterization in composite materials using acoustic emission signal-based and parameter-based data,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 178, Dec. 2019, Art no. 107469. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.107469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    H. E. Johnson, L. A. Louca, S. Mouring, and A. S. Fallah, “Modelling impact damage in marine composite panels,” p. 15.

  • [10]

    S. Agrawal, K. K. Singh, and P. K. Sarkar, “Impact damage on fibre-reinforced polymer matrix composite – a review,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 317332, Jan. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998312472217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    A. Bhanage and K. Padmanabhan, “Quasi-static and fatigue reliability of glass/epoxy composite automotive leaf spring beams under flexural loads at sub-zero temperatures,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-022-01566-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    D. Ruan, G. Lu, and Y. C. Wong, “Quasi-static indentation tests on aluminium foam sandwich panels,” vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 20392046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    T. Briggs, S. A. English, and S. M. Nelson, “Quasi-static indentation analysis of carbon-fiber laminates,” 2020.

  • [14]

    Y. Li, X. An, and X. Yi, “Comparison with low-velocity impact and quasi-staticIndentation testing of foam core sandwich composites,” pp. 5862, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    I. Mohagheghian, G. J. McShane, and W. J. Stronge, “Quasi-static and impact perforation of polymer-metal bi-layer plates by a blunt indenter,” vol. 117, pp. 3548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.03.036.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    T. Allen, S. Ahmed, W. Hepples, P. A. Reed, I. Sinclair, and M. Spearing, “A comparison of quasi-static indentation and low-velocity impact on composite overwrapped pressure vessels,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 52, no. 29, pp. 40514060, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    E. Abisset, F. Daghia, X. C. Sun, M. R. Wisnom, and S. R. Hallett, “Interaction of inter- and intralaminar damage in scaled quasi-static indentation tests: Part 1 – experiments,” Compos. Struct., vol. 136, pp. 712726, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    Y. Aoki, H. Suemasu, and T. Ishikawa, “Damage propagation in CFRP laminates subjected to low velocity impact and static indentation,” Adv. Compos. Mater., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 45, 2007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    A. T. Nettles and M. J. Douglas, “A comparison of quasi-static indentation testing to low velocity impact testing,” ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ., vol. 1416, pp. 116130, 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [20]

    I. Feddal and A. Khamlichi, “Delamination buckling of a laminated composite shell panel using cohesive zone modelling,” Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng., 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [21]

    C. HC, S. Kattimani, and S. Murigendrappa, “Prediction of cohesive zone length and accurate numerical simulation of delamination under mixed-mode loading,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 18611898, 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [22]

    R. P. Lemanle Sanga, C. Garnier, and O. Pantalé, “Finite element simulation of low velocity impact damage on an aeronautical carbon composite structure,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 23, pp. 11951208, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [23]

    I. Feddal, A. Khamlichi, and K. Ameziane, “Resistance to buckling of a stiffened panel under axial compression; Effect of imperfections resulting from welding process,” Proced. Manuf, vol. 32, pp. 921927, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [24]

    E. Flores-Johnson, Q. Li, and L. Shen, “Numerical simulations of quasi-static indentation and low velocity impact of Rohacell 51 WF foam,” Int. J. Comput. Methods, vol. 11, no. supp01, 2014, Art no. 1344004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [25]

    A. Tarafdar, G. Liaghat, H. Ahmadi, O. Razmkhah, S. C. Charandabi, M. R. Faraz, and E. PedramQuasi-static and low-velocity impact behavior of the bio-inspired hybrid Al/GFRP sandwich tube with hierarchical core: experimental and numerical investigation,” Compos. Struct., vol. 276, 2021, Art no. 114567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [26]

    H. Rajabi, A. Darvizeh, A. Shafiei, S. Eshghi, and A. Khaheshi, “Experimental and numerical investigations of Otala lactea’s shell–I. Quasi-static analysis,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 32, pp. 816, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [27]

    M. H. Mahdad, A. Benidir, and I. Belaidi, “Experimental and numerical evaluation of Quasi-Static Indentation behaviour of laminates with polypropylene matrix,” no. February, pp. 126134, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [28]

    M. Mahdad, A. A. Saada, I. Belaidi, A. Mokhtari, and A. Benidir, “Damage modelling in thermoplastic laminates reinforced with steel and glass fibres under quasi-static indentation loading at low-velocity,” Adv. Compos. Lett., vol. 27, no. 6, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [29]

    S. A. Taghizadeh, M. Naghdinasab, H. Madadi, and A. Farrokhabadi, “Investigation of novel multi-layer sandwich panels under quasi-static indentation loading using experimental and numerical analyses,” Thin-walled Struct., vol. 160, 2021, Art no. 107326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [30]

    H. Zniker, M. Khalil El Kouifat, I. Feddal, S. Bouzakraoui, and B. Ouaki, “Comparative study of quasi-static indentation (QSI) response of composites used in maritime transport,” Mater. Today Proc., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [31]

    ASTM D 6264-98(04), Standard test fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composite to concentrated quasi-static indentation force,” ASTM Int., vol. 98, pp. 98100, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1520/D6264_D6264M-17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [32]

    O. H. Hassoon, M. Tarfaoui, A. El Moumen, Y. Qureshi, H. Benyahia, and M. Nachtane, “Mechanical performance evaluation of sandwich panels exposed to slamming impacts: comparison between experimental and SPH results,” Compos. Struct., vol. 220, pp. 776783, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [33]

    F.-K. Chang and K.-Y. Chang, “A progressive damage model for laminated composites containing stress concentrations,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 834855, 1987.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [34]

    Z. Hashin, “Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites,” 1981.

  • [35]

    Dassault Syste`mes. Provid Rhode Island, USA, “Abaqus documentation,” 2018.

  • [36]

    Y. Shi, C. Pinna, and C. Soutis, “Modelling impact damage in composite laminates: a simulation of intra-and inter-laminar cracking,” Compos. Struct., vol. 114, pp. 1019, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [37]

    M. C. Chen Aj Kinloch, E. P. Busso, Y. Fl Matthews, and J. Qiu, “Predicting progressive delamination of composite material specimens via interface elements,” Mech. Compos. Mater. Struct., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 301317, 1999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [38]

    M. Kenane and M. L. Benzeggagh, “Mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites under fatigue loading,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 597605, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00021-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [39]

    M. L. Benzeggagh and M. Kenane, “Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 439449, 1996.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [40]

    C. Sarrado, A. Turon, J. Renart, and I. Urresti, “Assessment of energy dissipation during mixed-mode delamination growth using cohesive zone models,” Compos. Part Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 21282136, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    A. Garofano, V. Acanfora, F. Fittipaldi, and A. Riccio, “On the use of a hybrid metallic-composite design to increase mechanical performance of an automotive chassis,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 38533870, May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08206-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    H. Zniker, I. Feddal, B. Ouaki, and S. Bouzakraoui, “Experimental and numerical investigation of mechanical behavior and failure mechanisms of PVC foam sandwich and GRP laminated composites under three-point bending loading,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 6678, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    V. K. Srivastava, P. K. Jain, P. Kumar, A. Pegoretti, and C. R. Bowen, “Smart manufacturing process of carbon-based low-dimensional structures and fiber-reinforced polymer composites for engineering applications,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 41624186, Jul. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-04950-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    M. Grujicic, G. Arakere, B. Pandurangan, V. Sellappan, A. Vallejo, and M. Ozen, “Multidisciplinary design optimization for glass-fiber epoxy-matrix composite 5 MW horizontal-Axis wind-turbine blades,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 11161127, Nov. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-010-9596-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    M. Ramesh, L. Rajeshkumar, and D. Balaji, “Influence of process parameters on the properties of additively manufactured fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials: a review,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 47924807, Jul. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-05832-y.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    H. Zniker, B. Ouaki, S. Bouzakraoui, M. EbnTouhami, and H. Mezouara, “Energy absorption and damage characterization of GFRP laminated and PVC-foam sandwich composites under repeated impacts with reduced energies and quasi-static indentation,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., vol. 16, 2022, Art no. e00844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    O. H. Hassoon, M. Tarfaoui, A. El Moumen, H. Benyahia, and M. Nachtane, “Numerical evaluation of dynamic response for flexible composite structures under slamming impact for naval applications,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 25, pp. 689706, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    C. Barile, C. Casavola, G. Pappalettera, and P. K. Vimalathithan, “Damage characterization in composite materials using acoustic emission signal-based and parameter-based data,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 178, Dec. 2019, Art no. 107469. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.107469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    H. E. Johnson, L. A. Louca, S. Mouring, and A. S. Fallah, “Modelling impact damage in marine composite panels,” p. 15.

  • [10]

    S. Agrawal, K. K. Singh, and P. K. Sarkar, “Impact damage on fibre-reinforced polymer matrix composite – a review,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 317332, Jan. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998312472217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    A. Bhanage and K. Padmanabhan, “Quasi-static and fatigue reliability of glass/epoxy composite automotive leaf spring beams under flexural loads at sub-zero temperatures,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-022-01566-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    D. Ruan, G. Lu, and Y. C. Wong, “Quasi-static indentation tests on aluminium foam sandwich panels,” vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 20392046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    T. Briggs, S. A. English, and S. M. Nelson, “Quasi-static indentation analysis of carbon-fiber laminates,” 2020.

  • [14]

    Y. Li, X. An, and X. Yi, “Comparison with low-velocity impact and quasi-staticIndentation testing of foam core sandwich composites,” pp. 5862, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    I. Mohagheghian, G. J. McShane, and W. J. Stronge, “Quasi-static and impact perforation of polymer-metal bi-layer plates by a blunt indenter,” vol. 117, pp. 3548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.03.036.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    T. Allen, S. Ahmed, W. Hepples, P. A. Reed, I. Sinclair, and M. Spearing, “A comparison of quasi-static indentation and low-velocity impact on composite overwrapped pressure vessels,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 52, no. 29, pp. 40514060, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    E. Abisset, F. Daghia, X. C. Sun, M. R. Wisnom, and S. R. Hallett, “Interaction of inter- and intralaminar damage in scaled quasi-static indentation tests: Part 1 – experiments,” Compos. Struct., vol. 136, pp. 712726, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    Y. Aoki, H. Suemasu, and T. Ishikawa, “Damage propagation in CFRP laminates subjected to low velocity impact and static indentation,” Adv. Compos. Mater., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 45, 2007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    A. T. Nettles and M. J. Douglas, “A comparison of quasi-static indentation testing to low velocity impact testing,” ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ., vol. 1416, pp. 116130, 2002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [20]

    I. Feddal and A. Khamlichi, “Delamination buckling of a laminated composite shell panel using cohesive zone modelling,” Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng., 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [21]

    C. HC, S. Kattimani, and S. Murigendrappa, “Prediction of cohesive zone length and accurate numerical simulation of delamination under mixed-mode loading,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 18611898, 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [22]

    R. P. Lemanle Sanga, C. Garnier, and O. Pantalé, “Finite element simulation of low velocity impact damage on an aeronautical carbon composite structure,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 23, pp. 11951208, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [23]

    I. Feddal, A. Khamlichi, and K. Ameziane, “Resistance to buckling of a stiffened panel under axial compression; Effect of imperfections resulting from welding process,” Proced. Manuf, vol. 32, pp. 921927, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [24]

    E. Flores-Johnson, Q. Li, and L. Shen, “Numerical simulations of quasi-static indentation and low velocity impact of Rohacell 51 WF foam,” Int. J. Comput. Methods, vol. 11, no. supp01, 2014, Art no. 1344004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [25]

    A. Tarafdar, G. Liaghat, H. Ahmadi, O. Razmkhah, S. C. Charandabi, M. R. Faraz, and E. PedramQuasi-static and low-velocity impact behavior of the bio-inspired hybrid Al/GFRP sandwich tube with hierarchical core: experimental and numerical investigation,” Compos. Struct., vol. 276, 2021, Art no. 114567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [26]

    H. Rajabi, A. Darvizeh, A. Shafiei, S. Eshghi, and A. Khaheshi, “Experimental and numerical investigations of Otala lactea’s shell–I. Quasi-static analysis,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 32, pp. 816, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [27]

    M. H. Mahdad, A. Benidir, and I. Belaidi, “Experimental and numerical evaluation of Quasi-Static Indentation behaviour of laminates with polypropylene matrix,” no. February, pp. 126134, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [28]

    M. Mahdad, A. A. Saada, I. Belaidi, A. Mokhtari, and A. Benidir, “Damage modelling in thermoplastic laminates reinforced with steel and glass fibres under quasi-static indentation loading at low-velocity,” Adv. Compos. Lett., vol. 27, no. 6, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [29]

    S. A. Taghizadeh, M. Naghdinasab, H. Madadi, and A. Farrokhabadi, “Investigation of novel multi-layer sandwich panels under quasi-static indentation loading using experimental and numerical analyses,” Thin-walled Struct., vol. 160, 2021, Art no. 107326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [30]

    H. Zniker, M. Khalil El Kouifat, I. Feddal, S. Bouzakraoui, and B. Ouaki, “Comparative study of quasi-static indentation (QSI) response of composites used in maritime transport,” Mater. Today Proc., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [31]

    ASTM D 6264-98(04), Standard test fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composite to concentrated quasi-static indentation force,” ASTM Int., vol. 98, pp. 98100, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1520/D6264_D6264M-17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [32]

    O. H. Hassoon, M. Tarfaoui, A. El Moumen, Y. Qureshi, H. Benyahia, and M. Nachtane, “Mechanical performance evaluation of sandwich panels exposed to slamming impacts: comparison between experimental and SPH results,” Compos. Struct., vol. 220, pp. 776783, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [33]

    F.-K. Chang and K.-Y. Chang, “A progressive damage model for laminated composites containing stress concentrations,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 834855, 1987.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [34]

    Z. Hashin, “Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites,” 1981.

  • [35]

    Dassault Syste`mes. Provid Rhode Island, USA, “Abaqus documentation,” 2018.

  • [36]

    Y. Shi, C. Pinna, and C. Soutis, “Modelling impact damage in composite laminates: a simulation of intra-and inter-laminar cracking,” Compos. Struct., vol. 114, pp. 1019, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [37]

    M. C. Chen Aj Kinloch, E. P. Busso, Y. Fl Matthews, and J. Qiu, “Predicting progressive delamination of composite material specimens via interface elements,” Mech. Compos. Mater. Struct., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 301317, 1999.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [38]

    M. Kenane and M. L. Benzeggagh, “Mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites under fatigue loading,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 597605, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00021-3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [39]

    M. L. Benzeggagh and M. Kenane, “Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 439449, 1996.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [40]

    C. Sarrado, A. Turon, J. Renart, and I. Urresti, “Assessment of energy dissipation during mixed-mode delamination growth using cohesive zone models,” Compos. Part Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 21282136, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor-in-Chief: Ákos, LakatosUniversity of Debrecen, Hungary

Founder, former Editor-in-Chief (2011-2020): Ferenc Kalmár, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Founding Editor: György Csomós, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Associate Editor: Derek Clements Croome, University of Reading, UK

Associate Editor: Dezső Beke, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Editorial Board

  • Mohammad Nazir AHMAD, Institute of Visual Informatics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

    Murat BAKIROV, Center for Materials and Lifetime Management Ltd., Moscow, Russia

    Nicolae BALC, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Umberto BERARDI, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

    Ildikó BODNÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Sándor BODZÁS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Fatih Mehmet BOTSALI, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey

    Samuel BRUNNER, Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    István BUDAI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Constantin BUNGAU, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Shanshan CAI, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

    Michele De CARLI, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Robert CERNY, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Erdem CUCE, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

    György CSOMÓS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Tamás CSOKNYAI, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Anna FORMICA, IASI National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Alexandru GACSADI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Eugen Ioan GERGELY, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Janez GRUM, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Géza HUSI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Ghaleb A. HUSSEINI, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Nikolay IVANOV, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Antal JÁRAI, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

    Gudni JÓHANNESSON, The National Energy Authority of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

    László KAJTÁR, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Ferenc KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Tünde KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Milos KALOUSEK, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republik

    Jan KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Vaclav KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Imre KOCSIS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Imre KOVÁCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Angela Daniela LA ROSA, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Éva LOVRA, Univeqrsity of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Elena LUCCHI, Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Bolzano, Italy

    Tamás MANKOVITS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Igor MEDVED, Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Ligia MOGA, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Marco MOLINARI, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Henrieta MORAVCIKOVA, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Phalguni MUKHOPHADYAYA, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

    Balázs NAGY, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Husam S. NAJM, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

    Jozsef NYERS, Subotica Tech College of Applied Sciences, Subotica, Serbia

    Bjarne W. OLESEN, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Stefan ONIGA, North University of Baia Mare, Baia Mare, Romania

    Joaquim Norberto PIRES, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    László POKORÁDI, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

    Roman RABENSEIFER, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republik

    Mohammad H. A. SALAH, Hashemite University, Zarqua, Jordan

    Dietrich SCHMIDT, Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology IWES, Kassel, Germany

    Lorand SZABÓ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Csaba SZÁSZ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Ioan SZÁVA, Transylvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania

    Péter SZEMES, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Edit SZŰCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Radu TARCA, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Zsolt TIBA, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    László TÓTH, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    László TÖRÖK, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Anton TRNIK, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia

    Ibrahim UZMAY, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Tibor VESSELÉNYI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Nalinaksh S. VYAS, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India

    Deborah WHITE, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Address of the institute: Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen
H-4028 Debrecen, Ótemető u. 2-4. Hungary
Email: irase@eng.unideb.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • DOAJ
  • ERIH PLUS
  • Google Scholar
  • ProQuest
  • SCOPUS
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory

 

2022  
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
9
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.235
Scimago Quartile Score Architecture (Q2)
Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Environmental Engineering (Q3)
Information Systems (Q4)
Management Science and Operations Research (Q4)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.6
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Architecture 46/170 (73rd PCTL)
General Engineering 174/302 (42nd PCTL)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) 93/150 (38th PCTL)
Environmental Engineering 123/184 (33rd PCTL)
Management Science and Operations Research 142/198 (28th PCTL)
Information Systems 281/379 (25th PCTL)
 
Scopus
SNIP
0.686

2021  
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
7
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,199
Scimago Quartile Score Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Environmental Engineering (Q4)
Information Systems (Q4)
Management Science and Operations Research (Q4)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,2
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Architecture 48/149 (Q2)
General Engineering 186/300 (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) 79/124 (Q3)
Environmental Engineering 118/173 (Q3)
Management Science and Operations Research 141/184 (Q4)
Information Systems 274/353 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,457

2020  
Scimago
H-index
5
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,165
Scimago
Quartile Score
Engineering (miscellaneous) Q3
Environmental Engineering Q4
Information Systems Q4
Management Science and Operations Research Q4
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
102/116=0,9
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
General Engineering 205/297 (Q3)
Environmental Engineering 107/146 (Q3)
Information Systems 269/329 (Q4)
Management Science and Operations Research 139/166 (Q4)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) 64/98 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,26
Scopus
Cites
57
Scopus
Documents
36
Days from submission to acceptance 84
Days from acceptance to publication 348
Acceptance
Rate

23%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
4
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,229
Scimago
Quartile Score
Engineering (miscellaneous) Q2
Environmental Engineering Q3
Information Systems Q3
Management Science and Operations Research Q4
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
46/81=0,6
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
General Engineering 227/299 (Q4)
Environmental Engineering 107/132 (Q4)
Information Systems 259/300 (Q4)
Management Science and Operations Research 136/161 (Q4)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) 60/86 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,866
Scopus
Cites
35
Scopus
Documents
47
Acceptance
Rate
21%

 

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Limited number of full waiver available. Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2010
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Debreceni Egyetem
Founder's
Address
H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary Egyetem tér 1
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-0810 (Print)
ISSN 2063-4269 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jan 2024 0 0 0
Feb 2024 0 0 0
Mar 2024 0 0 0
Apr 2024 0 64 52
May 2024 0 124 60
Jun 2024 0 101 33
Jul 2024 0 0 0