Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Delamination prediction in composite laminates under low-velocity

impact
Shuchang Long, Xiaohu Yao , Xiaoqing Zhang
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510640, PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 18 May 2015
Keywords:
Composite laminates
Delamination
Damage prediction
Low-velocity impact
Numerical simulation

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a damage analysis process of composite laminates subjected to low-velocity impact.
Drop weight tests were carried out on specimens with two kinds of stacking sequence. Ultrasonic C-Scan
was used to investigate the delamination area of each interface. Numerical models were built based on a
damage model where cohesive contact method was involved. The efciency of delamination modeling
was discussed and the damage model was validated. The results of the FEM were found to agree well with
experimental observation. According to the results, a prediction process of delamination shape was made
for composite laminates under low-velocity impact. The delamination area was found to distribute symmetrically around the impact point while the shape is related to the ply angles of the layers close to the
interface. The prediction was proved to have good accuracy and efciency.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Delamination is one of the common failure modes in composite
laminates. It appears in the interface of two adjacent layers and can
signicantly reduce the compression strength of laminated structures. One of the main elements that lead to delamination is
low-velocity impact. Impact with low velocity will cause excessive
stress cross the interface of layers with different ply angles and
delamination appeared after the failure of interface material.
Since delamination always takes place inside composite layers,
it is difcult to characterize it without breaking the laminated
structure. Therefore, the prediction of delamination in composite
laminates became necessary during the service period of composite structures.
Studies have been done throughout the world to reveal the
delamination damage behavior in composite laminates.
Generally, they can be divided into two categories: experimental
analysis, and numerical analysis.
A large amount of experiments were carried out on the damage
behavior of composite laminates. Tita [1] tested three kinds of
composite plates with typical stacking sequences under different
impact energies. The mechanical behavior of the specimens was
classied by the ratio of absorbed energy versus impact energy.
Matrix crack and delamination were found when the fraction of

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 20 87111137.

E-mail address: yaoxh@scut.edu.cn (X. Yao).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.05.037
0263-8223/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

absorbed energy was above 35%, while ber rupture appeared as

the fraction increased to 75%. Schoeppner [2] investigated the
delamination threshold load of composite laminate under low
velocity impact. The threshold load level was obtained from the
loadtime history or loaddisplacement plot, at which a sudden
load drop occurs due to specimen stiffness loss as a result of laminate level damage. Sebaey [3] and Lopes [4,5] studied the effect of
mismatch angle between plies on the delamination areas of composite laminates. Specimens with different stacking sequences
were subjected to drop weight impact, and damages under different load levels were gained through C-Scan. The results indicated
that by reducing the mismatch angle between the adjacent layers,
the response of CFRP composites to low velocity impact could be
improved. The experiments made by these researchers were
mostly based on drop weight impact machines. Hou [6] and Joshi
[7] carried out impact tests using a gas gun. This kind of loading
method can avoid repeated loading appeared in drop weight tests,
and impact energy can be easily controlled in the experiment
procedure.
Many researchers also focused on the damage detection in composite materials. There are mainly two kinds of nondestructive
inspection (NDI) method that are used in delamination analysis.
Ultrasonic C-Scan is the most common technique to obtain damage
caused by impact loads. Since the wave impedance of damaged
material is different from the original material, the damage area
can be drawn clearly by ultrasonic microscope. The other method
that is widely used is lamb wave detection. In the research of
Kessler [8], Bruno [9], Guo [10] and Su [11], lamb wave is used

291

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

for damage inspection in composite materials. The method is

effective for the determination of the presence and severity of
damage, but difcult to investigate the damage shape and position
directly.
There are also many other techniques for damage detection.
Zhu [12] and Zou [13] proposed a vibration-based evaluation
method to determine the location and size of debonding in composite structures. Lahuerta [14] describe a technique for measuring
the delamination length in mode I tests based on video image processing. In the studies of Jody [15] and Zabala [16], damage visual
enhancement technique was used to highlight the damage scope in
composite laminates.
In these experimental studies, delamination scopes obtained
were superimposed together. Although the damage is characterized by the total area, it is difcult to distinguish a delamination
area of an interface from another. In order to study the relationship
of stacking sequence and delamination area, it is necessary to
investigate the damage behavior between each pair of adjacent
layers.
Due to the big cost of experiments, researchers have paid
more attention to numerical approach. The basis of numerical
analysis is the damage theory models for composite materials.
Hinton [17] concluded 12 leading theories for predicting failure
in composite laminates. The predictions were compared with
experimental evidence and the effectiveness of each theory
was discussed. Several theories were found to be accurate for
intra-laminar damage prediction but few considered the delamination behavior. Eijo [18] presented a numerical method based
on the rened zigzag theory to model delamination in composite laminated plates. The quadrilateral QLRZ nite element was
used for predicting the laminate kinematics. Results show that
both the onset and the evolution of delamination were accurately predicted by the QLRZ element. Moura [19] proposed a
new double failure criterion based on the combination of failure
theories presented by Tsai-Wu, Hashin, Choi and Becker. The
criterion identied the matrix rupture and delamination separately. Liu [20] performed a nonlinear progressive damage
model to predict the ultimate strength and the failure processed
of composite laminates. A three-dimensional strength criterion
in terms of strains, which concluded ber damage, matrix damage and delamination, was developed in the analysis model.
Martinez [21,22] developed a matrix-reinforced mixing theory
to predict delamination in composite laminates in ply drop-off
test and drop-weight impact test. The method was proved to
be less time consuming and applicable in structures with
multi-plies. Zubillaga [23] considered that delamination was
caused by matrix cracks, and developed a failure criterion based
on the energy release rate and fracture toughness of the
interface.
Among the numerical studies, cohesive elements were widely
used to simulate the delamination behavior of composite laminates. These elements were used to connect two surfaces of an

11

interface whose thickness is taken as zero before the deformation

of the body occurs [24]. Delamination was simulated by controlling
the constitutive model of cohesive elements. Recently, many studies have been done to improve the application of cohesive elements. Camanho [25] proposed a mixed-mode criterion for the
delamination model based on cohesive elements. In the criterion,
both tensile stress and shear stress are considered to account for
the delamination. In the study of Jalalvand [26], cohesive elements
with a random distribution of strength were embedded between
the layers for modeling of delamination. Numerical results were
found to agree well with the experimental observations. Xin [27]
and Turon [28] studied how the mesh density of cohesive elements
affects the delamination area. It was found that more elements will
lead to more accurate result.
It can be seen that many methods have been proposed to predict
the delamination behavior in composite laminates. However, few of
the researchers focused on the shape of delamination area in each
interlayer of a laminate, since the delamination scopes obtained
from the tests were always superimposed together.
This paper presented a damage analysis process for composite
laminates under low-velocity impact. First, a damage model for
composite materials is proposed which has considered
intra-laminar and inter-laminar damage. Then, drop weight tests
were carried out on laminated composite specimens. Ultrasonic
C-Scan was used to investigate the delamination area in each interface and image processing method was applied to characterize the
damage scopes. Based on the damage model, numerical simulations were made to study the efciency of delamination modeling.
Validation was also made for the damage model, and numerical
result was found to agree well with experimental observation.
Furthermore, the relationship of stacking sequence and delamination shape was summarized. Several conclusions were made and
some future work was listed.
2. Damage criteria and evolution
The damage behavior of composite laminates can be divided
into two types: intra-laminar damage and inter-laminar damage.
The intra-laminar damage consists of ber damage and matrix
damage, while the inter-laminar damage is mainly contributed
by delamination.
2.1. Intra-laminar damage
2.1.1. Damage criteria
Hashin damage criteria were used to model the damage
appeared within layers. The criteria were formulated below.
Fiber damage:

F tf

F cf

r11
X

2

r11

2

XC

P 1 r11 P 0

P 1 r11 6 0

Matrix damage:

XT

F tm

G ft
0

110

11t

11

Fig. 1. Stressstrain relationship for ber tensile damage.

F cm

r22

2

YT


r22
YC

2

s12
SL

2

s12
SL

2

P 1 r22 P 0

P 1 r22 6 0

r11 -normal stress in the ber direction;

r22 -normal stress in the transverse direction;

292

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

a. Mode I

b. Mode II

c. Mode III

Fig. 2. Three fracture modes for delamination.

ber was regarded broken in the element. Both ber and matrix
will not sustain the tensile load and the tensile stiffness along
the rst principle axis of the material reduced to zero. The equivalent method is appropriate because the ber mainly sustain the
longitudinal load while the matrix sustain the transverse one.
2.2. Inter-laminar damage

m0

Fig. 3. Tractionseparation law for cohesive contact.

s12 -shear stress in the plane of ber and transverse directions;

The cohesive contact method was used to simulate the delamination between layers of composite laminates. The basis of the
method is the cohesive behavior interaction of two adjacent surfaces. The traction stress and separation displacement of the nodes
on the surfaces are governed by tractionseparation law. Similar
with the intra-laminar damage models, the tractionseparation
law is composed by damage criterion and damage evolution.

X T -tensile strength in the ber direction;

X C -compressive strength in the ber direction;
T

Y -tensile strength in the transverse direction;

Y C -compressive strength in the transverse direction;
SL -shear strength in the ber and transverse plane.
Both ber damage and matrix damage were taken into account
in Hashin damage criteria. The normal stress in the ber direction
was considered to be the only reason that leads to the ber damage, while the normal stress in the transverse direction and the
shear stress in the plane of ber and transverse directions contributed to the matrix damage.
2.1.2. Damage evolution
Linear damage evolution law was used after damage appeared
in the composite material. The evolution law of ber tensile damage was presented in Fig. 1.
The stressstrain relationship can be divided into two steps.
Before ber tensile damage appeared, linear elastic behavior was
considered for the material along the ber direction. Once the normal stress met the tensile strength in the ber direction, the elastic
module reduces in a linear way. e011 represents the initial normal
strain when the initiation criterion was met, and et11 is the normal
strain when ber was completely damaged. The area of the triangle
formed by the curve and abscissa axis, Gft , represents the fracture
energy of ber tensile damage.
The evolution laws of the rest three damage modes are similar
with the one proposed above.
It should be noted that in Hashin damage criteria, the composite
layer was considered as an orthotropic homogeneous material.
However, the intra-laminar damage took place either in ber or
in matrix. In order to distinguish different damage modes, the principle axes of material were taken into consideration. The rst principle axis is parallel to the ber direction while the second one is
perpendicular to the direction. The third principle axis is perpendicular to the rst and second axes. When damage occurred, the
corresponding stiffness along the principle axis will demise. For
example, once the ber tensile damage criterion was meet, the

2.2.1. Damage criterion

The interaction area of two adjacent layers in composite laminates can be regarded as matrix material. Therefore, the
inter-laminar behavior is considered to be linear elastic before
the delamination occurred. The traction stress on a surface consists
of 3 components: a normal traction and two shear tractions. The
elastic behavior can be written as:

tn

Kn

6 7 6
t 4 ts 5 4 0

Ks

tt

32

dn

76 7
0 54 ds 5
Kt
dt

t is the traction stress, d is the separation displacement and K represents the stiffness of interaction. The three directions correspond
to the three fracture modes which are shown in Fig. 2.
A quadratic separation law was used to control the damage criterion of delamination. In the law, damage is assumed to initiate
when the quadratic interaction function reaches one, which is presented below.

hdn i
d0n

!2

ds
d0s

!2

dt
d0t

!2
P1

d0n ; d0s and d0t represent the peak values of the contact separation,
when the separation is either purely along the contact normal or
purely in the rst or the second shear direction, respectively. In
order to describe the evolution of damage under a combination of
normal and shear separations across the interface, effective separation dm is introduced.

dm

q
hdn i2 d2s d2t

2.2.2. Damage evolution

The damage evolution law of delamination is similar with the
law of intra-laminar damage discussed above. Before delamination
appeared, the interaction was considered to have a linear behavior.
Once the damage criterion was satised, the cohesive stiffness
degrades linearly (see Fig. 3).

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

293

Fig. 4. Setup for impact tests.

GC is the fracture energy of delamination with mixed modes. It

is formed based on the BenzeggaghKenane fracture criterion. The
expression is presented below.
C

GCn


 GC GC
s
t
GCs  GCn
GCs GCn

!g

GCn ; GCs and GCt are critical fracture energies required to cause failure
in the normal, the rst, and the second shear directions while g is a
cohesive property parameter.
3. Experimental analysis
Drop weight impact tests were carried out based on
ASTM-D7136. The standard is a test method for evaluating the damage resistance of a ber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a
drop-weight impact event. The laminate plate was manufactured
with T700/3234 UD carbon/epoxy composite. According to the
standard, the specimen was cut into a plate with a size of
150  100 mm, and clipped on a rigid supporting structure with a
rectangular cut of 125  75 mm in the center. The low-velocity
impact was made by InstronDynatup 9250HV drop weight
machine. The punch, with a diameter of 16 mm, was made of aluminum. The impact energy varies with the weight and drop height
of the punch. The setup for impact tests were presented in Fig. 4.
Two specimens were tested under different impact energies.
Parameters of the tests are listed in Table 1.
Curves of impact force versus time and displacement were
obtained through the load sensor and the displacement sensor,
Table 1
Test parameters.
Specimen
no.

Thickness
(mm)

Stacking sequence

Impact energy
(J)

A
B

2.5
3.25

[45/0/0/45/0/45/0/45/0/0]S
11.30 J
[45/0/0/0/45/90/45/0/0/45/90/ 20.09 J
45/0]S

as presented in Fig. 5. After the drop weight tests, the dent depth
of the impact point on each specimen was measured using a
micro-digital indicator. The visual damage on the surface of specimen A is presented in Fig. 6.
Matrix crack and ber failure appeared at the impact point,
while small bulges were found on the back surface, which indicates
delamination of the bottom layer. In order to investigate the
delamination area directly, C-Scan technique was used. The results
of specimen The specimens were examined under an ultrasonic
scanning microscope made in Germany. Delamination areas were
obtained layer by layer along the thickness direction of specimen
A (Fig. 7). The experimental results will be discussed more specifically in Section 5.
4. Numerical analysis
4.1. Efciency analysis of delamination modeling
Based on the inter-laminar damage criterion and evolution
introduced in Section 2.2, the delamination can be simulated by
cohesive behavior interaction of two adjacent surfaces. The result
will be more accurate if we dened cohesive contact in each pair
of adjacent layers. However, when a cohesive behavior was introduced into an interface, the computational speed would be slowed
down. Therefore, it is necessary to nd out how many layers
should be taken into account with cohesive contact.
In the study of Heimbs [29], conclusion was made that more
delamination interfaces in the model will lead to higher accuracy
and computational cost. The author suggested that for a 17-ply
laminate, a 6-interface model was accurate enough, although
specic reasons were not mentioned.
In this paper, ve models were built to nd the most suitable
number of cohesive interfaces. Since test results have shown that
delamination just took place between the layers away from the
impact surface, we introduce cohesive contact into the laminate
gradually from the bottom. For example, the contact information
of model 3 is presented in Fig. 8. The layers of the laminate are

Fig. 5. Curves of impact force versus time (a) and displacement (b) obtained from the tests.

294

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

a. Impact side

b. Back side

Fig. 6. Visual damage on the specimen surface.

Fig. 7. Delamination image of specimen A through C-Scan.

tie

cohesive
contact

Impact side
layer 8
layer 7
layer 6
layer 5
layer 4
layer 3
layer 2
layer 1

Fig. 8. Interaction in model 3.

numbered from the bottom to the top. Layers 5 to 8 are tied

together, while cohesive contact is introduced between layers 1
and 2, layers 2 and 3, layers 3 and 4. The distribution of cohesive
contact in ve models was listed in Table 2.
After calculation, the delamination area for each interface was
obtained. The results were listed in Table 3.
It is reliable to regard the result of model 5 as the real delamination area. It can be found that the delamination areas of the top
two interfaces with cohesive contact for model1 to model 4 have
great differences with the real areas. For example, the delamination area in interlayer 1|2 of model 3 is similar with the one of
model 5. However, the areas of interlayer 2|3 and 3|4 in model 3
is different from the areas of model 5.
Table 2
Distribution of cohesive contact.
Model no.
1
2
3
4
5

Interlayer with cohesive contact

1|2
1|2, 2|3
1|2, 2|3, 3|4
1|2, 2|3, 3|4, 4|5
All

This phenomenon should attribute to the different stiffness of

two adjacent layers. For model 3, layer 5, 6, 7 and 8 are tied
together while layers below are connected by cohesive contact.
The 4 layers above form a thick laminate with larger stiffness than
a single layer. As a result, the stiffness of the structure changes a lot
across the interlayer of 3|4. Therefore, big delamination will take
place when the structure is exposed to impact loads.
When cohesive contact was introduced into an interlayer of a
laminate, the delamination area of the top two interfaces with
cohesive contact are inaccurate. In order to obtain a reliable result,
two more interfaces under the concerned one should be taken into
account with cohesive contact.
It should be noticed that, as cohesive contact was introduced
into more interfaces, more time was needed to complete the calculation. Additionally, since at least one element was needed for one
layer along the thickness direction, the time step will be divided
into a very tiny amount in order to avoid numerical instabilities.
As a result, the damage model with cohesive contact was not suitable for structures with too many plies. However, the damage
model is able to reveal the damage mechanism of delamination
in composite laminates.
4.2. Modeling validation
In order to validate the modeling method proposed in Section 2,
numerical models were built based on the drop weight tests in
Section 3. The mechanical parameters of the UD composite were
listed in Table 4.
The UD composite was regarded as orthotropic homogeneous
material with linear elastic behavior. The intra-laminar damage
was simulated by dening Hashin damage criteria and linear damage evolution law on each layer, while the inter-laminar damage
was simulated by introducing cohesive contact between adjacent
layers. When delamination occurred, friction between layers was
considered with a coefcient of 0.15.

295

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

Table 3
Delamination areas for ve models.

Model
No.

Delamination area
Layer 12

Layer 23

Time
Consuming
54min

58min

63min

83min

92min

1700 kg/m3

Density
Elastic
properties
Strength

Fracture
energy
Inter-laminar

Layer 45

Table 4
Mechanical parameters of T700/3234 UD composite.

Intra-laminar

Layer 34

Elastic
properties
Strength
Fracture
energy

E1 = 110 GPa, E2 = 7.8 GPa, m12 = 0.32,

G12 = G13 = G23 = 40 GPa
XT = 2093 MPa, XC = 870 MPa,
YT = 50 MPa, YC = 198 MPa,
SL = 104 MPa
Gft = Gfc = 10 N/mm, Gmt = Gmc = 1 N/mm
Kn = Ks = Kt = 850 MPa
Tn = 3.3 MPa, Ts = Tt = 7 MPa
Gn = 0.306 N/mm; Gs = Gt = 0.632 N/mm

U1=U2=U3=0

delamination will not take place between the layers with the same
ply angle, the layers were tied together.
The calculation costs 32 h for specimen A and 37 h for specimen
B. The results of numerical simulation are presented in Section 5.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Impact response of composite plates
Time history curves of impact force are shown in Fig. 10. The
black and red curves represent the experimental and numerical
result respectively. Good agreement can be found in both
specimens.
The dent depth of the impact point was listed in Table 5. It can
be found that the dent depth obtained from simulation is smaller
than the value measured by the micrometer. This phenomenon
should attribute to the damage model used in numerical simulation. In the damage model, only elastic behavior is considered for
the composite material. In order to simulate the real deformation
of composite materials, plastic behavior should be taken into
account. In the study of Chen [30], a combined elastoplastic damage model was proposed to simulate the plastic deformations of
composite layers. Irreversible deformations are allowed in the
model which includes the yield criterion, plastic ow rule, hardening rule and the hardening law.

U1=U2=U3=0

5.2. Delamination characteristics

Fig. 9. Finite element model.

The nite element model of specimen A was presented in Fig. 9.

The model contains 48,000 continuum shell elements and 928
solid elements. Each layer contains 2400 elements with 3
Simpson integral points. The displacement of the edge was xed
along X, Y and Z directions. Initial velocity eld was dened on
the punch model. Ultrasonic C-Scan presented the delamination
area in the bottom 3 layers. Therefore, cohesive contact was introduced into the bottom 5 layers according to the efciency of
delamination modeling discussed in Section 4.1. Since

The delamination areas obtained through simulation were compared with the image acquired from C-Scan. In order to present the
delamination area more clearly, an image processing method
based on Matlab and Image Pro was adopted. The accurate correlation between experimental and numerical results tends to conrm
the relevance of the damage analysis model.
In the studies before, delamination was found along the ber
direction of the layer below the interface. This law was proved
once again by the results presented in Figs. 11 and 12. However,
it should be noticed that the delamination shapes are not the same
for interlayer 3|4 in specimen A and interlayer 4|5 in specimen B,
although the ber directions of the layers below the interfaces

296

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

Fig. 10. Time history curves of impact force.

Table 5
Dent depth of the impact point.
Specimen no.

A
B

Dent depth (mm)

Error

Experimental result

Numerical result

0.85
1.42

0.64
1.04

Based on the numerical and experimental results, delamination

shape was predicted for two adjacent layers with different ply
angles (see Table 6). The prediction process consists of three steps:

24.7%
26.8%

are both 0. This phenomenon indicated that the delamination

shape is affected by the ber direction of both layers close to the
interface.

a. Draw a line along the ber direction of the layer above,

noted by line A. Draw another line along the ber direction
of the layer below, noted by line B. The two lines intersect
at the impact point.
b. Make a projection from line B to line A, forming two
triangles.

Table 6
Prediction process of delamination shape.

Ply angle

0
45

Delamination predict

A
B

45
0

B
A
B

0
45

45
0

45
45

B
B

90
0

C-Scan result

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

297

Fig. 11. Delamination shapes of the bottom 3 interfaces in specimen A.

Fig. 12. Delamination shapes of the bottom 3 interfaces in specimen B.

c. Drag the two triangles along line B for a distance equals to

the radius of the punch.
The prediction process was easy to operate for the interface
with the mismatch ply angle of 45. As for the interfaces with
the mismatch ply angle of 90, the prediction process is a little different. Since the projection area is 0 when line A is perpendicular to
line B, we expand the projection area along line A forming two
isosceles triangles. The delamination shape for interface of
45|45 is validated by a specimen with the stacking sequence
of [45/45/0/45/90/45/0]S. The situation for 90|0 is validated
by the experimental result of Aymerich [31].

6. Conclusions
A delamination analysis process for composite laminates under
low-velocity impact was presented in this paper. A damage model
which considered both intra-laminar and inter-laminar damage
was proposed. Experimental analysis was carried out through drop
weight tests. Ultrasonic C-Scan technique was used to reveal the
delamination appeared in the interfaces.
Numerical models were built based on the damage model. The
efciency of delamination modeling was discussed. It can be concluded that when cohesive contact was introduced into an interface of a laminate structure, the delamination area of the top two
interfaces with cohesive contact are inaccurate. In order to obtain
a reliable delamination area, two more interfaces under the concerned one should be taken into account with cohesive contact.
Finite element models were also used to validate the damage
models. The accurate correlation between experimental and

numerical results tends to conrm the relevance of the damage

analysis model. Based on the results, the relationship of stacking
sequence and delamination damage was summarized. The damage
area was found to distribute centrosymmetrically around the
impact point while the shape is related to the ply angles of the layers close to the interface. The prediction was also validated by
experimental results of other researchers.
Future works will focus on the damage models. Since the dent
depth predicted by the damage model proposed in this paper
was inaccurate, plastic behavior should be taken into account in
the future. The stacking sequence of composite laminates studied
in this paper is limited to combinations of 0, 90 and 45. More
ply angles should be taken into account in the prediction of delamination area.
Acknowledgments
The nancial sponsorship and support from the Natural Science
Foundation of China (11472110, 11372113), the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (2014ZG0033), and
New Century Excellent Talents (NCET-13-0218). This paper is also
supported by the opening project of State Key Laboratory of
Explosion Science and Technology (Beijing Institute of
Technology) (KFJJ15-20M, KFJJ14-2M).
References
[1] Tita V, Carvalho J, Vandepitte D. Failure analysis of low velocity impact on thin
composite laminates: experimental and numerical approaches. J Compos
Struct 2008;83:41328.
[2] Schoeppner G, Abrate S. Delamination threshold loads for low velocity impact
on composite laminates. J Compos: Part A 2000;31:90315.

298

S. Long et al. / Composite Structures 132 (2015) 290298

[3] Sebaey T, Gonzalez E, Lopes C, Blanco N, Maimi P, Costa J. Damage resistance

and damage tolerance of dispersed CFRP laminates: effect of the mismatch
angle between plies. J Compos Struct 2013;101:25564.
[4] Lopes C, Seresta O, Coquet Y, Gurdal Z, Camanho P, Thuis B. Low-velocity
impact damage on dispersed stacking sequence laminates. Part I: Experiments.
J Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:92636.
[5] Lopes C, Camanho P, Gurdal Z, Maimi P, Gonzalez E. Low-velocity impact
damage on dispersed stacking sequence laminates. Part II: Numerical
simulations. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:93747.
[6] Hou J, Petrinic N, Ruiz C, Hallett S. Prediction of impact damage in composite
plates. J Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:27381.
[7] Joshi S, Sun C. Impact induced fracture in a laminated composite. J Compos
Mater 1985;19:5166.
[8] Kessler S, Spearing S, Soutis C. Damage detection in composite materials using
lamb wave methods. J Smart Mater Struct 2002;11:26978.
[9] Bruno F, Laurent J, Prada C, Benjamin L, Passilly B, Atlan M. Non-destructive
testing of composite plates by holographic vibrometry. J Appl Phys
2014;154503:14.
[10] Guo N, Cawley P. The interaction of Lamb waves with delaminations in
composite laminates. J Acoust Soc Am 1993;94:22406.
[11] Zhongqing S, Lin Y, Ye L. Guided Lamb waves for identication of damage in
composite structures: a review. J Sound Vib 2006;295:75380.
[12] Kaige Z, Mingji C, Qiuhai L, Bo W, Daining F. Debonding detection of
honeycomb sandwich structures using frequency response functions. J
Sound Vib 2014;333:5299311.
[13] Zou Y, Tong L, Steven G. Vibration-based model-dependent damage
(delamination) identication and health monitoring for composite
structures. J Sound Vib 2000;230:35778.
[14] Lahuerta F, Westphal T, Nijssen R, Meer F, Sluys L. Measuring the delamination
length in static and fatigue mode I tests using video image processing. J
Compos: Part B 2014;63:17.
[15] Jody W, Ian P. A hollow bre reinforced polymer composite encompassing selfhealing and enhanced damage visibility. J Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:17919.
[16] Zabala H, Aretxabaleta L, Castillo G, Urien J, Aurrekoetxea J. Impact velocity
effect on the delamination of woven carbon-epoxy plates subjected to lowvelocity equienergetic impact loads. J Compos Sci Technol 2014;94:4853.
[17] Hinton M, Kaddour A, Soden P. A comparison of the predictive capabilities of
current failure theories for composite laminates, judged against experimental
evidence. J Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:172597.

[18] Eijo A, Onate E, Oller S. Delamination in laminated plates using the 4-noded
quadrilateral QLRZ plate element based on the rened zigzag theory. J Compos
Struct 2014;108:45671.
[19] Moura M, Marques A. Prediction of low velocity impact damage in carbonepoxy laminates. J Compos: Part A 2002;33:3618.
[20] Yue L, Bernd Z, Mike S. Nonlinear progressive damage analysis of notched or
bolted bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates based on a three-dimensional
strain failure criterion. J Polym 2014;6:94976.
[21] Martinez X, Rastellini F, Oller S, Flores F, Onate E. Computationally optimized
formulation for the simulation of composite materials and delamination
failures. J Compos: Part B 2011;42:13444.
[22] Prez M, Martnez X, Oller S, Gil L, Rastellini F, Flores F. Impact damage
prediction in carbon ber-reinforced laminated composite using the matrixreinforced mixing theory. J Compos Struct 2013;104:23948.
[23] Zubillaga L, Turon A, Maimi P, Costa J, Mahdi S, Linde P. An energy based failure
criterion for matrix crack induced delamination in laminated composite
structures. J Compos Struct 2014;112:33944.
[24] Mi Y, Criseld M, Davies A. Progressive delamination using interface elements.
J Compos Mater 1998;32:1246.
[25] Camanho P, Davila C, Moura M. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode
progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater
2003;37:141538.
[26] Jalalvand M, Czel G, Wisnom M. Numerical modelling of the damage modes
in UD thin carbon/glass hybrid laminates. J Compos Sci Technol 2014;94:
3947.
[27] Xin S, Wen H. A progressive damage model for ber reinforced plastic
composites subjected to impact loading. J Impact Eng 2015;75:4052.
[28] Turon A, Davila C, Camanho P, Costa J. An engineering solution for mesh size
effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. J Eng
Fract Mech 2007;74:166582.
[29] Heimbs S, Bergmann T, Schueler D, Toso-Pentecote N. High velocity impact on
preloaded composite plates. J Compos Struct 2014;111:15868.
[30] Jing-Fen C, Evgeny V, Krishnakumar S. Simulating progressive failure of
composite laminates including in-ply and delamination damage effects. J
Compos: Part A 2014;61:185200.
[31] Aymerich F, Dore F, Priolo P. Prediction of impact-induced delamination in
cross-ply composite laminates using cohesive interface elements. J Compos Sci
Technol 2008;68:238390.