Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Low velocity impact of combination Kevlar/carbon fiber

sandwich composites
Jeremy Gustin, Aaran Joneson, Mohammad Mahinfalah *, James Stone
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105, USA

Available online 24 August 2004

Abstract

Impact, compression after impact, and tensile stiffness properties of carbon fiber and Kevlar combination sandwich composites
were investigated in this study. The different samples consisted of impact-side facesheets having different combinations of carbon
fiber/Kevlar and carbon fiber/hybrid. The bottom facesheets remained entirely carbon fiber to maintain the high overall flexural stiff-
ness of the sandwich composite. The focus of this research was to determine if any improvement in impact properties existed as a
result of replacing the impact-side facesheet layers of carbon fiber with Kevlar or hybrid. Impact tests were conducted on different
sample types to obtain information about absorbed energy and maximum impact force. Also, compression after impact tests were
conducted to determine the reduction in compressive strength when comparing impacted to non-impacted samples. The elastic mod-
uli of carbon fiber, Kevlar, and hybrid were determined from tensile testing. This data was used to characterize the reduction in
stiffness from replacing carbon fiber layers with the Kevlar or hybrid layers. The experimental data in its entirety helps define
the benefits and disadvantages of replacing carbon fiber layers with Kevlar or hybrid.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sandwich composite; Hybrid; Carbon fiber; Kevlar; Low velocity impact

1. Introduction pact loading [5–10]. This is an important concern since

Sandwich composites have become increasingly pop-
ular for applications including aerospace, marine/off-
shore industries, and ground transportation [1,2]. They
are favored for their high specific strength and stiffness,
corrosion resistance, tailorability, and stability [3].
Sandwich composites are very suitable for lightweight
structures requiring high in-plane and flexural stiffness
[4]. However, applications prone to impact are limited
because of a relatively poor resistance to localized im-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 231 8839; fax: +1 701 231
8913.
E-mail addresses: jeremy.gustin@ndsu.nodak.edu (J. Gustin),
aaran.joneson@ndsu.nodak.edu (A. Joneson), m.mahinfalah@ndsu.
nodak.edu (M. Mahinfalah), james.stone@ndsu.nodak.edu (J. Stone).
a reduction in stiffness and residual strength occurs after
impact.
Carbon fiber reinforced, epoxy matrix composites
have emerged as a very promising class of structural
materials with high static strength and stiffness proper-
ties [11]. The core, which is typically a low strength,
lightweight material, is responsible for transmitting
shear forces between the facesheets [12]. A vital element
of the sandwich construction is the effective bond be-
tween the facesheets and the core material. The joint
must be stiff and strong, as well as tough in order to
allow the sandwich structure to sustain high loads over
a long service life [13].
Kevlar was added to the impact-side facesheet in an
attempt to improve upon the impact properties. Kevlar
composites have been extensively utilized as lightweight
armor structures in applications ranging from military
helmets to large scale vehicle systems such as aircraft,

0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.07.020
 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406
spacecraft, land vehicles, and naval vessels [14,15]. Rein-
forcement of composites with Kevlar fibers can signifi-
cantly improve the impact damage tolerance if used in
place of or in conjunction with graphite fibers [16–18].
Bunsell and Harris [19] suggested that once the failure
strain of the brittle layers (carbon fiber) is reached in
an interlaminar hybrid, the load can be transferred to
the ductile layers (Kevlar) if bonding between the lami-
nates is sufficient.
In this study, sandwich composite plates with differ-
ent combinations of Kevlar/carbon fiber and hybrid/car-
bon fiber impact-side facesheets were subjected to low
velocity impacts at energies ranging from 5 J to those
that caused complete sample penetration. On the im-
pact-side facesheet, the very top 1, 2, 3, or 4 layers of
carbon fiber were replaced with Kevlar or hybrid. Low
energy impacts were considered since even in the ab-
sence of fiber breakage, the laminate mechanical per-
formance can be drastically affected [6,20]. These
experimental impact tests are necessary to determine im-
pact force and energy performance. Current sandwich
composite impact theory does not consider impact ener-
gies that result in facesheet cracking, which is very com-
mon. For impacts without facesheet cracking, Hoo Fatt
and Parks [3,21] used equivalent single and multi degree-
of-freedom systems to predict low velocity impact re-
sponse and damage initiation impact forces.
Compression tests were conducted to determine the
remaining compressive strength after impact. In-plane
compression is the critical load for impact-damaged
specimens, since strength reductions are the largest
under this type of loading [22]. The type of compression
after impact failure depends on the impact damage. Da-
vies et al. [23] discussed the correlation between three
types of impact damage and the resulting compression
after impact failure. For an impact resulting in a perma-
nent indent to the facesheet, compressive loads can in-
crease local bending and push the skin further into the
core causing failure. For impacts that cause internal
delamination, compressive loads may cause localized
buckling where the skin is not supported by the foam.
For impacts where the top facesheet and core are pene-
trated, the bottom facesheet may experience massive
debonding. The combination of the bottom facesheet
debonding and penetration of the top facesheet would
significantly limit the compressive strength. Compressive
failure would likely occur as a result of top facesheet
cracking from stress concentrations and/or bottom face-
sheet buckling.
Tensile tests were performed to characterize how the
addition of Kevlar or hybrid to the impact-side face-
sheet would decrease the stiffness compared to face-
sheets with only carbon fiber. Understanding how the
stiffness is affected is necessary in determining potential
applications for sandwich composites incorporating car-
bon fiber with Kevlar or hybrid.
397
2. Sample construction
A hand-layup method shown in Fig. 1 was used to
construct the samples. The major components required
for this method are a vacuum pump, vacuum bagging,
spiral tubing, and sealant tape. The spiral tubing en-
sured a uniform vacuum across the sample and pre-
vented epoxy from pooling on the sample side with
less vacuum. This would have occurred on the side with-
out spiral tubing. If epoxy pooling occurs, the facesheet
thickness is not uniform. The facesheet would be the
thickest on the sample side without the spiral tubing.
The core of the sandwich composite consisted of poly-
urethane foam filled honeycomb. The honeycomb struc-
ture was constructed out of kraft paper. The foam filled
honeycomb sheets, purchased from MGI, had the prop-
erties indicated in Table 1. The carbon fiber, Kevlar, and
hybrid fabric properties are listed in Table 2. The epoxy
consisted of F-82 resin and TP-41 hardener, which was
allowed to cure under a 600 mm Hg vacuum for a min-
imum of 9 h. The cured properties of the epoxy, pur-
chased from Eastpointe Fiberglass, are listed in Table 3.
The hand-layup method provided high quality sam-
ples with minimal defects. To create the foam filled core
samples, a layer of epoxy was applied before each layer
of fabric was placed. Special care was taken to insure the
correct amount of epoxy was used in addition to being
evenly spread out. After the four layers were placed,
the vacuum bagging was carefully spread over the sam-
ple ensuring no wrinkles would form when the vacuum
was applied. Any wrinkles that form on the vacuum
bagging will affect the surface finish of the sample. A
Fig. 1. Sample construction setup.
Table 1
Properties of MGI Canada MIKOR honeycomb sheets
Density 112 kg/m3
Compressive strength 2.02 MPa
Cell size 12.7 mm
Shear strength ? to ribbon 1.65 MPa
Cell thickness 0.3175 mm
Honeycomb thickness 25.4 mm
398 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406

Table 2
Fabric properties
Carbon fiber Kevlar 49 Hybrid (3K carbon fiber/1500 Denier Kevlar)
Yarn type 3K
Weave type Plain 4 HS 2 · 2 Twill
Area density 193 g/m2 169 g/m2 183 g/m2
Thickness 0.3048 mm 0.254 mm 0.305 mm
Count (rows/tows per inch) 12.5 · 12.5 17 · 17 12.5 · 12.5

Table 3 sample types. The abbreviations for the sample types

Properties of Eastpointe Fiberglass epoxy shown in this table are used throughout the paper.
Density 1084 kg/m3
Compressive strength 131 MPa
Tensile strength 63.6 MPa 3. Test method
Cure time 9–12 h
Cure temperature 23.9 C
An Instron Dynatup drop tower, Model 9250HV,
was used for impact testing. This machine is capable
of impacting samples at energies of up to 826 J utilizing
Table 4
Properties of hybrid carbon fiber/Kevlar a spring-assist. For this study, all samples were impacted
with a 7.25 kg drop weight. Since the drop weight was
Abb. Sample type Weight (g)
not changed, the different impact energies were achieved
CF 4 carbon fiber layers 60.8
by adjusting the drop height. A pneumatic clamping fix-
1K 1 Kevlar–3 carbon fiber layers 59.7
2K 2 Kevlar–2 carbon fiber layers 60.5 ture, with a 76.2 mm (3 in) diameter opening, secured
3K 3 Kevlar–1 carbon fiber layers 59.8 each sample during impact. The air pressure was set to
4K 4 Kevlar layers 58.4 0.4 MPa, which was well below the 2.02 MPa compres-
1H 1 hybrid–3 carbon fiber layers 59.4 sive strength of the foam filled honeycomb core. The
2H 2 hybrid–2 carbon fiber layers 60.1
samples were impacted with a 12.7 mm (0.5 in) diameter
3H 3 hybrid–1 carbon fiber layers 59.7
4H 4 hybrid layers 59.3 striker with a hemispherical tip, constructed out of high
strength steel. Impulse software was used to display and
store the impact data.
rubber squeegee was used to remove the extra epoxy and The compression and tensile tests were conducted
trapped air. using a 50 kip MTS fatigue test system. The compres-
As shown in Table 2, the addition of Kevlar and hy- sion testing fixture was designed similar to a Boeing
brid to the facesheets actually reduced the overall weight Model CU-CI fixture [24]. This fixture is specifically de-
of the sandwich composite compared to the entirely car- signed with side supports to prevent buckling during
bon fiber samples. The Kevlar and hybrid fabrics had a compression testing. For this study, the side supports
lower areal densities compared to the carbon fiber. The were used for all compression tests.
different combinations of 100 mm · 100 mm samples
used in this study are listed in Table 4 with their corre-
sponding weights. The sample type abbreviations corre- 4. Low velocity impact results
spond to the impact-side facesheet information. The
very top layers of the impact-side facesheet were re- For the entire set of samples tested, partial/total face-
placed with either Kevlar (1K–4K) or hybrid (1H–4H). sheet penetration occurred for the 5–10 J impacts, total
Fig. 2 illustrates how Kevlar was added to the impact- facesheet and partial core penetration for the 15 J im-
side facesheet for the 2K sample type. The bottom face- pacts, and partial/total bottom facesheet penetration
sheets remained four layers of carbon fiber for all the for the 20–45 J impacts. In general, the initial force–time

Fig. 2. Illustration of facesheets and core for the 2K sample type.

 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406
Fig. 3. 25 J Impact damage of CF sample (a) rear damage-honeycomb structure not impacted, (b) rear damage-honeycomb structure impacted and
(c) front impact damage.
spike resulted from the top facesheet impact response,
the following drop and slow increase resulted from the
foam core crushing, and the final force–time spike re-
sulted from the bottom facesheet impact response.
Some deviation in the force–time results occurred be-
cause of the non-homogeneous nature of the foam filled
honeycomb core. For some samples, the striker directly
impacted the honeycomb structure after penetration of
the top facesheet. The additional support for the top
facesheet resulted in higher forces and more absorbed
energy compared to when the striker missed the honey-
comb structure. In addition, the bottom facesheet dam-
age varied depending on whether the honeycomb
structure was impacted, as can be seen by comparing
the two 25 J impacts shown in Fig. 3a and b. When
the honeycomb structure was impacted, the loading
was more distributed over the bottom facesheet and
higher forces were required to create delamination and
a larger cracking diameter. The low density of the core
was the main reason that the honeycomb structure had
such a significant effect on impact response. Lower
forces were required to shear the facesheet when there
was little support from the honeycomb structure. A
higher density core would have likely reduced these ef-
fects. The top facesheet cracking diameter (Fig. 3c) did
not show any significant change regarding the amount
of honeycomb structure impacted.
The force–time curves shown in the Appendix Achar-
acterized how the maximum forces changed when Kev-
Table 5
Average maximum force data
Sample type Average maximum force (kN)/
percentage increase over CF (5–15 J)
CF 1.26
1K 1.41
2K 1.37
3K 1.35
4K 1.35
1H 1.27
2H 1.49
3H 1.44
4H 1.72
399
lar or hybrid were added to the facesheet. For each
sample type, the force–time curves were split into two
impact energy groupings: those that did not penetrate
the bottom facesheet (5–15 J) and those that did (20–
45 J). As shown in Table 5, the average maximum forces
for the Kevlar samples (1K–4K) showed significant
improvement over the CF samples. The hybrid samples
(2H–4H) showed an even more dramatic improvement.
The 1H samples were comparable to the CF samples.
The maximum forces developed for the top facesheet
varied when considering the carbon fiber, Kevlar, and
hybrid sample types. The difference in maximum forces
was likely a result of the different failure modes. Each
sample type had different tensile and shear properties.
The CF samples had high tensile strength, but lacked
the shear strength needed to achieve the impact per-
formance of the Kevlar and hybrid samples. The hybrid
samples experienced the highest maximum forces, which
was likely a result of the combination of high tensile and
shear properties. The facesheet penetration damage,
shown in Fig. 4, illustrates the shear and tensile failure
modes for the different sample types. The carbon fiber
samples clearly experienced shear failure, which resulted
in cracking that corresponded to the diameter of the stri-
ker. The Kevlar sample had a tensile failure mode,
which is shown by the bending at the striker perimeter
and tearing at the center of impact. The impact damage
to the top facesheet of the hybrid showed the failure
characteristics of both the CF and 4K samples. The
Average maximum force (kN)/percentage
increase over CF (20–45 J)
1.33
11.9% 1.48 11.3%
8.7% 1.45 9.0%
7.1% 1.44 8.3%
7.1% 1.43 7.5%
0.9% 1.32 0.8%
18.2% 1.63 22.5%
14.3% 1.46 9.7%
36.5% 1.67 25.6%
400 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406

Fig. 4. 15 J impact damage to (a) CF, (b) 4K, and (c) 4H.

carbon fiber filaments experienced shear failure/cracking Table 6

and the Kevlar filaments tensile failure/tearing. Average absorbed energy of 35–45 J impact energies
Sample type Average absorbed energy (J)
CF 31
5. Absorbed––impact energy 1K 34.9
2K 33.2
3K 34.5
The addition of Kevlar and hybrid to layers 1, 2, 3, 4K 33.5
and 4 of the top facesheet resulted in higher absorbed 1H 32.4
energies compared to the CF samples as can be seen in 2H 31.9
Figs. 5 and 6. All of the sample types were able to ab- 3H 33.1
4H 32.8

sorb impact energies up to 30 J. However, after 30 J

Fig. 5. Absorbed vs. impact energy for CF all Kevlar sample types.
the impact performance for the different sample types
varied. This performance can be seen in Table 6, which
lists the average absorbed energies of the 35–45 J
impacts. These impacts resulted in complete sample
penetration.
No significant difference in impact performance was
seen when considering the entire set of Kevlar samples,
which consist of replacing layers 1–4 of the top face-
sheet as shown in Table 6. The additional layers of
Kevlar were not required to achieve the improved im-
pact performance. In fact, the 1K samples had the
highest overall absorbed energy, reaching 36 J. This
represents a 14% increase over the 31.5 J reached by
the CF samples.
Just like the Kevlar samples, only minor improve-
ments were seen after adding the first layer of hybrid.
This impact data validates the benefits of replacing only
one layer of CF with Kevlar or hybrid. The Kevlar or
hybrid layer provides additional protection against im-
pact, while the remaining CF layers maintain the high
stiffness of the sandwich composite.

6. Compression test results

The maximum compressive stress resulting in failure

for the different sample types is shown in Figs. 7 and
Fig. 6. Absorbed vs. impact energy for CF and all hybrid sample 8. The compression data is the average of two tests con-
types. ducted at each impact energy. The non-impacted CF
 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406 401

Fig. 9. (a) Facesheet crushing during compression testing damage of

2H non-impacted sample and (b) Facesheet cracking from buckling
during compression testing of 2H 30 J sample.

Fig. 7. Maximum compressive stress vs. impact energy.

Fig. 8. Maximum compressive stress vs. impact energy.
sample had the highest compressive strength at 15.1
MPa. This was approximately 11.5% and 8.6% higher
than the average of the non-impacted Kevlar and hybrid
samples, respectively. Although the general trend was
decreased compressive strength with increased impact
energy, some variation was observed. When delamina-
tion occurred to the bottom facesheet, the maximum
compressive strength was greatly reduced. During test-
ing, the delamination that occurred during the impact
quickly spread and caused the bottom facesheet to
buckle. If a higher density, stronger core were used,
the facesheet buckling would have likely occurred at
much higher compressive loads.
The impact damage consisted of either facesheet
crushing, cracking, or delamination. As can be seen,
the samples followed a trend of decreasing compressive
strength as impact energy increased. The facesheet
crushing occurred on samples with minimal or no initial
impact damage shown in Fig. 9a. The facesheet cracking
occurred from the impact hole across the sample, per-
pendicular to the compressive load, as can be seen in
Fig. 9b. A combination of facesheet cracking and face-
sheet delamination occurred on some of samples im-
pacted at high energies. This likely occurred as a result
of the striker partially or totally penetrating the bottom
facesheet. During these impacts, the bottom facesheet
experienced both cracking and delamination, which in-
creased once the compressive load was applied.
The non-impacted compressive strength, the average
compressive strength for 35–45 J impacts, and the per-
cent decrease in compressive strength when comparing
impacted to non-impacted samples can be seen in Table
7. Some deviation occurred when considering the non-
impacted samples. The deviation between the different

Table 7
Compression testing data
Sample type Impacted
Non-impacted Compression strength (MPa) % Decrease
Compression strength (MPa) 35–45 J (Average) Non-impacted-impacted
CF 15.1 6.5 57
1K 13.2 6.0 55
2K 13.7 6.3 54
3K 12.4 7.0 44
4K 14.8 7.7 48
1H 13.1 8.3 37
2H 13.9 8.0 42
3H 13.6 7.9 42
4H 15.0 6.7 55
402 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406
Table 8
Elastic moduli for the different sample types
Facesheet E1 (GPa)
Carbon fiber 52
Kevlar 31
Hybrid (Kevlar E2 direction) 45
1K 47.4
2K 42.5
3K 37
4K 31
1H 50.25
2H 48.5
3H 46.75
4H 45
sample types can likely be attributed to irregularities be-
tween the facesheet/core bond and also the sporadic nat-
ure of facesheet crushing/cracking. In addition, when the
carbon fiber layers were replaced by 2–4 layers of the
Kevlar in the facesheet, loading eccentricities might have
occurred. Considering the overall compressive strength
data, the addition of Kevlar or hybrid to the facesheet
did not seem to alter the compressive strength signifi-
cantly. In fact, considering all the data, 1K–4K and
1H–4H, the non-impacted compressive strength aver-
aged less than a 9% drop compared to the CF samples.
A noticeable difference between the different sample
types was the percent decrease in compressive strength
when comparing impacted to non-impacted samples.
The better impact performance of the Kevlar and hybrid
samples seemed to lessen the decrease in compressive
strength when compared to the CF samples.
7. Modulus of elasticity
The modulus of elasticity for the carbon fiber, Kev-
lar, and hybrid were determined to characterize how
the addition of Kevlar reduced the tensile stiffness.
ASTM standard D3039 was followed for determining
the elastic moduli [25]. Table 8 lists the E1 and E2 values
for the different sample types. The rule of mixtures was
applied to determine how E1 and E2 of the facesheet
changed when layers of carbon fiber were replaced with
Kevlar or hybrid [26].
8. Conclusion
Carbon fiber sandwich composites have relatively low
impact properties. In an attempt to improve upon the im-
pact properties while maintaining the high stiffness, light-
weight nature of the carbon fiber, Kevlar or hybrid were
added to the facesheet. The impact and compression after
impact data characterized how adding Kevlar or hybrid
to the facesheet improved the sandwich composite per-
formance during and after impact. The elastic moduli
data helped characterize the loss in stiffness resulting
from the addition of Kevlar or hybrid to the facesheet.
E2 (GPa) The following conclusions were drawn from this study:
52
31 1. The addition of Kevlar to the facesheet improved the
26 maximum absorbed energy and average maximum
47.4
42.5
impact force of the 1K–4K samples by approximately
37 10% compared to the CF samples.
31 2. The addition of hybrid to the facesheet improved the
45.5 maximum absorbed energy of the 1K–4K samples by
39 approximately 5% and the average maximum impact
32.5
26
force by approximately 14% compared to the CF
samples.
3. The addition of Kevlar or hybrid minimized the
reduction in compression after impact strength when
considering non-impacted samples and those that
experienced complete striker penetration. However,
the compression strength of the non-impacted sam-
ples was the highest for the CF samples.
4. The elastic moduli, E1 and E2, were reduced when
Kevlar or hybrid were added to the facesheet. How-
ever, the reduction can be minimized to around 9%
by replacing only one layer of carbon fiber with Kev-
lar or hybrid.
5. The advantages and disadvantages of using 1K sam-
ples over CF are:
Advantage
(a) 12.5% higher average absorbed energy (35–45 J),
(b) 11.9% higher average maximum force.
Disadvantage
(c) 12.7% lower non-impacted compressive strength,
(d) reduction in stiffness (9% decrease in E1 and E2).
6. The advantages and disadvantages of using 1H sam-
ples over CF are:
Advantage
(a) 4.5% higher average absorbed energy (35–45 J).
Disadvantage
(b) 13% lower non-impacted compressive strength,
(c) properties are not orthotropic,
(d) reduction in stiffness (3.3% decrease in E1 and
12.5% decrease in E2).
Acknowledgements
The National Science Foundation, under Grant
0082832, and the NASA Space Grant Fellowship Pro-
gram provided funding for this research. Their support
is greatly appreciated.
Appendix A
4 layers carbon fiber (CF): Fig. A.1.
3 layers carbon fiber 1 layer Kevlar (1K): Fig. A.2.
2 layers carbon fiber 2 layers Kevlar (2K): Fig. A.3.
 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406 403

Fig. A.1. Force vs. time response for CF: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.2. Force vs. time response for 1K: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.3. Force vs. time response for 2K: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

3 layers carbon fiber 1 layer Kevlar (3K): Fig. A.4. 2 layers carbon fiber 2 layers hybrid (2H): Fig. A.7.
4 layers Kevlar (4K): Fig. A.5. 1 layer carbon fiber 3 layers hybrid (3H): Fig. A.8.
3 layers carbon fiber 1 layer hybrid (1H): Fig. A.6. 4 layer hybrid (4H): Fig. A.9.
404 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406

Fig. A.4. Force vs. time response for 3K: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.5. Force vs. time response for 4K: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.6. Force vs. time response for 1H: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.
 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406 405

Fig. A.7. Force vs. time response for 2H: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.8. Force vs. time response for 3H: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

Fig. A.9. Force vs. time response for 4H: (a) 5–15 J; (b) 20–45 J.

References
[1] Ferri R, Sankar BV. Static indentation and low velocity impact
test on sandwich plates. In: Proceedings of the ASME Aerospace
Division, vol. 55, 1997. p. 485–90.
[2] Carlsson LA, Sendlein LS, Merry SL. Characterization of face
sheet/core shear fracture of composite sandwich beams. J Compos
Mater 1991;25:101–16.
[3] Hoo Fatt M, Park K. Dynamic models for low-velocity impact
damage of composite sandwich panels––Part A: deformation.
Compos Struct 2001;52:235–51.
[4] Daniel IM, Jandro LA. Fabrication, testing and analysis of
composite sandwich beams. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:
2455–63.
[5] Zee R, Hsieh C. Energy absorption process in fibrous composites.
Mater Sci Eng A 1998;246:161–8.
406 J. Gustin et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 396–406
[6] Anderson T, Madenci E. Experimental investigation of low-
velocity impact characteristics of sandwich composites. Compos
Struct 2000;50:239–47.
[7] Hazizan MA, Cantwell WJ. The low velocity impact response of
foam-based sandwich structures. Compos Part B: Eng 2002;33:
193–204.
[8] Williamson JE, Lagace PA. Response mechanisms in the impact
of graphite/epoxy honeycomb sandwich panels. American Society
for Composites: Technical Conference 1993. p. 287–97.
[9] Wardle MW, Tokarsky EW. Drop weight impact testing of
laminates reinforced with Kevlar aramid fibers, e-glass, and
graphite. Compos Technol Rev 1983:4–10.
[10] Mahinfalah M, Skordahl RA. The effects of hail damage on the
fatigue strength of a graphite/epoxy composite laminate. Compos
Struct 1998:101–6.
[11] Adams DF, Miller AK. An analysis of the impact behavior of
hybrid composite materials. Mater Sci Eng 1975:245–60.
[12] Nemes JA, Simmonds KE. Low velocity impact response of foam
core sandwich composites. J Compos Mater 1992;26:500–19.
[13] Burton WS, Noor AK. Structural analysis of the adhesive bond in
a honeycomb core sandwich panel. Finite Elem Anal Des
1997;26:213–27.
[14] Waters W, Scott B. High velocity penetration of a Kevlar
reinforced laminate. In: 22nd International SAMPE Technical
Conference, Covina, California, 6–8 November, 1990. p. 1078–91.
[15] Nolet SC, Sandusky PM. Impact resistant hybrid composite for
aircraft leading edges. SAMPE Quarterly 1986;17:46–53.
[16] Wardle MW. Impact damage tolerance of composites reinforced
with Kevlar aramid fibers. Jpn Soc Compos Mater 1982:837–44.
[17] Dorey G, Sidey GR, Hutchings J. Impact properties of carbon
fibre/Kevlar 49 fibre hybrid composites. Composites 1978;9:25–32.
[18] Jang BZ, Chen LC, Wang CZ, Lin HT, Zee RH. Impact resistance
and energy absorption mechanisms in hybrid composites. Compos
Sci Technol 1989;34:443–61.
[19] Bunsell A, Harris B. Hybrid carbon and glass fiber composites.
Composites 1974;5:157–64.
[20] Lee SM, Zahuta P. Instrumented impact and static indentation of
composites. J Compos Mater 1991;25:204–22.
[21] Hoo Fatt MS, Park KS. Dynamic models for low velocity impact
damage of composite sandwich panels––Part B: damage initiation.
Compos Struct 2001;52:353–64.
[22] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl
Mech Rev, ASME Int 1994;47:517–44.
[23] Davies GAO, Hitchings D, Besant T, Clarke A, Morgan C.
Compression after impact strength of composite sandwich panels.
Compos Struct 2004;63:1–9.
[24] Boeing compression after impact test fixture. Wyoming Test
Fixture Inc. < http://www.wyomingtestfixtures.com/Products/
page26-27.htm >.
[25] Standard test methods for flatwise compressive strength of
sandwich cores. ASTM Standards and Literature References for
Composite Materials 1990.
[26] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates. New
York: CRC Press; 1997.