Investigation of the behaviour of a chopped strand mat/woven roving/

foam-Klegecell composite lamination structure during Charpy testing

A.M.T. Arin
a,b
, S. Abdullah
a,
, Md. Raquzzaman
a
, R. Zulkii
a
, D.A. Wahab
a
, A.K. Arin
a
a
Dept. of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Dept. of Materials and Design Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 November 2013
Accepted 3 March 2014
Available online 21 March 2014
Keywords:
Charpy
Chopped strand mat
Failure
Polymer matrix composite
Woven roving
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the investigation of the characteristic behaviour of polymer matrix composites under
Charpy impact conditions with different design congurations of the laminate structure. The aim of this
study was to evaluate the capability of different lamination designs for composite materials, in term of
contact load, energy absorption, deection and damage behaviour. In this study, laminated panels were
fabricated using chopped strand mat (CSM), woven roving fabric (WR) and foam-PVC Klegecell as rein-
forcement with a combination of epoxy or polyester resin, respectively. Structural panels of composite
laminates were produced using a hand lay-up technique. Each conguration design was impact tested
to failure. Finite element analyses (FEA) were employed in this study to correlate the experimental value
of energy absorption with simulation results. The characteristics of different reinforcement types, matrix
type, hybrid type, architecture and orientation type were studied. These characteristics need to be con-
sidered, due to their affecting the characteristic behaviour of the composite lamination structures. Based
on the results, it was found that differences in conguration design of the lamination structure of the
polymer matrix composites do inuence the strength and weakness of the materials.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Polymer matrix composites are one of the three main groups in
common man-made composites, with the others being metal ma-
trix composites and ceramic matrix composites. Polymer matrix
composites, normally known as composite materials, consist of
two or more materials that are combined to produce new materials
and to have better properties. Today, among existing materials,
composites are among the best materials, due to their advantages,
such as high strength and stiffness, low density (lightweight),
resistance to corrosion, good electrical properties and ease of man-
ufacturing. Composites have increasingly been used in various
applications, for instance in automotive industries, maritime
industries, aviation, equipment for sport, shing and architecture
structures. There are two classied groups of composite materials:
matrix and reinforcement [1]. As a core component, reinforcement
provides strength and is stronger than a matrix. Meanwhile, a ma-
trix is a material that is used to keep the bre (reinforcement) ori-
entation and to provide protection from ambient conditions. It is
important to study impact phenomena in composite materials
while keeping in mind that different materials are used and that
the structures are unique and usually in a laminated form. Most
of the applications that use composite materials are exposed to im-
pact conditions. Examples include marine and aerospace vehicles
and ballistic protection in the defense industry. Therefore, it is
important to study the behaviour of composite materials that are
subjected to impact conditions. Most of the previous work on im-
pact behaviour of composite materials involved evaluating the im-
pact response during experimental failure testing of composite
materials, and studying the effect of the material used and of
improvements in the composite structure.
Due to the low velocity of impact in the Charpy test, the results
are strongly dependent on conguration, bre type, matrix type
(resin), thickness of the sample, loading velocity and type of pro-
jectile. Furthermore, low velocity impact on composite materials
is very important to investigate because internal fracture can de-
crease the effectiveness of materials, without any obvious damage
at the impacted surface [2]. For this reason, as reported by Evci and
Gulgec [3], the researcher still has considerable work to under-
stand the exact relationship between impact force and damage
mechanism. In other words, damage initiation and propagation
are dependent on both impact properties and the materials re-
sponse. The impact properties include impact force, velocity and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.005
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 89118411; fax: +60 3 89259659.

E-mail addresses: mubarak@eng.ukm.my (A.M.T. Arin), shahrum@eng.ukm.my
(S. Abdullah), raqbitr@yahoo.com (Md. Raquzzaman), rozli@eng.ukm.my
(R. Zulkii), dzuraida@eng.ukm.my (D.A. Wahab), kamal@eng.ukm.my (A.K. Arin).
Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials and Design
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ mat des
energy, and the materials impact response depends on material
strength, deection of force, duration of impact and energy dissipa-
tion [4]. The impactor of the Charpy test also inuences the dam-
age characteristics of the sample in a manner related to the
design and mass of the impactor [5].
Ghasemnejab et al. [6] mention that the natural characteristic of
composite materials is to be brittle. Therefore, the energy absorp-
tion under impact is linked to other mechanisms, such as bre
breakage, matrix cracks, debonding of brematrix interface and
delamination of plies. In composite material structures, if delami-
nation of plies occurs between each layer, this means that a pro-
gressive failure mode has occurred, and the composite shows a
capability for energy absorption. According to Sohn and Hu [7],
in their investigation of delamination mechanisms and energy dis-
sipation of carbon bre epoxy composites, the failure mode was
separated between mode-I and mode-II delamination when the
composites were tested in two extreme conditions. Shyr and Pan
[8] found that the rst layer in composite lamination is a key
parameter for dissipation of energy in the structure, as reported
in his study of impact behaviour and damage characteristics in dif-
ferent fabric structures with various laminate thicknesses. Chan
et al. [9] identied that the efciency works to improve energy
absorption in composite lamination structures through the thick-
ness direction and can indirectly control delamination of the struc-
tures. Ulven and Vaidya [10] noted that the impact response in
polymer matrix composite laminates can be divided into three
stages: damage initiation, penetration and total perforation. They
also mentioned that the contact response of the PMC and sandwich
types under impact conditions is different because of sandwich
structures having a core material that signicantly increases the
rigidity of the composite.
Hristov et al. [11] investigated the impact behaviour of modied
polypropylene/wood bre composites, and found that the behav-
iour of composite materials is different, due to differences in mate-
rial used, even for a small modication of the material content. Fu
et al. [12] investigated the fracture resistance of short-glass-bre
reinforced and short-carbon bre reinforced composites, and re-
ported that the impact energy of composite materials depends on
the bre length. In optical systems, Zang and Zhang [13] identied
that the bre length are strongly affect the width of the hysteresis
loop and threshold switching power, whereby the polymer matrix
composites has also been employed in the bre grating to improve
the operation of optical switching. In the eld of carbon bre rein-
forced composites, Choi and Chang [14] mentioned impact failure
of the structure from matrix cracking, and this can trigger delam-
ination at others ply interfaces before fracture. Kwon and Wojcik
[15] found that the failure load of the composite material increases
with a presence of small lamination cracks compared with non-
delaminated structures. Pegoretti et al. [16] analysed the fracture
behaviour in an epoxy carbon laminate system using a correlation
of interlaminar fracture toughness and impact energy absorption.
Erkendirci [17] concluded in his work using plain weave S-2
glass/HDPE thermoplastic composite that impact energy of the
composite structure increases upon increasing the thickness and
volume fraction of the composite.
Available literature indicates that the characteristics of compos-
ite materials in terms of Charpy impact behaviour have been inves-
tigated by a large number of researchers [216]. However,
numerical analysis combined with experimental investigation on
Charpy impact behaviour with different design congurations
has not received much attention. Therefore, the aim of this study
is to fabricate chopped strand mat/woven roving/foam-Klegecell
composite lamination structures with different design congura-
tions, and investigate the behaviour of these composites both
experimentally and numerically. It is believed that knowledge on
the Charpy impact behaviour of these composites would have an
essential role for many structural applications, such as marine boat
structures. Laminated panels are fabricated using CSM, WR and
foam-PVC Klegecell with a combination of epoxy or polyester resin
for reinforcement. In this study, six groups of design congurations
are used, Types-AF. Structural panels of the composite laminates
are produced using a hand lay-up technique. Each conguration
design is impact tested to failure. Finite element analysis (FEA) is
then employed to correlate the experimental values of energy
absorption with the simulation results.
Due to the brittle behaviour, which is one of the weaknesses of
composite materials, this investigation has been carried out. This
disadvantage causes problems for composite structures that expe-
rience collision. The expected outcome from this study was to eval-
uate the behaviour of different lamination structures under various
Charpy impact conditions, particularly in terms of load, energy
absorption and deection behaviour with respect to the use of dif-
ferent materials. Hence, it is important to identify resistance to
failure of composite materials with different design congurations,
especially at sudden applied loads.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Charpy testing
The Charpy impact test is commonly used to evaluate the im-
pact energy and toughness of materials, and usually used in quality
control processes, whereby it is one of the economical tests [18].
Impact energy is dened as the energy that required to fracture a
standard test specimen under impact loading. In the Charpy impact
test, the energy absorption of the specimen is determined from the
change in the height of a pendulum before and after the impact
[19]. When the pendulum strikes the specimen, the specimen
absorbes the energy until it yields and it begins to undergo plastic
deformation. As reported by Nita et al. [18], at that condition, the
specimen continues to absorb the energy. Fracture occurs at the
point when it can no longer absorb any more energy.
According to Ali et al. [19] the impact velocity of the pendulum
when it strikes at the specimen is given by the Eq. (1), respectively.
v

2gH
1
p
1
where g is the acceleration due to gravity and H is the change of ele-
vation in the centre of the strike. The energy absorbed when the
specimen is fractured, which is energy lost by the pendulum is gi-
ven by, as shown in Eq. (2).
U mgh
1
h
3
mgrcos b cos a 2
where m is the mass of the pendulum, and h
1
and h
2
are elevations
of the mass centre, as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
3.1. Materials
CSM 450, woven roving WR 300 and foam-Klegecell were used
as received from the supplier as reinforcement. The matrix was
epoxy resin (ADR 246 TX) cured with Hardener ADH 160 and poly-
ester resin (Polymal VE-P310P) with Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide
(MEPOXE) supplied by a local supplier. The hardener was used as a
curing agent and to improve the interfacial adhesion and impact
strength of the composites. The materials used in this investigation
are based on the same material used in a Malaysian-based marine
boat [20]. To obtain the optimum matrix composition, a resin and
hardener mixture of 5:1 was used. The properties of each material
employed in the investigation are shown in Table 1, and a ow-
chart of the experimental and FEA procedure is shown in Fig. 2.
476 A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
3.2. Specimen fabrication
Polymer matrix composites were fabricated using a hand lay-up
technique. In this study, each specimen has a different congura-
tion of the lamination structure, consisting of chopped strand
mat (CSM 450), woven roving fabric (WR 300) and foam-Klegecell.
During the fabrication process, the pattern of CSM 450, WR 300 or
foam-Klegecell was separately impregnated with epoxy or polyes-
ter resin depending on the conguration of the structure. After the
material was laid down at the mould, a controlled quantity of resin
was applied to the surface of the material. Brush or spiral rollers
were used to remove any voids in the bre structure and to spread
the resin evenly throughout the bres. The process was repeated
until the required conguration was built up. After that, the com-
posite laminate specimen was cured at room temperature before
the test specimen was cut out according to European Standard
EN ISO 179-1 [21]. Fig. 3 shows the process owfor the sample fab-
rication in stages, and schematic views of the laminate congura-
tion for each specimen are shown in Fig. 4.
3.3. Charpy impact test
In this study, different laminate structures were fabricated and
specimens were produced to determine the impact properties of
the composite, such as load, deection and energy absorption.
The recommendations of EN ISO 179-1 [21] are followed for the
impact test conditions in this research. A Zwick/Roell Charpy Test
Rig Instrument was used for investigation of impact damage resis-
tance of the composite laminate structures, as shown in Fig. 5. The
mass of the pendulum is 2.0 kg with a swing length of 390 mm and
impact speed of 3.85 m/s. At least ve specimens were tested for
each type of specimen, with a length of 80 mm and width of
10 mm. The Charpy impact test is a dynamic three point bending
test. The experimental setup consists of a specimen that is freely
supported and a pendulum that is attached to the machine using
a pinned rotating arm. The pendulum of the Charpy instrument
falls in a circular trajectory and hits the specimen in the middle
of the span length and transfers its kinetic energy to the specimen.
3.4. Numerical modelling of Charpy condition
3.4.1. Finite element analysis (FEA)
Commercial nite element analysis software was employed in
this study to correlate the experimental results with simulation.
For the simulation, 3D modelling was used to design impact condi-
tions similar to the actual experimental conditions, as shown in
Fig. 6. An pendulum, supporter and specimens were simulated. In
this study, the value of energy absorption under experimental con-
ditions was studied in comparison with simulation results.
3.4.2. Material model
Finite element analysis (FEA) using commercial software was
used for investigation of the damage due to impact in the compos-
ite material structures. In this process, 3D modelling was used to
design the situation of impact based on the experimental condi-
tions, as shown in Fig. 7. The types of design were deformable
and solid shape. The material data used in FEA (nite element anal-
ysis) were obtained from monotonic experimental values, based on
differentiation of the composite structure. The models were as-
signed as homogeneous sections in dynamic conditions with expli-
cit elements.
3.4.3. Simulation conditions
The nite element model of the Charpy impact test device con-
sists of a pendulum, support and specimens. An initial velocity of
the pendulum was assigned a value of 3.85 m/s, whereas the spec-
imen was fully restrained at the beam support area. An eight-nodes
linear brick element was used in this model. Surface-to-surface
contacts (explicit) were utilised at the contacting interfaces.
Fig. 8 shows the boundary conditions at the support area for sim-
ulation using an encastre type, and the pendulum used a velocity/
angular velocity type as the selected step. In mesh condition, a hex
shaped element was used with linear geometry, as shown in Fig. 9.
4. Results and discussion
Due to growing interest in the use of composite materials for
various applications, it is important to investigate the response
Fig. 1. Illustration of Charpy impact absorbed theory [18].
Table 1
Mechanical properties of reinforcement and matrix.
Material Young modulus
E (GPa)
Poissons
ratio
Density
(kg/m
3
)
Chopped strand mat 75 0.20 2540
Woven roving fabric 76 0.37 2551
Foam-PVC Klegecell 0.3 0.32 580
Epoxy resin 2.7 0.4 1200
Polyester resin 3.5 0.25 1161
Specimen Preparation namely as;
Type-A, Type-B, Type-C, Type-D,
Type-E and Type-F
Preparation of Experimental
Charpy Test
Data processing
Finite Element Analysis
Modelling of materials
FEA Test
(Finite Element
Analysis)
Data processing
Comparison and
Validation
Result
Finish
Fig. 2. Flowchart of experimental and FEA procedure.
A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485 477
to impact loading of composite materials. This is because impact
phenomena can occur during operations, maintenance or manufac-
ture of the composite structures. In polymer matrix composites,
there are several factors that affect the impact damage to the com-
posite materials, such as bre and matrix type, stacking sequence
of the structures, orientation of reinforcement, structure thickness
and velocity of impact. These are among the important factors that
should be considered during impact studies.
Therefore, this study is divided into several parts investigating
the effects of bre type, matrix type, hybrid structure type and
architecture of stacking sequence/orientation type. The following
sections discuss the results based on the type of lamination struc-
tures that have been tested, as shown in Table 2. Six types of com-
posite lamination structures were used to demonstrate the
differences in characteristic behaviour between composite struc-
tures, for contact load, energy absorption and deection of the
structures. Furthermore, the entire behaviour of the structure is
examined, to understand the damage process in composite struc-
tures containing a combination of different materials. However, it
should be noted that polymer matrix composites are anisotropic
materials and it is more difcult to analyse the evolution of dam-
age processes in such composites compared with other materials.
Therefore, to understand the characterisations of polymer matrix
composites under impact conditions, the ndings of the experi-
mental work conducted are discussed and summarised below.
4.1. Effect of reinforcement type
In this experiment, two types of bre and foam were used as
reinforcement in the composite structures, which are composed
of chopped strand mat (CSM), woven roving (WR) and foam-PVC
Klegecell. The experimental results demonstrate that the strength
of each composite structure is different, due to differences in the
reinforcement used. Fig. 10 shows the ltered loadtime graph
for the two types of specimens with different lamination struc-
tures. A direct comparison of energy peak loads for both structures
shows that the specimen of Type-C
1
has a higher peak load com-
pared with Type-F
1
, approaching 300 N, while Type-F
1
is 262 N.
One of the factors that causes lower load levels on the Type-F
1
specimen is the weaknesses of resistance behaviour in foam-Klege-
cell material. This behaviour is also due to delamination between
lamination layers of the structures. The delamination is inuenced
by the process used to manufacture the composite materials. This
is because the manufacturing process impacts the quality of the
composite. As reported by Fu et al. [12], the composite impact en-
ergy also depends on the bre length, either continuous or short
Illustration of
Hand Lay-up Technique
Finishing Process
Specimen Lamination
Specimen
Grinding Process
Catalyst
Brush Roller
Spiral Roller
Platform Scale
Scissors
Resin
Specimen
Preparation
Woven Roving (WR)
Chopped Strand
Mat (CSM)
Foam-Klegecell
Spiral Roller
Mould
Brush Roller
Resin
CSM/WR or Foam-Klegecell
Fig. 3. Illustration of the steps in fabricating the specimen made from polymer matrix composites.
478 A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
and the process conditions. Additionally, the differences in damage
phenomena between the two specimens are investigated.
The same graph also shows the difference in impact time, frac-
ture behaviour and failure time of the structures. Differences of im-
pact time and failure times occur in the structures due to
differences in thickness, which is 5 mm for Type-C
1
and 23 mm
for Type-F
1
. Fracture of the Type-C
1
specimen is faster than the
G-F
1
specimen, with an estimated time of around 2 s. This result
shows that the strength of the composite laminate structures is
not dependent on the thickness of the materials but rather, its
dependence is on the type of reinforcement used. As suggested
by Rashkovan and Korabel [22] the bre (reinforcement) strength
can be increased through a surface treatment technique, to have
better interface behaviour between matrix and bre. Based on
comparison of G-C
1
and G-F
1
specimens, the selection of reinforce-
ment type is very important for composite lamination structures,
to ensure a strong structure and to help reduce the vulnerability
of the material structures.
4.2. Effect of matrix type
Fig. 11 shows results from Type-E
1
and Type-C
2
lamination
structures for investigating the effects of matrix type. Both of the
structures have the same number of layers but with a different
Legend;
Fig. 4. Schematic views of the laminate congurations.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Experimental setup (a) Charpy impact test instrument, (b) specimen position on the machine for the impact test.
A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485 479
matrix used, which is epoxy or polyester resin. The graph shows
that the peak load of specimen Type-E
1
is higher than that of
Type-C
2
at 350 N and 290 N. The result shows that the epoxy resin
has a higher capability to withstand the impact compared with
polyester resin. In addition, the impact time of the epoxy compos-
ite lamination is approximately 1 ms faster than the polyester
composite lamination before the structure fails. As reported by
Rassmann et al. in his study of resin system effectiveness, the poly-
ester laminates showed good impact properties and modulus;
however, the epoxy laminates displayed good strength values
[23]. The matrix effect is applies to both thermoset polymers as
well as thermoplastic polymers. Hristov et al. state that the modi-
cation of polypropylene/wood bre composites with other cou-
pling agents also inuences the fracture behaviour of materials
due to differences of material properties [11].
4.3. Effect of hybrid type
The tested specimens with different lamination structures,
Type-F
2
and Type-D
1
, are shown in Fig. 12. The lamination struc-
tures for specimen TypeF
2
consist of foam-Klegecell at the middle
with a combination of epoxy and polyester resin matrix, whereas
specimen Type-D
1
has nine layers with a combination of chopped
strand mat, woven roving and polyester resin as matrix. The results
show that the load values for specimen Type-D
1
are higher than for
specimen Type-F
2
. This phenomenon indicates that the specimen
of Type-D
1
has a higher strength compared with Type-F
2
. This is
due to differences in material in the lamination structure. A mate-
rial such as foam-Klegecell has advantages for certain applications,
such as being lightweight, cost effective and also enabling in-
creased material thickness. Normally, the hybrid structure is used
for applications that require lightweight structure and average
strength. Han et al. report that the capability of the hybrid system
is higher in terms of energy absorption compared with a non-hy-
brid system through his research on hybrid pultruded response
to axial crushing [24]. Additionally, the positive effect of the hybrid
structure is to stiffen the composite structure and to freeze the de-
formed structure after the impact, as mentioned by Hufenbach
et al. [25].
As shown in Fig. 13, the combination of Figs. 1012, different
test specimens exhibit different impact loading behaviour, espe-
cially in terms of fracture behaviour. As previously discussed, this
is because different materials and lamination structures have dif-
ferent capabilities to absorb energy in Charpy impact conditions.
Based on the Fig. 13, it clearly shows the direction of mechanical
failure for different of specimens before sudden fracture.
4.4. Effect of architecture and orientation type
Next, the effect of architecture and orientation type of the com-
posite lamination on load values and deection are shown in Ta-
ble 3. The results indicate that the lowest value for the load
compared with the other specimens is for Type-B. These specimens
consist of three layers with 45 angles of woven roving. Based on
comparison with Type-A, the load of Type-B is lower even though it
has the same number of layers, but with different angles of
Fig. 6. Illustration of Charpy test modelling with specimen in FEA.
Specimen
Impactor
Supports
Fig. 7. Finite element models for Charpy test conditions with specimen.
Boundary
Condition
-Encastre Type
Velocity/Angular
Velocity
Fig. 8. Boundary condition areas in the FE model.
Fig. 9. FE models, before (a) and after (b) meshing process.
480 A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
orientation of the woven roving, which are 0, 45 and 90 angles.
As reported in [26], the strength of composite materials with dif-
ferent directions of bre shows a different trend of behaviour,
especially for the loads. However, in terms of deection the results
do not indicate a signicant difference between the two specimens.
Comparing Type-C and Type-D, with the same material being
used but with different numbers of layers, the resulting value of
the loads is different. Type-D contains nine layers in the lamination
structure compared with ve layers in Type-C. Based on the re-
sults, with increasing number of lamination layers, the load of
the structure is increased. Contrary to this result, the deection
of Type-D is lower than Type-C. Ku et al. report that the properties
of composite materials improve with the addition of a bre in the
composite structure or by increasing the lamination layers [27].
The deection criterion between Type-E and Type-F does not show
a signicant difference between the other types. In this case, even
Table 2
Groups and characteristics of composite lamination structures.
Type Type of resin Fibrewoven woven roving (WR) direction Type of reinforcement Fibre volume fraction V
f
(%) Material combination (g/m
2
)
A
15
Polyester 0/90 CSM/WR 644.2 2 Layers 450 CSM
1 Layers 200 WR
B
15
Polyester 45 CSM/WR 644.1 2 Layers 450 CSM
1 Layers 200 WR
C
15
Polyester 0/90 CSM/WR 644.3 3 Layers 450 CSM
2 Layers 200 WR
D
15
Polyester 0/90 CSM/WR 643.5 3 Layers 450 CSM
6 Layers 200 WR
E
15
Epoxy 0/90 CSM/WR 644.4 3 Layers 450 CSM
2 Layers 200 WR
F
15
Polyester/Epoxy 0/90 CSM/WR /foam-PVC Klegecell 644.3 2 Layers 450 CSM
2 Layers 200 WR
(X) 15 = Type-(X), specimen 1 (S
1
), specimen 2 (S
2
), specimen 3 (S
3
), specimen 4 (S
4
) and specimen 5 (S
5
).
Fig. 10. Tested specimen with differentiation of lamination structures (a) specimen Type-C
1
(b) specimen Type-F
1
.
Fig. 11. Tested specimen with different of lamination structures (a) specimen Type-E
1
(b) specimen Type-C
2
.
A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485 481
though there is a difference in material and lamination structure,
the values of deection under experimental conditions are almost
similar. However, in terms of the capability to provide resistance to
a load, Type-F is weaker than Type-E. This is due to the soft mate-
rial at the middle of Type-F, which is foam-Klegecell. Furthermore,
based on the overall results of architecture and orientation, and
different types of composite structure, there is a signicant corre-
lation between load and deection of the structure. This phenom-
enon is proved by Type-D, with a high average load number and
the lowest value for deection.
4.5. Energy absorption
In this study, an average of impact energy absorption for each
specimen type, for different types of composite structure, was
investigated with respect to the different materials and resins
used, as shown in Fig. 14. Based on the results, Type-C exhibited
better energy absorbing capacity than the other composite struc-
ture systems, approaching 1.3 J. In contrast, Type-B has the lowest
energy absorption. A comparison of Type-B and Type-C, shows a
difference in energy absorption characteristics, with a reduction
of around 51% due to differences in lamination structure. The ori-
entation angles also affected the capability of the structure to ab-
sorb impact energy. Thus, the total energy absorption of Type-A
and Type-B is different, due to a difference of orientation angles
but with the same number of lamination layers. The matrix used
in processing of the composite structure also plays an important
role and needs to be examined. By using polyester resin as a ma-
trix, the capability to absorb impact energy is better than epoxy re-
sin that is represented by Type-E. Due to the better adhesion
between bres and matrix in epoxy laminates, the absorption of
energy is less than in polyester laminate structures. This proves
that energy propagation in the epoxy laminate structures is
slightly lower than in the polyester laminate structure [23]. How-
ever, the laminated structures for Type-D and Type-F show better
combinations, because of higher energy absorption among the
specimen types, in the range of 0.81.2 J.
4.6. Experimental via simulation
Comparison of experimental and simulation study of energy
absorption demonstrates similar behaviour under impact
Fig. 12. Tested specimen with different lamination structures (a) specimen Type-F
2
(b) specimen Type-D
1
.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time, ms
F
i
l
t
e
r
e
d

L
o
a
d
,

N
Type-D1
Type-F2
Type-E1
Type-C2
Type-C1 Type-F1
Fig. 13. Direction behaviour of mechanical failure with different of specimens.
Table 3
Effect of the architecture and orientation type of composite lamination based on the
load and deection values.
Type Mean load (N) Deection (d)
A 153.13 8.87
B 130.13 8.88
C 291.61 7.31
D 608.42 3.44
E 307.55 4.75
F 260.52 4.39
Type of Group
E
n
e
r
g
y

A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
,

J
Type-A
Type-B
Type-C
Type-D
Type-E
Type-F
Fig. 14. Impact energy absorption of different types of composite structure.
482 A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
conditions. In a simulation study, properties such as elasticity and
density of the Type-C specimen in were considered in the model-
ling process. In a modelling procedure, the parameter to evaluate
the energy absorption of the structure includes energy absorption
(EA), specic energy absorption (SEA), mean impact force and peak
impact force. Energy absorption is the total strain energy absorbed
during the deformation due to the impact force. It is dened below
as:
EAd
Z
d
0
Fxdx 3
where d is the effective stroke length, and (x) is the length of the
structure of energy absorption. SEA is the ratio of absorbed energy
to the structure mass M
t
and is given by the formula:
SEA EA=M
t
4
Fig. 15 shows the simulation conditions for Charpy impact with
varying step time. The gure shows the difference of specimen
behaviour, before and after impact. It shows that in the condition
(c), the stress of the specimen is high, when the impact occurs.
Additionally, Fig. 16 shows the validation of energy absorption be-
tween simulation and experimental results of the impact test.
Based on the simulation conducted, the Type-C design congu-
ration is chosen to represent the outcome of the modelling process
due to it having the highest of energy absorption as compared to
others types. Based on the result obtained, as shown in Fig. 16,
the energy absorption of the simulation is 1.7 J. On the other hand,
experimental study of the specimen gave a different of energy
absorption result, approaching 1.3 J. It is essential to note that in
this simulation study, the composite plate had been assigned as
an isotropic type of material in the input of FEA which has the
same elastic properties in all directions. For the numerical analysis,
the composite structure was considered as homogeneous materi-
als. The inhomogeneous effect of the real microstructure of com-
posite structure may be the cause of the difference in
experimental and numerical results. However, the predicted re-
sults based on the simulation study were found to be in reasonable
agreement with experimental observations. This study is an initial
work for simulation, in order to determine the suitability of the
Abaqus FEA software for verication and validation works, in this
case for Charpy impact test conditions.
4.7. Damage behaviour in impact condition
Fig. 17 shows the damage behaviour for each of the specimens
based on the groups. Each group also has a close-up picture to
show the difference of fracture behaviour for different design con-
gurations of the laminate structure. The difference in laminate
structure can affect the character of the composite materials
behaviour, as explained earlier in this paper. Composite materials
can exhibit multiple types of damage before failure, such as matrix
cracking, bre fracture, bre pull out, bre rupture and bre deb-
onding [2830]. Generally, the failure of bres can lead to failure
of the whole structure. Based on observation of the damage behav-
iour, the overall damage under impact is due to bre rupture. How-
ever, with different types of lamination structures, damage can
also result in bre pull-out, delamination and bre debonding.
Fig. 15. Simulation condition of Charpy impact test with different step time.
Fig. 16. Validation of energy absorption between simulation and experimental results of impact testing.
A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485 483
5. Conclusions
In this study, composite specimens were made using the hand
lay-up technique and tested to evaluate the effects of the differ-
ences in design congurations of the lamination structures. The re-
sults obtained showed different impact behaviours between the
specimens, with each specimen having advantages and weak-
nesses based on the respective design congurations.
Different impact behaviours were observed for the reinforce-
ment types used, with the difference in strength capability between
the Type-C and Type-F specimens being almost 15%. This indicates
that the selection of reinforcement type is a very important factor
to take into account in order to ensure the capability of the compos-
ite lamination structure. In addition, the effects of different matrix
types showed different capabilities to withstand impact, whereby
epoxy resinhadhigher capability thanpolyester resinby 350 N. Fur-
thermore, the hybrid and architecture orientation structures
showed signicantly different behaviour under impact. The hybrid
structure, formed using nine layers consisting of chopped strand
mat, woven roving and polyester resin as the matrix (Type-D spec-
imen, 600 N), showed higher strength as compared to the architec-
ture orientation structure, consisting of Foam-Klegecell in the
middle of lamination structure (Type-F specimen, 320 N). The im-
pact energy absorption of the different composite lamination struc-
tures showedthat the Type-Cspecimenhadbetter energy absorbing
capability, approaching 1.3 J, as compared to other composite struc-
tures. The results on the whole show that the effects of different
reinforcement, matrix and structure types need to be considered
in the capabilities of composite materials.
In the comparative study between the experimental and FEA
simulation results, the properties of the Type-C specimen were
considered, such as elasticity and density of material. The FEA sim-
ulation conducted showed similar energy absorption values with
the experimental results, demonstrating the suitability of the Aba-
qus FEA software for verication and validation works on Charpy
impact test conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
for supporting these research activities.
References
[1] Srivasta VK, Pathak JP. Friction and wear properties of bushing bearing of
graphite lled short glass bre composite in dry sliding. J Wear 1996:14550.
[2] Sutherland LS, Soares CG. Impact on low bre volume, glass polyester
rectangular plates. J Compos Struct 2005:11927.
[3] Evci C, Gulgec M. An experimental investigation on the impact response of
composite materials. Int J Impact Eng 2012:4051.
[4] Sutherland LS, Soares CG. Impact characterization of low bre volume glass
reinforced polyester circular laminated plates. Int J Impact Eng 2005:123.
[5] Mitrevski T, Marshall IH, Thomson R. The inuence of impactor shape on the
damage to composite laminates. J Compos Struct 2006:11622.
[6] Ghasemnejab H, Furquan ASM, Mason PJ. Charpy impact damage behaviour of
sigle and multi-delaminated hybrid composite beam structures. J Mater Des
2010;31:365360.
[7] Sohn MS, Hu XZ. Impact and high strain rate delamination characteristics of
carbon bre epoxy composites. Theory Appl Fract Mech 1996:1729.
[8] Shyr TW, Pan YH. Impact resistance and damage characteristics of composite
laminates. J Compos Struct 2003:193203.
[9] Chen H, Hong M, Liu Y. Dynamic behaviour of delaminated plates considering
progressive failure process. J Compos Struct 2004:45966.
[10] Ulven CA, Vaidya UK. Impact response of re damaged polymer-based
composite materials. J Compos Part B 2008:97107.
Fig. 17. Observation of damage behaviour for each of the specimens based on the group.
484 A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485
[11] Hristov VN, Lach R, Grellman W. Impact fracture behavior of modied
polypropylene/wood ber composites. J Polym Test 2004;23:5819.
[12] Fu SY, Lauke B, Maeder E, Hu X, Yue CY. Fracture resistance of short glass ber
reinforced and short carbon ber reinforced polypropylene under Charpy
impact load and its dependence on processing. J Mater Process Technol
1999:5017.
[13] Zang Z, Zhang Y. Analysis of optical switching in a Yb
3+
-doped ber Bragg
grating by using self-phase modulation and cross-phase modulation. Appl Opt
2012;51:342430.
[14] Choi HY, Chang KL. A model for predicting damage in graphite/epoxy
laminated composites resulting from low-velocity point impact. J Compos
Mater 1992:213469.
[15] Kwon YW, Wojcik GW. Impact study of sandwich composite structures with
delamination. J Compos Mater 1998:40630.
[16] Pegoretti A, Cristelli I, Migliaresi C. Experimental optimization of the impact
energy absorption of epoxy carbon laminates through controlled
delamination. J Sci Technol 2008:265361.
[17] Erkendirci OF. Charpy impact behaviour of plain weave S-2 glass/HDPE
thermoplastic composites. J Compos Mater 2012:17.
[18] Nita A, Opran C, Murar D, Bivolaru C. Charpy impact on the molded polymeric
parts. Acad J Manuf Eng 2010:8591.
[19] Ali MB, Abdullah S, Nuawi MZ, Arifn AK. Correlation of absorbed impact with
calculated strain energy using an instrumented Charpy impact test. Indian J
Eng Mater Sci 2013:50414.
[20] Davies P, Petton D. An experimental study of scale effects in marine
composites. J Compos Part A 1998:26775.
[21] Huber T, Bickerton S, Mussig J, Pang S, Staiger MP. Flexural and impact
properties of all-cellulose composite laminates. J Compos Sci Technol
2013;88:928.
[22] Rashkovan IA, Korabel YG. The strength of ber surface treatment on its
strength and adhesion to the matrix. J Compos Sci Technol 1997:101722.
[23] Rassmann S, Paskaramoorthy R, Reid RG. Effect of resin system on the
mechanical properties and water absorption of kenaf bre reinforced
laminates. J Mater Des 2011;32:1399406.
[24] Han H, Taheri F, Pegg N, Lu Y. A numerical study on the axial crushing response
of hybrid pultruded and 45o braided tubes. J Compos Struct
2007;80:25364.
[25] Hufenbach W, Marques Ibraim F, Langkamp A, Bohm R, Hornig A. Charpy
impact tests on the composite structures An experimental and numerical
investigation. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:2391400.
[26] Malkapuram R, Kumar V, Yuvraj SN. Recent development in natural bre
reinforced polypropylene composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2008;28:116989.
[27] Ku H, Wang H, Pattarachaiyakoop N, Trada M. A review on tensile properties of
natural bre reinforced polymer composites. J Compos Part B 2011:85673.
[28] Ribeiro ML, Tita V, Vandepitte D. A new damage model for composite
laminates. J Compos Struct 2012:63542.
[29] Ude AU, Arifn AK, Azhari CH. Impact damage characteristics in reinforced
woven natural silk/epoxy composite face-sheet and sandwich foam, coremat
and honeycomb materials. Int J Impact Eng 2013;58:318.
[30] Ude AU, Eshkoor RA, Zulkii R, Arin AK, Dzuraidah AW, Azhari CH. Bombyx
mori silk bre and its composite: a review of contemporary developments. J
Mater Des 2014;57:298305.
A.M.T. Arin et al. / Materials and Design 59 (2014) 475485 485