See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/388058140

Investigation into high-speed impact response of composite sandwich

structures

Article in Journal of Composite Materials · January 2025

DOI: 10.1177/00219983251313875

CITATIONS READS

0 240

4 authors, including:

Sikiru Oluwarotimi Ismail Saeed Eyvazinejad Firouzsalari

University of Portsmouth University of Auckland
157 PUBLICATIONS 3,088 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 288 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Saeed Eyvazinejad Firouzsalari on 17 January 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Manuscript

Journal of Composite Materials

2025, Vol. 0(0) 1–11
Investigation into high-speed impact © The Author(s) 2025

response of composite sandwich structures Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00219983251313875
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcm

Sikiru O Ismail1, Saeed Eyvazinejad Firouzsalari2 ,

Shehryar Naseem1 and Bankole I Oladapo3

Abstract
Sandwich structures composed of top and bottom face sheets and an inner core are commonly used for energy-absorbing
applications, mainly because of their superior stiffness-to-weight ratio and crashworthiness. Despite extensive studies on
the ballistic behavior of monolithic and composite materials, limited research has focused on hybrid sandwich structures
combining lightweight and ductile materials like thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) with high-strength aluminum. This study
aimed to numerically establish the ballistic limit velocities and the penetrating and perforation resistances of composite
sandwich structures to address this gap. The sandwich panels were manufactured from thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
and aluminum (Al) 2024-T351 as core and face sheets/skins, respectively. The panels were subjected to an impact to
investigate the effects of various thicknesses of their face skins and core on high-speed impact resistance. From the results
obtained, it was evident that the numerical models simulated experiments with high accuracy. The impact and damage
resistances of the composite sandwich structures increased with the thicknesses of their core and face sheets. The
resistance of the structure increased by 19% by increasing the thickness of face sheets from 1.2 to 2.0 mm. Similarly, the
resistance of the composites can be increased by 44% by increasing the core thickness from 20 to 50 mm. Therefore, it can
be established that the impact resistance of the composite sandwich structures depended on the thicknesses of their core
and skins. The investigated performances of the different composite sandwich structures should guide their choice for
various industrial applications.

Keywords
Composite sandwich structure, high-speed, impact response, damage resistance

Highlights
· Thicker composite sandwich structures (CSS) had
higher ballistic limit velocities. 1
Centre for Engineering Research, School of Physics, Engineering and
· Global deformation of CSS decreased with increasing Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
2
impact velocity. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
· The largest global deformation of CSS occurred at the Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
3
School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
ballistic limit velocity.
· Energy absorption and impact resistance of CSS Corresponding authors:
increased with the core thickness. Sikiru O Ismail, Centre for Engineering Research, School of Physics,
· Impact and damage resistances increased with the Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, College
Lane Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, England, UK.
face sheets and core thickness. Email: [email protected]
Saeed Eyvazinejad Firouzsalari, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Auckland, Newmarket Campus, 314-390
Introduction Khyber Pass Road, Inward Goods, Gate 2, Building 903, Room 01A,
Sandwich-structured composites, often known as foam- Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
cored sandwiches, are manufactured from two thin, but Email: [email protected]
strong face skins separated by a lightweight foam core.1 Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article
2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

These composites are commonly used in aerospace and core increases the structures to withstand buckling and
naval structures, due to their high-energy absorption ca- bending loads.23
pabilities, great structural efficiency and substantial dura- The numerical simulation of impact experiments on
bility.2 High strength metals, such as aluminium, titanium various metallic plates under impact loading has been ex-
and steel or fibre reinforced polymers are used as the face tensively studied,20,24–27 with results consistently demon-
skin materials, whereas wood, metal foams, polymers and strating the high accuracy of numerical methods in
metal honeycombs are commonly used as the core replicating impact responses. Previous investigations, such
materials.3,4 High-speed impact analyses have widespread as those by Gara et al.,15 predominantly examined the
applications in various industries and the military, where ballistic behaviour of monolithic aluminium alloys through
defensive layer versatility and effective protection are finite element analysis. However, these studies did not
crucial. explore hybrid composite sandwich structures incorporating
Several studies have been conducted on the design and lightweight and ductile materials like thermoplastic poly-
development of sandwich-structured composites that can urethane (TPU) as the core. This research addresses this gap
withstand high-intensity impulsive loads,5–10 with the re- by analysing the combined effects of TPU cores and alu-
sults showing that sandwich-structured composites dissi- minium face sheets, materials known for their distinct en-
pate projectile impact energy more effectively than ergy absorption characteristics under high-speed impacts.
monolithic armour plates of the same aerial density.11–13 The novelty of this work lies in assessing how variations in
Børvik et al.14 investigated the residual velocity and ballistic the thickness of the core and face sheets influence the impact
limit velocities of Al 5083-H116 armour plates under response and failure mechanisms. These findings provide
ogival-nose-shaped armor-piercing match (APM2) projec- valuable insights applicable to industries such as aerospace
tiles, demonstrating good agreement between closed-form and defence. For comparison, while Jamil et al.21 evaluated
analytical predictions and experimental results. Gara et al.15 sandwich structures with TPU cores under blast conditions,
studied the impact behaviour of alloy aluminium (Al)2024- they did not comprehensively investigate high-speed bal-
T351 using finite element (FE) analysis performed in LS listic responses. By focusing on the penetration and per-
DYNA software, and the simulation results on the residual foration resistance of these structures under projectile
velocities had a perfect agreement with the analytical impacts, this study significantly advances the understanding
models. Kiliç and Ekici16 utilized the Lagrangian frame- of their dynamic behaviour. This research employs FE
work in conjunction with smoothed particle hydrodynamics analysis to investigate the high-speed impact responses of
(SPH) to numerically evaluate the ballistic limit thickness of TPU-core and aluminum 2024-T351 sandwich composites.
Secure 500 armor steel, achieving a high degree of corre- It advances lightweight, energy-absorbing structures for
lation between the computational predictions and experi- aerospace and defense by optimizing ballistic performance
mental observations. Tria and Tre˛ biński17 developed a finite through thickness variations, offering accurate simulations
element (FE) model to simulate the impact of a 7.62 mm and reducing reliance on resource-intensive experiments.
armour-piercing (AP) projectile on 30 p.m. armour steel, Validation of the numerical model was achieved using
employing a modified Johnson-Cook material model. Their experimental data available in the literature. Key objectives
findings demonstrated the model’s robustness and efficacy include evaluating the effects of varying thicknesses of face
in accurately evaluating the adequacy and predictive ca- sheets and cores on the structural impact responses, as well
pabilities of such simulations. as analyzing the plastic deformation, stress concentration,
Moving forward, highly stiff, fatigue resistant and shock- and failure mechanisms of the sandwich composites under
resistive materials are used to manufacture aerospace and impact loads. These findings elucidate performance scal-
aeronautic components, such as aircraft wings, tension ability through systematic thickness variation, offering new
members and fuselages. Aluminium 2024–T351 has high perspectives on enhancing impact resistance in advanced
strength, fracture toughness, fatigue resistance and thermal composite materials.
shock resistance.18,19 It has lower density than steel, proven
longevity, and tolerance to contact with the sun and hu-
midity. It also reparable and easy to inspect.20 Thermo- Materials and FE modelling
plastic polyurethane (TPU) is a versatile polymer in the
Abaqus/Explicit was employed to study the response of
polyurethane family. It is highly ductile and exhibits ex- sandwich-structured composites subjected to impact load.
ceptional stress-strain recovery in both tension and com- Abaqus/Explicit excels at analysing dynamic and transient
pression. Jamil et al.21 reported that the energy absorption loading cases, such as blast and impact problems, and
abilities increased with the impact energy.22 TPU can simulating nonlinear problems involving contact condi-
withstand intense, impulsive loads and recover after being tions. Table 1 presents the mechanical and physical prop-
subjected to extreme loading conditions. The lightweight erties of aluminium 2024-T351 and TPU used.
Ismail et al. 3

The TPU was simulated using the ductile failure criteria, the trade-offs between weight and structural performance,
which is accessible in ABAQUS/Explicit. The mechanical as described in foundational works on sandwich panel
response of the TPU was simulated under in-plane tensile optimization.23
load prior to the impact simulations, with the associated The sandwich-structured composite samples were 400 ×
load-displacement graph being shown in Figure 1. 400 mm in dimensions, according to NATO standard
The selected face sheet thicknesses (1.2 mm, 1.5 mm, 4569.29 The face sheets had three different thicknesses of
and 2.0 mm) and core thicknesses (20 mm, 30 mm, and 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 mm, and the core had three different
50 mm) align with ranges established in previous studies on thicknesses of 20, 30 and 50 mm (Figure 2). There was no
ballistic and blast-resistant sandwich panels, ensuring rel- adhesive or chemical material between the face sheets and
evance to aerospace and defense applications.5,14,21 Addi- the core material, because they were mechanically bonded
tionally, these dimensions allow for systematic evaluation of with each other. In this study, the projectile was regarded as
a hard rigid body. The projectile used in this study was
modelled as analytical, having a mass of 52.5 g and di-
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the aluminium 2024-T35128 ameter of 20.0 mm, with the projectile dimensions being
and TPU materials.21 obtained from,30 as depicted in Figure 3.
The meshing module used 8-node linear brick with re-
Aluminium duced integration (C3D8R), and hourglass control elements
Parameters 2024-T351 TPU were employed to mesh aluminium face sheets, TPU and the
Density (ρ) 2710 (Kg/m3) 1150 kg/m3 projectile (Figure 4). The element size for the face sheets
Elastic modulus™ 71.1 GPa 158 MPa ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 mm, whereas the element size for the
Poisson’s ratio (v) 0.33 0.40 thickness of the plate was 1.0 mm. Similarly, the element
Initial yield stress (A) 265 MPa size for the core material ranged from 1.0 to 5 mm, whereas
Strain hardening coefficient (B) 426 MPa the element size for the plate thickness was 5.0 mm. The size
Strain rate coefficient™ 0.0083 of projectile elements ranged between 0.5 to 1.0 mm along
Strain hardening exponent (n) 0.72 the length of the projectile. In each cross-sectional direction,
Reference strain rate (_εo ) 1 1/s 0.001 1/s the element size was small in the impact zone and gradually
Thermal softening exponent (m) 1 increased away from the impact region. The external edges
Fracture strain for ductile damage 2.9 of the sandwich structure were firmly clamped or fixed, and
Stress triaxiality 0.33 all degrees of freedom were zero. The Abaqus kinematic
Specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) 910 J/kg.K contact algorithm was used to assign contact between the
Room temperature (Tr) 293 K projectile and the target structure. General contact (explicit)
Melting temperature™ 793 K was used between the face sheets and the core material, and
J-C failure D1 = 0.130 surface-to-surface (explicit) contact was assigned (face
D2 = 0.130
sheets and core) between the projectile and the composite
D3 = 1.500
structure. To account for potential delamination between the
D4 = 0.011
TPU core and aluminium face sheets, a surface-to-surface
D5 = 0.000
contact definition with hard contact in the normal direction
ε_ o = 1/s
and tangential friction was employed in Abaqus/Explicit,

Figure 1. Load versus displacement graph of TPU under tensile load.

4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 2. Visual representation of various (a) face sheet and (b) core thicknesses used.

Figure 3. (a) A schematic diagram and (b) computer-aid designed (CAD) model of 12.7 mm AP projectile with a mass of 52.5 g, mesh
size: 0.5 to 1 mm.

ensuring realistic interface behaviour under high-impact simulations, the mechanical response of the TPU was
conditions. The projectile surface was defined as a mas- simulated under in-plane tensile loading, and the simu-
ter surface, while the face sheets and core were defined as a lated mechanical response verified the data available in
nodal-based slave surface. The projectile was normal to the the literature.21
plate, with its tip touching the face sheet. The contact The material properties used in the finite element model
definition was hard contact for normal objects. The initial are summarized in Table 1, which provides detailed values
velocity of the projectile varied with each new case. Sim- for Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, density, and other
ilarly, the configuration of sandwich structures also varied in relevant parameters for the aluminium plates and TPU
different cases. material. The aluminium plates were modelled with a
Based on the work of Borvik on perforating AA5083- Young’s modulus of 70 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.33,
H116 aluminium armour plates with ogive-nose shape while the TPU material exhibited nonlinear elastic behav-
rods, 7.62 mm APM2 rounds was used as a model.14 For iour as defined in Table 1.
aluminium 2024-T351, material parameters and Johnson-
Cook’s plasticity and failure model parameters were
taken from Refs. 18-20,26. A validation study was
Model validation
conducted for aluminium 2024-T351 to confirm the Setting up the simulation, as done by Iqbal et al.31 was
material parameters presented in Table 1, and the sim- considered to validate the results for the Weldox 460E, and
ulation results were quite reasonable and comparable residual velocities were validated with the data already
with the available data in Gara et al.15 Before the impact accessible in.31,32 After an accurate simulation, the material
Ismail et al. 5

Figure 4. Mesh on sandwich structure with projectile (a) assembly visual (b) close up view of impact region.

model for aluminium 5083–H116 was validated using Table 2. Validation data for Weldox 460E, aluminium 5083 and
7.62 mm APM2 bullets and a 20 mm aluminium 5083-H116 Weldox 460E, as well as Al2024-T351.
plate impacted by a 7.62 mm AP core at 741 m/s, as de- Residual velocity in
scribed by Børvik et al.14 The simulation comparison Initial velocity in the Residual velocity in present validation
results for both aluminium 5083 and Weldox 460E are literature (m/s) literature (m/s) model (m/s)
presented in Table 2, with the results showing a high level
of similarity for the value compared. After performing an Validation data for
Weldox 460E
accurate simulation for aluminium 5083 and Weldox
600.0032 523.0032 541.31
460E, the material model for aluminium 2024–T351 was
405.7032 304.0032 338.05
validated, using 12.7 mm diameter blunt shaped cylin-
555.0431 541.31
drical projectiles with a mass of 32.5 g and length of
332.6431 338.05
40.25 mm, as available in the literature.15,33 Table 2 Validation data for Al
compares the simulation results with experimental 5083-116
data, showing an error range of 1% to 11%. This high 741.0014 532.0014 537.12
accuracy validates the robustness of the numerical 360.3014 281.3014 292.24
models in replicating complex impact phenomena and Validation data for
predicting ballistic performance with precision. More- A2024-T351
over, the computational approach significantly reduces 200.00 ----- 180.96
the time and effort required for extensive physical testing. 250.00 ----- 235.40
Nine composite sandwich structures of various thick- 183.3615 ----- 180.96
nesses were designed to test against 12.7 mm Ogival nose- 234.9215 ----- 235.40
shaped projectiles to determine the ballistic limit velocities 189.1233 ----- 180.96
of the sandwich panels. The configurations of the sandwich 238.2433 ----- 235.40
structures are presented in Table 3.
For the convenience of explanation, these configurations Case 2: Included 1.5 mm thick face-sheet panels with the
were divided into three cases, each of which was further three core thicknesses of 20, 30 and 50 mm, with each
segmented into three categories, as follows: configuration named types 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Case 1: Included 1.2 mm thick face-sheet panels with the Case 3: Included 2.0 mm thick face-sheet panels with the
three core thicknesses of 20, 30 and 50 mm, with each three core thicknesses of 20, 30 and 50 mm, with each
configuration named types 1, 2 and 3, respectively. configuration named types 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Table 3. Configurations of the composite sandwich structures. Table 4. Residual velocity data for Case 1: 1.2 mm face-sheet
with core thicknesses of 20 mm (Type 1), 30 mm (Type 2), and
Sandwich TPU core TPU core TPU core 50 mm (Type 3).
structures (20 mm) (30 mm) (50 mm)
Model Impact Residual Velocity
Aluminium 2024- 1.2 × 20.0 × 1.2 × 30.0 × 1.2 × 50.0 × Serial no. type velocity (m/s) velocity (m/s) drop
T351 (1.2 mm) 1.2 mm 1.2 mm 1.2 mm
Aluminium 2024- 1.5 × 20.0 × 1.5 × 30.0 × 1.5 × 50.0 × 1.20 × 20.00 ×
T351 (1.5 mm) 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 1.20 mm
Aluminium 2024- 2.0 × 20.0 × 2.0 × 30.0 × 2.0 × 50.0 × sandwich
T351 (2 mm) 2.0 mm 2.0 mm 2.0 mm panel
1 Type 1 360.3 342.19 18.11
2 293.4 270.38 23.02
3 220.0 191.01 28.99
Results and discussion
4 150.0 109.60 40.40
There were nine distinct sandwich structure configurations, 5 70.0 0.00 70.00
with impact velocities ranging from 68.60 to 360.30 m/s. 6 68.6 Ballistic limit 68.60
The ballistic limit velocity (VBL), the minimum velocity 1.20 × 30.00 ×
required for a projectile to fully perforate a target, was used 1.20 mm
to assess the perforation resistance of the panels.34 In each sandwich
panel
case, VBL was determined as the highest impact velocity
1 Type 2 360.3 331.24 28.76
(Vi) at which the residual or rebound velocity (Vr)
2 293.4 260.18 32.82
equals zero.
3 220.0 179.98 40.02
4 150.0 98.30 51.70
5 90.0 0.00 90.00
Influence of core thickness 6 85.0 0.00 85.00
At low impact speeds, the core significantly contributed to 7 83.4 Ballistic limit 83.40
the panel’s energy absorption by resisting shear loads and 1.20 × 50.00 ×
enhancing structural stiffness, maintaining separation be- 1.20 mm
sandwich
tween the face sheets to create a uniformly stiffened panel
sandwich structure. TPU, a highly adaptable polymer, ex- 1 Type 3 360.3 316.25 44.05
hibited excellent ductility and sustained high impulsive 2 293.4 233.24 60.16
loads under high-velocity impacts.35 Increasing the core 3 220.0 150.92 69.08
thickness improved energy absorption and impact resis- 4 150.0 62.21 87.79
tance,36 with enhancements of 32.6% and 43.6% observed 5 112.0 0.00 112.00
for thicknesses of 30 mm and 50 mm compared to 20 mm. 6 108.2 Ballistic limit 108.20
Conversely, ballistic limit velocities decreased as core
thickness increased. Structures with thicker cores demon-
strated the highest ballistic limit velocity. Numerical results
for residual velocity and velocity drop across the three cases across a broader area. Increasing the face-sheet thickness
are detailed in Tables 4–6. from 1.2 mm to 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm improved impact
resistance by 13.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Panels with
thicker face sheets and cores achieved the highest ballistic
Influence of face sheet thickness limit velocity.

Face sheets are typically constructed from strong materials

to withstand impulsive loads and support bending stresses in Structural response to failure and
the structure. Upon projectile impact, the upper face sheet
perforation resistance
experienced compressive loading, while tensile loading
occurred in the bottom face sheet. Compressive forces According to United States (US) Army standards, perfo-
caused damage and de-bonding between the upper face ration occurs when a bullet embeds in the target but allows
sheet and the core, while the bottom face sheet remained light to pass through. In contrast, the US Navy defines
intact under tensile loads. Thicker face sheets exhibited perforation as the bullet fully emerging from the target,37 as
reduced distortion under bending deflection compared to shown in Figure 5. This study adopts the US Navy standard
thinner ones. Thinner face sheets were more susceptible to (full target penetration) to evaluate deformation following
penetration at high speeds before deformation distributed impact.
Ismail et al. 7

Table 5. Residual velocity data for Case 2: 1.5 mm face-sheet Table 6. Residual velocity data for Case 3: 2.0 mm face-sheet
with core thicknesses of 20 mm (Type 1), 30 mm (Type 2), and with core thicknesses of 20 mm (Type 1), 30 mm (Type 2), and
50 mm (Type 3). 50 mm (Type 3).

Model Impact Residual Velocity Model Impact Residual Velocity

Serial no. type velocity (m/s) velocity (m/s) drop Serial no. type velocity (m/s) velocity (m/s) drop

1.50 × 20.00 × 2.0 × 20.0 ×

1.50 mm 2.0 mm
sandwich sandwich
panel panel
1 Type 1 360.3 339.59 20.71 1 Type 1 360.30 337.28 23.02
2 293.4 269.25 24.15 2 293.40 226.51 26.89
3 220.0 189.76 30.24 3 220.00 186.00 34.00
4 150.0 108.76 41.91 4 150.00 104.41 45.59
5 80.0 0.00 80.00 5 80.00 0.00 80.00
6 73.5 Ballistic limit 0.00 6 78.00 0.00 75.00
1.50 × 30.00 × 7 75.30 Ballistic limit 75.30
1.50 mm 2.0 × 30.0 ×
sandwich 2.0 mm
panel sandwich
1 Type 2 360.3 329.4 30.90 panel
2 293.4 258.26 35.14 1 Type 2 360.30 327.40 32.90
3 220.0 177.28 42.00 2 293.40 255.24 38.16
4 150.0 92.90 72.00 3 220.00 173.20 46.80
5 90.0 0.00 57.10 4 150.00 85.24 64.76
6 84.8 Ballistic Limit 84.80 5 100.00 0.00 100.00
1.50 × 50.00 × 6 95.00 0.00 95.00
1.50 mm 7 94.20 Ballistic limit 94.20
sandwich 2.0 × 50.0 ×
panel 2.0 mm
1 Type 3 360.3 310.21 49.64 sandwich
2 293.4 238.66 54.74 panel
3 220.0 154.42 65.58 1 Type 3 360.30 303.08 51.26
4 150.0 63.10 86.90 2 293.40 227.61 58.62
5 120.0 0.00 120.00 3 220.00 142.23 61.17
6 113.6 Ballistic limit 113.62 4 150.00 42.60 101.46
5 125.00 5.00 125.00
6 120.00 0.00 120.00
7 118.36 Ballistic limit 118.36
Three standard failure conditions were identified:
projectile rebound, projectile embedment, and projectile
perforation of the sandwich panel. The geometric prop-
erties of the sandwich structures and the impact velocity common phenomenon across all tested configurations. A
significantly influenced penetration and failure mecha- half-cut view of a fully perforated sandwich structure is
nisms. Ballistic limit velocities were determined for each shown in Figure 7.
configuration, and structural behavior in terms of failure The impact velocity of the projectile significantly
modes and damage resistance was analyzed. Figure 6 il- influenced target deformation. Global deformation de-
lustrates the projectile’s progression through the composite creased with increasing impact velocity, with higher de-
sandwich structure at various time intervals. Upon impact, formation observed at lower velocities. The maximum
the projectile pushed the front face sheet backward, deformation occurred at the ballistic limit velocity. Nine
bending the panel. It then pierced the front face due to different sandwich panel samples were evaluated against a
compressive forces, causing core de-bonding from the 12.7 mm AP projectile, categorized into three cases based
front sheet while the back sheet remained attached. As on core and face sheet thickness:
penetration continued, the projectile passed through the Case 1: All constructions resisted ballistic impacts.
core, bending the back face sheet slightly before fully Residual velocity and velocity drop data are presented in
perforating the structure. Complete de-bonding of the face Table 4. Among the structures, the Type 3 panel (dimen-
sheets from the core was observed after perforation, a sions: 1.2 × 50.0 × 1.2 mm) exhibited the highest ballistic
8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 5. Perforated panel according to the US Army standards.

Figure 6. Progression of projectile at various time intervals.

Figure 7. Half-cut view of fully perforated sandwich panel.

limit velocity, followed by Types 2 and 1. Increased core Case 2: These structures outperformed those in Case 1 in
thickness improved ballistic resistance, with structures damage resistance and reaction. Increasing the face sheet
featuring a 50 mm core achieving the highest ballistic limit thickness from 1.2 mm to 1.5 mm enhanced ballistic re-
velocity and maximum damage resistance. sponse, improving impact resistance by up to 13.2%.
Ismail et al. 9

Figure 8. Petal formation on composite sandwich structure during impact (a) face skin fragmentation (b) TPU core fragmentation.

Similar to Case 1, structures with a 50 mm core demon- experimental tests are resource-intensive and time-
strated the highest ballistic limit velocity and damage re- consuming, the simulations enabled rapid analysis of
sistance. Residual velocity and velocity drop data are multiple configurations and variations in material proper-
provided in Table 5. ties, providing valuable insights into the ballistic perfor-
Case 3: Sandwich structures in this case exhibited the mance of the sandwich panels without the need for
best overall reaction and damage resistance. Increasing the extensive physical testing. This approach saved substantial
face sheet thickness to 2.0 mm resulted in a 19.1% im- time and effort, particularly in terms of the number of
provement in impact resistance, while core thicknesses of prototype tests required.
30 mm and 50 mm improved resistance by 32.6% and The ballistic limit velocities increased with the thickness
43.6%, respectively. These structures demonstrated high of the sandwich panels. The sandwich panel with a face skin
ballistic limit velocities and maximum damage resistance. thickness of 2.0 mm and core of 50 mm exhibited the
Residual velocity and velocity drop data are shown in greatest ballistic limit velocity, as it provided better energy
Table 6. Both materials displayed ductile hole growth upon absorption and resistance to the projectile impact. Addi-
failure, with the ogival-nose projectile causing material tionally, global deformation of the structure decreased with
displacement and petal formation in thin face sheets. Pet- increasing impact velocity, with the largest global defor-
alling resulted from circumferential strain, leading to radial mation occurring at the ballistic limit velocity.
cracking and rotation of target material into multiple petals, Composite sandwich panels with a thicker core absorbed
observed on the front side of fully perforated face sheets more energy and recorded higher impact resistance than
(Figure 8(a)). At high velocities, the TPU core behaved as a those with a thin core. Similarly, thinner face skins reduced
highly ductile material, fragmenting under impact. Core the protective efficacy of the sandwich panels, diminishing
material fragmentation in fully perforated constructions is their energy absorption and impact resistances. However,
depicted in Figure 8(b). their performance improved with increasing target thick-
ness. The dispersed and localized distortion of the sandwich
panels diminished at high speeds and increased with panel
Conclusions thickness. Both impact and damage resistance were en-
FE analysis tool with Abaqus/Explicit has been used to hanced by increasing the thicknesses of the face sheets
numerically investigate the high-speed impact response of and core.
various aluminium 2024-T351/TPU foam-based sandwich Summarily, the ballistic impact resistance of the com-
composite structures, using an ogival nose shape bullet posite sandwich structures increased by 13.2% and 19.1%
(projectile). The computational simulations demonstrated a with face sheet thicknesses of 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm, re-
high degree of accuracy, with error margins between 1% and spectively, relative to 1.2 mm. Ballistic resistance was
11%, and significantly reduced the time and resources re- improved by 32.6% and 43.6% by increasing the core
quired for experimental testing, offering a cost-effective and thickness from 20 mm to 30 mm and 50 mm, respectively.
efficient alternative for evaluating the impact performance Therefore, the effective military or defense application of
of advanced composite structures. the composite sandwich structures depends on their high-
The computational simulations offered significant ad- speed or ballistic impact properties or responses. The use of
vantages over traditional experimental procedures. While computational simulations not only provided a highly
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

accurate and reliable method for design optimization but 8. Hassan MZ, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ, et al. The influence of
also reduced the time and resources typically required for core density on the blast resistance of foam-based sandwich
experimental testing, enabling faster and more cost- structures. Int J Impact Eng 2012; 50: 9–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.
effective development of advanced composite materials. ijimpeng.2012.06.009.
9. Qi C, Yang S, Yang L-J, et al. Blast resistance and multi-
Declaration of conflicting interests objective optimization of aluminum foam-cored sandwich
panels. Compos Struct 2013; 105: 45–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with re- compstruct.2013.04.043.
spect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 10. Guan ZW, Aktas A, Potluri P, et al. The blast resistance of
stitched sandwich panels. Int J Impact Eng 2014; 65:
Funding 137–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.12.001.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au- 11. Marom I and Bodner SR. Projectile perforation of multi-
thorship, and/or publication of this article. layered beams. Int J Mech Sci 1979; 21: 489–504. DOI: 10.
1016/0020-7403(79)90011-0.
12. Zhou DW and Stronge WJ. Ballistic limit for oblique impact
ORCID iD
of thin sandwich panels and spaced plates. Int J Impact Eng
Saeed Eyvazinejad Firouzsalari  https://orcid.org/0000-0002- 2008; 35: 1339–1354. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.08.004.
3709-4122 13. Dey V, Zani G, Colombo M, et al. Flexural impact response of
textile-reinforced aerated concrete sandwich panels. Mater
Data availability statement Des 2015; 86: 187–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.004.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from 14. Børvik T, Forrestal MJ and Warren TL. Perforation of 5083-
the corresponding author upon reasonable request. H116 aluminum armor plates with ogive-nose rods and
7.62 mm APM2 bullets. Exp Mech 2010; 50: 969–978. DOI:
10.1007/s11340-009-9262-5.
References
15. Gara N, Ramachandran V and Rengaswamy J. Analytical and
1. Zhu Y and Sun Y. Dynamic response of foam core sandwich FEM analyses of high-speed impact behaviour of Al
panel with composite facesheets during low-velocity impact 2024 alloy. Aerospace 2021; 8: 281.
and penetration. Int J Impact Eng 2020; 139: 103508. DOI: 16. Kılıç N and Ekici B. Ballistic resistance of high hardness armor
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103508. steels against 7.62 mm armor piercing ammunition. Mater Des
2. Krzyżak A, Mazur M, Gajewski M, et al. Sandwich structured 2013; 44: 35–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.07.045.
composites for aeronautics: methods of manufacturing af- 17. Tria DE and Tre˛ biński R. Methodology for experimental
fecting some mechanical properties. Int J Aerosp Eng 2016; verification of steel armour impact modelling. Int J Impact Eng
2016: 1–10. DOI: 10.1155/2016/7816912. 2017; 100: 102–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.10.011.
3. Naik RK, Panda SK and Racherla V. A new method for 18. Lesuer DR. Experimental investigations of material models
joining metal and polymer sheets in sandwich panels for for Ti-6Al-4V titanium and 2024-T3 aluminum. DOT/FAA/
highly improved interface strength. Compos Struct 2020; 251: R-00/25 2000.
112661. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112661. 19. Seidt JD and Gilat A. Plastic deformation of 2024-T351
4. Liu C, Zhang YX and Li J. Impact responses of sandwich aluminum plate over a wide range of loading conditions. Int J
panels with fibre metal laminate skins and aluminium foam Solid Struct 2013; 50: 1781–1790. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.
core. Compos Struct 2017; 182: 183–190. DOI: 10.1016/j. 2013.02.006.
compstruct.2017.09.015. 20. Ibrahim MN and Hamdani MQ. Kinematic behavior of
5. Dharmasena KP, Wadley HNG, Xue Z, et al. Mechanical Al2024 T3 aluminium plate subjected to impact of 7.62 mm
response of metallic honeycomb sandwich panel structures to bullet. RPMME. 2020; 1: 38–43. https://publisher.uthm.edu.
high-intensity dynamic loading. Int J Impact Eng 2008; 35: my/periodicals/index.php/rpmme.
1063–1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.06.008. 21. Jamil A, Guan ZW, Cantwell WJ, et al. Blast response of
6. Tekalur SA, Bogdanovich AE and Shukla A. Shock loading aluminium/thermoplastic polyurethane sandwich panels –
response of sandwich panels with 3-D woven E-glass com- experimental work and numerical analysis. Int J Impact
posite skins and stitched foam core. Compos Sci Technol Eng 2019; 127: 31–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.01.
2009; 69: 736–753. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.03. 003.
017. 22. Jamil A, Guan ZW and Cantwell WJ. The static and dynamic
7. Wang E, Gardner N and Shukla A. The blast resistance of response of CFRP tube reinforced polyurethane. Compos Struct
sandwich composites with stepwise graded cores. Int J Solid 2017; 161: 85–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.11.043.
Struct 2009; 46: 3492–3502. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.06. 23. Gibson LJ and Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and prop-
004. erties. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
 Ismail et al. 11

24. Nazeer MM, Khan MA, Naeem A, et al. Analysis of 31. Iqbal MA, Chakrabarti A, Beniwal S, et al. 3D numerical
conical tool perforation of ductile metal sheets. Int J Mech simulations of sharp nosed projectile impact on ductile tar-
Sci 2000; 42: 1391–1403. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7403(99) gets. Int J Impact Eng 2010; 37: 185–195. DOI: 10.1016/j.
00065-X. ijimpeng.2009.09.008.
25. Rusinek A, Rodrı́guez-Martı́nez JA, Zaera R, et al. Experi- 32. Børvik T, Hopperstad OS, Berstad T, et al. Perforation of
mental and numerical study on the perforation process of mild 12 mm thick steel plates by 20 mm diameter projectiles with
steel sheets subjected to perpendicular impact by hemi- flat, hemispherical and conical noses: Part II: numerical
spherical projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36: 565–587. simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2002; 27: 37–64. DOI: 10.1016/
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.09.004. S0734-743X(01)00035-5.
26. Edwards NJ, Cimpoeru SJ, Herzig N, et al. Ballistic impact of 33. Chen XW, Yang YB, Lu ZH, et al. Perforation of metallic plates
flat-ended projectiles against 2024-T351 plate: experiments struck by a blunt projectile with a soft nose. Int J Impact Eng
and modeling. J Aerosp Eng 2022; 35: 04021124. DOI: 10. 2008; 35: 549–558. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.05.002.
1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0001378. 34. Wen H, Reddy T, Reid S, et al. Indentation, penetration and
27. Børvik T, Dey S and Clausen AH. Perforation resistance of perforation of composite laminate and sandwich panels under
five different high-strength steel plates subjected to small- quasi-static and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater 1997; 141–
arms projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36: 948–964. DOI: 143: 501–552.
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.12.003. 35. Lin YY, Lin MC, Lou CW, et al. Thermoplastic laminated
28. Stanag-4569. Protection levels for occupants of logistic and composites applied to impact resistant protective gear:
light armoured vehicles. NATO 2004. structural design and development. Polymers (Basel) 2023;
29. Verhoeven T. Procedures for evaluating the protection level of 15: 292. DOI: 10.3390/polym15020292.
armoured vehicles Vol. 3: IED Threat. Belgium: Allied En- 36. Ozdemir O, Karakuzu R and Al-Shamary AKJ. Core-
gineering Publication, 2008. thickness effect on the impact response of sandwich com-
30. Gupta NK, Iqbal MA and Sekhon GS. Effect of projectile posites with poly(vinyl chloride) and poly(ethylene tere-
nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on phthalate) foam cores. J Compos Mater 2014; 49: 1315–1329.
deformation behavior of aluminum plates. Int J Solid DOI: 10.1177/0021998314533597.
Struct 2007; 44: 3411–3439. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr. 37. Rosenberg Z and Dekel E. Terminal ballistics. Berlin, Hei-
2006.09.034. delberg: Springer, 2012.

View publication stats