The combination of high strength and low density has resulted in increasing use of composite materials in structures such as aerospace systems that may be subjected to high-velocity impact during their in-service lives. In this review we focus on recent work surrounding the response of composites, primarily carbon fibre reinforced plastic and glass fibre reinforced plastic-based laminates to very high (hyper)-velocity impacts. To this end, the review is divided into two halves. In the first, hypervelocity impacts (e.g. impacts with velocities greater than ca. 2 km/s) that are likely to be encountered by aerospace systems are considered; while in the second, resultant material behaviour – in the form of shock response – is discussed. This review is designed to (1) build on previous studies which have typically largely focused on high-velocity impacts from the perspective of spacecraft protection against on-orbit impact, and; (2) complement an earlier part which focused on the lower impact velocity regime associated with ballistic-loading (Part 1).
FairH. Hypervelocity then and now. Int J Impact Engng1987; 5: 1–11.
2.
SchonbergWP. Protecting Earth-orbiting spacecraft against micro-meteoroid/orbital debris impact damage using composite structural systems and materials: An overview. Adv Space Res2010; 45(6): 709–720.
3.
SibeaudJ-MThamiéLPuilletC. Hypervelocity impact on honeycomb target structures: Experiments and modeling. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1799–1807.
4.
CookSHueterU. NASA’s integrated space transportation plan – 3rd generation reusable launch vehicle technology update. Acta Astronautica2003; 53: 719–728.
5.
MosesPLRauschVLNguyenLT. NASA hypersonic flight demonstrators—overview, status, and future plans. Acta Astronautica2004; 55: 619–630.
6.
BernhardRPChristiansenELKerrJH. Space shuttle meteoroid and orbital debris impact damage. Int J Impact Engng2001; 26: 33–38.
7.
RyanSSchäferFGuyotMHiermaierSLambertM. Characterizing the transient response of CFRP/Al HC spacecraft structures induced by space debris impact at hypervelocity. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1756–1763.
8.
CallisterWDJr. Materials science and engineering: an introduction. 5th ed.New York: John Wiley, pp.755–761.
9.
LamontageCGManuelpillaiGNTaylorEA. Normal and oblique hypervelocity impacts on carbon fibre/PEEK composites. Int J Impact Engng1999; 23: 519–532.
10.
WhippleFL. Meteorites and space travel. Astronom J1947; 52: 131.
11.
IsbellWMTedeschiWJ. Hypervelocity research and the growing problem of space debris. Int J Impact Engng1993; 14: 359–372.
12.
SchonbergWPComptonLE. Application of the NASA/JSC Whipple shield ballistic limit equations to dual-wall targets under hypervelocity impact. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1792–1798.
BurlayenkoVNSadowskiT. A numerical study of the dynamic response of sandwich plates initially damaged by low-velocity impact. Comput Mater Sci2012; 52(1): 212–216.
15.
SilvestrovVVPlastininAVGorshkovNN. Hypervelocity impact on laminate composite panels. Int J Impact Engng1995; 17: 751–762.
16.
SchonbergWP. Protecting spacecraft against orbital debris impact damage using composite materials. Compos. Part A2000; 31(8): 869–878.
17.
LambertMSchäferFKGeyerT. Impact damage on sandwich panels and multi-layer insulation. Int J Impact Engng2001; 26: 369–380.
18.
WeedenB. Space Policy. Overview of the legal and policy challenges of orbital debris removal. Space Policy2011; 27: 38–43.
19.
GrahamGAKearsleyATGradyMM. Hypervelocity impacts in low Earth orbit: cosmic dust versus space debris. Adv Space Res1999; 23(1): 95–100.
20.
MilowickiGVJohnson-FreeseJ. Strategic choices: examining the United States military response to the Chinese anti-satellite test. Astropolitics2008; 6: 1–21.
21.
SchneiderESchäferF. Hypervelocity impact research – acceleration technology and applications. Adv Space Res2001; 28(9): 1417–1424.
22.
FieldJEWalleySMProudWG. Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies. Int J Impact Engng2004; 30(7): 725–775.
23.
TennysonRCLamontagneC. Hypervelocity impact damage to composites. Compos Part A2000; 31(8): 785–794.
24.
LamontageCGManuelpillaiGNKerrJH. Projectile density, impact angle and energy effects on hypervelocity impact damage to carbon fibre/PEEK composites. Int J Impact Engng2001; 26: 381–398.
25.
NumataDOhtaniKAnyojiM. HVI tests on CFRP laminates at low temperature. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1695–1701.
26.
HanadaTLiouJ-C. Comparison of fragments created by low- and hyper-velocity impacts. Adv Space Res2008; 41(7): 1132–1137.
27.
JohnsonNLKriskoPHLiouJ-C. NASA’s new breakup model of evolve 4.0. Adv Space Res2001; 28(9): 1377–1384.
28.
WilliamsenJEEvansSW. Predicting orbital debris shape and orientation effects on spacecraft shield ballistic limits based on characteristic length. Int J Imapct Engng2006; 33: 862–871.
29.
WilliamsenJESchonbergWPEvansH. A comparison of NASA, DoD, and hydrocode ballistic limit predictions for spherical and non-spherical shapes versus dual- and single wall targets, and their effects on orbital debris penetration risk. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1870–1877.
30.
KriskoPHHorstmanMFudgeML. SOCIT4 collisional-breakup test data analysis: With shape and materials characterization. Adv Space Res2008; 41(7): 1138–1146.
31.
TedeschiWJConnell CdrJCMcKnightDS. Determining the effects of space debris impacts on spacecraft structures. Acta Astronautica1992; 26(7): 501–512.
32.
WickleinMRyanSWhiteDM. Hypervelocity impact on CFRP: Testing, material modelling, and numerical simulation. Int J Impact Engng2008; 35(12): 1861–1869.
33.
RyanSSchaeferFDestefanisR. A ballistic limit equation for hypervelocity impacts on composite honeycomb sandwich panel satellite structures. Adv Space Res2008; 41(7): 1152–1166.
34.
CleggRAWhiteDMRiedelW. Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in composites: Part I—material model and characterization. Int J Impact Engng2006; 33: 190–200.
35.
RiedelWNahmeHWhiteDM. Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in composites: Part II—experimental investigations and simulations. Int J Impact Engng2006; 33: 670–680.
36.
Appleby-ThomasGJHazellPJStennettC. Shock propagation in a cemented tungsten carbide. J Appl Phys2009; 105(6): 064916.
37.
YuanFTsaiLPrakashV. Spall strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer composites. Int J Solids Struct2007; 44: 7731–7747.
38.
RyanSWickleinMMouritzA. Theoretical prediction of dynamic composite material properties for hypervelocity simulations, Int J Impact Engng2009; 36.
39.
NaikNKKavalaVR. High strain rate behaviour of woven fabric composites under compressive loading. Mater Sci Engng A2008; 474: 301–311.
40.
NaikNKShankarPJKavalaVR. High strain rate mechanical behavior of epoxy under compressive loading: Experimental and modelling studies. Mater Sci Engng A2011, 528, 846–854.
41.
SkidmoreIC. An introduction to shock waves in solids. Appl Mat Res1965; 131–147.
42.
DavisonLGrahamRA. Shock compression of solids. Phys Reports (Review Section of Phys. Letters) 1979; 55: 255–379.
43.
MeyersMA. Dynamic behavior of materials. New York: John Wiley, 1994.
44.
MillettJCFBourneNK.MeziereYJE. The effect of orientation on the shock response of a carbon fibre–epoxy composite. Comp Sci Techol2007; 67: 3253–3260.
45.
DavisonL. Fundamentals of shock wave propagation in solids. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp.31–43.
46.
IsbellWM. Shock Waves: Measuring the dynamic response of materials. London, Imperial College Press, London, 2005, pp.8–11.
47.
ChéretR. The life and work of Pierre-Henri Hugoniot. Shock Waves1992; 2(1): 1–4.
48.
RuoffL. Linear shock–velocity–particle–velocity relationship. J Appl Phys1967; 38: 4976–4980.
49.
CarterWJMarshSP. Hugoniot Equation of State of Polymers. Report LA-13006-MS. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos (USA).
50.
PorterDGouldPJ. A general equation of state for polymeric materials, J Phys IV2006; 134: 373–378.
51.
WoodDCHazellPJAppleby-ThomasGJ. The shock response of a tape wrapped carbon fiber composite. In: ElertMLButtlerWTBorgJP. (eds). Shock compression of condensed matter -2011, AIP Conference Proceedings 1426, 2012, pp.183–186.
52.
ShepherdCJAppleby-ThomasGJWilgerothJM. On the response of ballistic soap to one-dimensional shock loading. Int J Impact Engng2011; 38(12): 981–988.
53.
WoodDCHazellPJAppleby-ThomasGJ. Shock behaviour of a phenolic resin. J Mater Sci2011; 46(18): 5991–5999.
54.
HazellPJStennettCCooperG. The shock and release behavior of an aerospace-grade cured aromatic amine epoxy resin. Polymer Comp2008; 29: 1106–1110.
55.
DandekarDPHallCAChhabildasLC. Shock response of a glass-fiber-reinforced polymer composite. Compos. Struct2003; 6: 51–59.
56.
ZaretskyEdeBottonGPerlM. The response of a glass fibers reinforced epoxy composite to an impact loading. Int J Solids and Struct2004; 41(2): 569–584.
57.
MillettJCFBourneNKMeziereYJE. The effect of orientation on the shock response of a carbon fibre-epoxy composite. Compos Sci Technol2007; 67: 3253–3260.
58.
RiedelWNahmeHThomaK. Equation of State Properties of Modern Composite Materials: Modeling Shock, Release and Spallation. In: FurnishMDGuptaYMForbesJW (eds), Shock compression of condensed matter. American Institute of Physics, 2004, pp.701–706.
59.
AhukAZKanelGILashAA. Glass epoxy composite behaviour under shock loading. J. de Physique IV, Colloque C8 supplement of the Journal de Physique III, Vol. 4, September1994, pp.403–407.
60.
MillettJCFMeziereYJEBourneNK. The response to shock loading of a glass-fibre-epoxy composite: Effects of fibre orientation to the loading axis. J Phys D: Appl Phys2007; 40: 5358–5365.
61.
BushmanAVEfremovVPLomonosovIV. Shock compressibility and equation of state of carbon plastic at high energy. Teplofiz Vys Temp1990; 28: 1232–1234.
62.
HéreilPLAllixOGrattonM. Shock behaviour of 3D carbon-carbon composite. J Phys IV1997, 7, 529–534.
63.
WinterREHarrisEJ. The effect of shape and mounting on the piezo-resistive response of embedded manganin conductors. J Phys D: Appl Phys2006; 39: 5323–5330.
64.
WinterREHarrisEJ. Simulations of embedded lateral stress gauge profiles in shocked targets. J Phys D: Appl. Phys. 2008; 41: 035503.
65.
WinterREOwenGDHarrisEJ. Experimental measurement of stress perturbations caused by lateral gauges. J Phys D: Appl Phys2008; 41: 202006.
66.
Appleby-ThomasGJHazellPJ. On the interpretation of lateral manganin gauge stress measurements in polymers. J Appl Phys2010; 108: 033524.
67.
MeziereYJEMillettJCFBourneNK. The effect of fibre orientation on the shock response of a glass-fibre-epoxy composite. In: ElertGJFurnishMDChauR. (eds), Shock compression of condensed matter – 2007. Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, 2007, pp.715–718.
68.
ZhukAZKanelGILashAA. Glass-epoxy composite behaviour under shock loading. J. De Physique IV1994; 4: 404–407.
69.
Appleby-ThomasGJHazellPJStennettC. The variation in lateral and longitudinal stress gauge response within an RTM 6 epoxy resin under one-dimensional shock loading. J Mater Sci2009; 44(22); 6187–6198.
70.
GerlachRSiviourCRPetrinicN. Experimental characterisation and constitutive modelling of RTM-6 resin under impact loading. Polymer2008; 49: 2728–2737.
71.
EdenGCardenMHCollyerAM. Shock wave propagation in a 3-D quartz phenolic composite. In: SchmidtSCJohnsonJNDavisonLW (eds). Shock compression of condensed matter – 1989. Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, 1990, pp.217–220.
TsouFKChouPC. Analytical study of Hugoniot in unidirectional fiber reinforced composites. J Compos Mater1969; 3: 500–514.
74.
HazellPJStennettCCooperG. The effect of specimen thickness on the shock propagation along the in-fibre direction of an aerospace-grade CFRP laminate. Compos Part A: Appl Sci2009; 40: 204–209.
