journal article·2022-04Open access

Determination of fracture energy (mode I) in the inverse fiber metal laminates using experimental–numerical approach

Sz. Duda, M. Smolnicki, T. Osiecki, G. Lesiuk

International Journal of Fracture· Volume 234· Issue 1-2

Abstract

Abstract Fiber metal laminates (FML) are hybrid materials consisting of metal and composite layers. They have great mechanical and fatigue properties. However, interface between metal and composite layers can be critical for their final properties. In this paper, process of determination of some fracture parameters of this interface in unusual FML material is described. Experimental tests following ASTM norm were conducted using Double Cantilever Beam (DCB). However, due to asymmetry, fracture energy cannot be obtained directly from the force–displacement curve. Finite element method simulations were carried out using cohesive elements and cohesive surfaces approach. The cohesive behavior of interface layers were modelled using traction separation law. Key properties of this law were obtained—maximal traction and fracture energy. In this particular case cohesive approach was better in reflecting experimental results. Determined values can be used in later research tasks (like modelling big structures containing this material) as material properties. The presented approach can be used successfully to obtain fracture energy in cases of materials for which standard approach is insufficient.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization · Textile materials and evaluations

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. Abdel Wahab MM (2015) “Simulating mode I fatigue crack propagation in adhesively-bonded composite joints.” Fatigue and fracture of adhesively-bonded composite joints. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 323–34410.1016/B978-0-85709-806-1.00011-2 ↗
2. “Aerospace Aluminum Distributor Supplier”. [Online]. Dostępne na: https://www.aerospacemetals.com/aluminum-distributor.html#tech. Udostępniono 20 maj 2021
3. Aksit M, Altstädt V (2020) Hybrid materials-historical perspective and current trends. COJ Rev Res 2(3). https://doi.org/10.31031/COJRR.2020.02.00053910.31031/COJRR.2020.02.000539 ↗
4. Alfano G, Crisfield MA (2001) Finite element interface models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues. Int J Numer Methods Eng 50(7):1701–173610.1002/nme.93 ↗
5. Alfano M, Furgiuele F, Leonardi A, Maletta C, Paulino GH (2007) Cohesive zone modeling of mode I fracture in adhesive bonded joints. Key Eng Mater 348–349:13–1610.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.348-349.13 ↗
6. ASTM International (2001) D5528-01 standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/D5528-0110.1520/D5528-01 ↗
7. Balkumar K, Iyer AV, Ramasubramanian A, Devarajan K, Marimuthu PK (2016) Numerical Simulation of Low Velocity Impact Analysis of Fiber Metal Laminates.
8. Banat D, Kolakowski Z, Mania RJ (2016) Investigations of fml profile buckling and post-buckling behaviour under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 107:335–34410.1016/j.tws.2016.06.018 ↗
9. Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M (1996) Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 56(4):439–44910.1016/0266-3538(96)00005-X ↗
10. Bieniaś J, Dadej K, Surowska B (2017) Interlaminar fracture toughness of glass and carbon reinforced multidirectional fiber metal laminates. Eng Fract Mech 175:127–14510.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.02.007 ↗
11. Botelho EC, Silva RA, Pardini LC, Rezende MC (2006) A review on the development and properties of continuous fiber/epoxy/aluminum hybrid composites for aircraft structures. Mater Res 9(3):247–256 (Universidade Federal de Sao Carlos)10.1590/S1516-14392006000300002 ↗
12. Burlayenko VN, Sadowski T (2008) FE modeling of delamination growth in interlaminar fracture specimens. Bud Arch 2(1):09510.35784/bud-arch.2315 ↗
13. Carrillo JG, Cantwell WJ (2009) Mechanical properties of a novel fiber-metal laminate based on a polypropylene composite. Mech Mater 41(7):828–83810.1016/j.mechmat.2009.03.002 ↗
14. Diehl T (2005) Modeling surface-bonded structures with Abaqus cohesive elements: beam-type solutions. Abaqus User’s Conference
15. Ding Z, Wang H, Luo J, Li N (2021) A review on forming technologies of fibre metal laminates. Int J Light Mater Manuf 4(1):110–126
16. “eLamX2—Chair of Aircraft Engineering—TU Dresden”. [Online]. Dostępne na: https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/lft/elamx2/elamx?set_language=en. Udostępniono 03 lis 2020
17. Elices M, Guinea GV, Omez JG, Planas J (2002) The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 69(2):137–16310.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2 ↗
18. Goyal V, Irizarry V (2016) Development of a Combined Cohesive and Extended Finite Element Method to Predict Delamination in Composite Structures, w 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference.10.2514/6.2016-0987 ↗
19. Hibbit, Karlsson, i Sorensen (2013) Surface-based cohesive behavior, Abaqus Anal. User’s Guid, ss. 37.1.10–1–19.
20. Jimenez MA, Miravete A (2004) Application of the finite-element method to predict the onset of delamination growth. J Compos Mater 38(15):1309–133510.1177/0021998304042734 ↗
21. Ly R, Jumel J, Shanahan MER, Lavelle F (2016) Cohesive zone model identification with dcb test parameter estimation sensitivity, ECCOMAS Congress 2016—Proceedings of the 7th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, 2: 3676–3688.10.7712/100016.2064.9066 ↗
22. Manikandan P, Chai GB (2018) Mode-I metal-composite interface fracture testing for fibre metal laminates. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2018:1–1110.1155/2018/4572989 ↗
23. Millar TM, Williams JG, Balint DS (2014) The cohesive zone model applied to blunt cracks. Procedia Mater Sci 3:313–31710.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.054 ↗
24. Ning H et al (2015) Experimental and numerical study on the improvement of interlaminar mechanical properties of Al/CFRP laminates. J Mater Process Technol 216:79–8810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.08.031 ↗
25. Osiecki T et al (2020) Inverse hybrid laminate for lightweight applications. Key Eng Mater 847:40–4510.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.847.40 ↗
26. Panettieri E, Fanteria D, Danzi F (2016) A sensitivity study on cohesive elements parameters: towards their effective use to predict delaminations in low-velocity impacts on composites. Compos Struct 137:130–13910.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.011 ↗
27. “Polyamide Nylon 6–Polyamide 6 (PA6)—Matmatch”. [Online]. Dostępne na: https://matmatch.com/materials/good00049-polyamide-nylon-6. Udostępniono 03 lis 2020
28. Salve A, Kulkarni R, Mache A (2016) A review: Fiber Metal Laminates (FML’s) - manufacturing, test methods and numerical modeling. Int J Eng Technol Sci 6(1):71–8410.15282/ijets.6.2016.1.10.1060 ↗
29. Soroush M, Malekzadeh Fard K, Shahravi M (2018) Finite element simulation of interlaminar and intralaminar damage in laminated composite plates subjected to impact. Lat Am J Solids Struct. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-7825460910.1590/1679-78254609 ↗
30. Tomasz O, Colin G, Hackert A, Timmel T, Lothar K (2017) High-performance fiber reinforced polymer/metal-hybrids for structural lightweight design. Key Eng Mater 744:311–31610.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.744.311 ↗