String-based cohesive zone model: implicit integration scheme and calibration method
Source abstract
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to develop the implicit integration scheme and calibration method for a recently developed cohesive zone model (CZM), for improved predictive capabilities in interlaminar delamination. The concept of string-based CZM is briefly introduced. An associated implicit integration scheme, which can handle complex separation paths and mixed-mode fracture, is developed, and the implicit CZM is implemented in an implicit solver via a user subroutine, for structural analysis. The constant interface parameters are identified from a thermodynamic perspective, and a systemic method for model calibration is subsequently developed. The present CZM is validated by calibrating its constant parameters via a series of flexural tests. The integration scheme is found to produce improved convergence and accuracy. The calibration method is found to provide a reliable guide to model calibration. The present CZM can be modified to accommodate other types of debonding or fracture.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Analysis and Optimization · Composite Material Mechanics · Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. ASTM (2013a) Astm d552813 standard test method for mode i interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
2. ASTM (2013b) Astm d6671/d6671m13e1 standard test method for mixed mode i–mode ii interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites
3. ASTM (2014) Astm d7905/d7905m14 standard test method for determination of the mode ii interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
4. Balzani C, Wagner W (2008) An interface element for the simulation of delamination in unidirectional fiber-reinforced composite laminates. Eng Fract Mech 75:2597–261510.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.013 ↗
5. Benzerga AA, Besson J (2001) Plastic potentials for anisotropic porous solids. Eur J Mech A 20:397–43410.1016/S0997-7538(01)01147-0 ↗
6. Blaysat B, Hoefnagels JP, Lubineau G, Alfano M, Geers MG (2015) Interface debonding characterization by image correlation integrated with double cantilever beam kinematics. Int J Solids Struc 55:79–9110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.06.012 ↗
7. Borg R, Nilsson L, Simonsson K (2002) Modeling of delamination using a discretized cohesive zone and damage formulation. Compos Sci Technol 62:1299–131410.1016/S0266-3538(02)00070-2 ↗
8. Camanho PP, Dávila CG (2002) Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials10.2514/6.2001-1486 ↗
9. Cordebois J, Sidoroff F (1982) Anisotropic damage in elasticity and plasticity. Journal de Mécanique Théorique et Appliquée 45–60
10. Dávila CG, Camanho PP, Turon A (2008) Effective simulation of delamination in aeronautical structures using shells and cohesive elements. J Aircraft 45:663–67210.2514/1.32832 ↗
11. Elmarakbi AM, Hu N, Fukunaga H (2009) Finite element simulation of delamination growth in composite materials using ls-dyna. Compos Sci Technol 69:2383–239110.1016/j.compscitech.2009.01.036 ↗
12. Gao Z, Zhang L, Yu W (2015) Simulating the mixed-mode progressive delamination in composite laminates. In: American Society of composites-30th technical conference
13. Gent AN, Petrich RP (1969) Adhesion of viscoelastic materials to rigid substrates. In: Proceedings of the royal society of London a: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, The Royal Society. pp. 433–448
14. Harper PW, Hallett SR (2008) Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of composite delamination. Eng Fract Mech 75:4774–479210.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.004 ↗
15. Hill BC, Giraldo-Londoño O, Paulino GH, Buttlar WG (2017) Inverse estimation of cohesive fracture properties of asphalt mixtures using an optimization approach. Exp Mech 57:637–64810.1007/s11340-017-0257-3 ↗
16. Hui CY, Ruina A, Long R, Jagota A (2011) Cohesive zone models and fracture. J Adhes 87:1–5210.1080/00218464.2011.538315 ↗
17. Luo Y (2010) A local multivariate lagrange interpolation method for constructing shape functions. Int J Num Methods Biomed Eng 26:252–26110.1002/cnm.1149 ↗
18. Mosler J, Scheider I (2011) A thermodynamically and variationally consistent class of damage-type cohesive models. J Mech Phys Solids 59:1647–166810.1016/j.jmps.2011.04.012 ↗
19. Overgaard LC, Lund E, Camanho PP (2010) A methodology for the structural analysis of composite wind turbine blades under geometric and material induced instabilities. Comput Struct 88:1092–110910.1016/j.compstruc.2010.06.008 ↗
20. Park K, Paulino GH (2011) Cohesive zone models: a critical review of traction-separation relationships across fracture surfaces. Appl Mech Rev 64:06080210.1115/1.4023110 ↗
21. Pinho ST, Iannucci L, Robinson P (2006) Formulation and implementation of decohesion elements in an explicit finite element code. Compos A 37:778–78910.1016/j.compositesa.2005.06.007 ↗
22. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1992) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
23. Reeder JR (1992) An evaluation of mixed-mode delamination failure criteria
24. Reeder JR, Crews JH (1990) Mixed-mode bending method for delamination testing. AIAA J 28:1270–127610.2514/3.25204 ↗
25. Sarrado C, Turon A, Renart J, Urresti I (2012) Assessment of energy dissipation during mixed-mode delamination growth using cohesive zone models. Compos A 43:2128–213610.1016/j.compositesa.2012.07.009 ↗
26. Scalet G, Auricchio F, Hartl DJ (2016) Efficiency and effectiveness of implicit and explicit approaches for the analysis of shape-memory alloy bodies. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 27:384–40210.1177/1045389X15592483 ↗
27. Shen B, Paulino GH (2011) Direct extraction of cohesive fracture properties from digital image correlation: a hybrid inverse technique. Exp Mech 51:143–16310.1007/s11340-010-9342-6 ↗
28. Simo JC, Hughes TJR (1998) Computational inelasticity of volume 7 interdisciplinary applied mathematics. Springer, New York
29. Simulia (2013) Abaqus 6.13 documentation
30. Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, Dávila C (2006) A damage model for the simulation of delamination in advanced composites under variable-mode loading. Mech Mater 38:1072–108910.1016/j.mechmat.2005.10.003 ↗
31. Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, Renart J (2010) Accurate simulation of delamination growth under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: definition of interlaminar strengths and elastic stiffness. Compos Struct 92:1857–186410.1016/j.compstruct.2010.01.012 ↗
32. Turon A, Davila CG, Camanho PP, Costa J (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74:1665–168210.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025 ↗
33. Xie D, Waas AM (2006) Discrete cohesive zone model for mixed-mode fracture using finite element analysis. Eng Fract Mech 73:1783–179610.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.03.006 ↗
34. Zhang L, Gao Z, Yu W (2017) A string-based cohesive zone model for interlaminar delamination. Eng Fract Mech 180:1–2210.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.05.010 ↗