4.6 Article

A consistent anisotropic damage model for laminated fiber-reinforced composites using the 3D-version of the Puck failure criterion

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOLIDS AND STRUCTURES
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 37-53

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.07.023

Keywords

Composite materials; FE-modeling; Damage modeling; Shells

Categories

Funding

  1. Andalusian Government [P11-TEP-7093, P12-TEP-1050]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [DPI2012-37187, MAT2015-71036-P, MAT2015-71309-P]
  3. SciTech Science and Technology for Competitive and Sustainable Industries [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000022]
  4. Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (NORTE)
  5. Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a consistent anisotropic damage model for laminated fiber-reinforced composites relying on the 3D-version of the Puck failure criterion. The current model is based on ply failure mechanisms (fiber and inter-fiber failures) incorporating energetic considerations into the progressive damage evolution. The proposed formulation is implemented into the implicit FE commercial package ABAQUS using the user-defined capability UMAT. Additionally, the current damage model is combined with a locking free solid shell formulation via the user-defined subroutine UEL in order to account for geometrical non-linear effects in thin-walled applications. The reliability of the current formulation is first examined by means of several benchmark applications, and subsequently, the obtained numerical predictions are compared with experimental data corresponding to an open hole tension test. These applications show the practicability and accuracy of the proposed methodology for triggering damage in composite laminates, providing a robust modeling framework suitable for general specimens and loading conditions. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available