4.7 Article

A progressive damage model for predicting damage evolution of laminated composites subjected to three-point bending

Journal

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 151, Issue -, Pages 85-93

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.08.009

Keywords

Progressive damage model; Gradual stiffness degradation rules; Damage evolution; Delamination

Funding

  1. National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Project) [2014CB046504]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51375068, 51475073, 51605076]
  3. Liaoning Province Natural Science Foundation [201602171]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT15RC(3)089]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the Hashin-type failure criteria and cohesive zone method, a new progressive damage model with a set of gradual stiffness degradation rules was developed to investigate the flexural behavior and the damage evolution of laminated composites subjected to three-point bending. Eight kinds of failure modes were considered for damage evolution in the present model. Compared the analysis results of the present model and Linde's model with the results of three-point bending experiments, it was found that both stiffness and the maximum strength obtained from the present model were in accordance with experimental results. The relative errors of stiffness and the maximum strength between the present model and the experiments were -0.35% and 0.75%, respectively. The degradation stages of the load deflection curve after the ultimate load can be well predicted by the present model with relative load errors less than 12.5% and relative deflection errors less than 8.5% for four characteristic points of the degradation stages. Both final predicted failures and damage evolution were in good agreement with the damage micrographs observed from the failed specimens. (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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available