A new multi-layer approach for progressive damage simulation in composite laminates based on isogeometric analysis and Kirchhoff–Love shells. Part I: basic theory and modeling of delamination and transverse shear
- 380 Downloads
In this two-part paper we introduce a new formulation for modeling progressive damage in laminated composite structures. We adopt a multi-layer modeling approach, based on Isogeometric Analysis (IGA), where each ply or lamina is represented by a spline surface, and modeled as a Kirchhoff–Love thin shell. Continuum Damage Mechanics is used to model intralaminar damage, and a new zero-thickness cohesive-interface formulation is introduced to model delamination as well as permitting laminate-level transverse shear compliance. In Part I of this series we focus on the presentation of the modeling framework, validation of the framework using standard Mode I and Mode II delamination tests, and assessment of its suitability for modeling thick laminates. In Part II of this series we focus on the application of the proposed framework to modeling and simulation of damage in composite laminates resulting from impact. The proposed approach has significant accuracy and efficiency advantages over existing methods for modeling impact damage. These stem from the use of IGA-based Kirchhoff–Love shells to represent the individual plies of the composite laminate, while the compliant cohesive interfaces enable transverse shear deformation of the laminate. Kirchhoff–Love shells give a faithful representation of the ply deformation behavior, and, unlike solids or traditional shear-deformable shells, do not suffer from transverse-shear locking in the limit of vanishing thickness. This, in combination with higher-order accurate and smooth representation of the shell midsurface displacement field, allows us to adopt relatively coarse in-plane discretizations without sacrificing solution accuracy. Furthermore, the thin-shell formulation employed does not use rotational degrees of freedom, which gives additional efficiency benefits relative to more standard shell formulations.
KeywordsComposite laminates Kirchhoff–Love shells Isogeometric analysis (IGA) NURBS Cohesive interface Impact damage
This work was supported by NASA Advanced Composites Project No. 15-ACP1-0021. We thank F. Leone, C, Rose, and C. Davila from NASA Langley Research Center for their valuable comments and suggestions.
- 23.Pucka A, Schürmann H (2002) Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol 62:16331662Google Scholar
- 24.Dàvila C, Camanho P (November 2003) Failure criteria for FRP laminates in plane stress Technical Report NASA/TM-2003-212663. Langley Research Center, Hampton, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
- 25.Pinho S, Iannucci L, Robinson P (2006) Physically-based failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced composites with emphasis on fibre kinking: part I: development. Compos Part A 37:6373Google Scholar
- 32.Barbero E (2013) Finite element analysis of composite materials using Abaqus. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Dàvila C, Camanho P, Turon A (2007) Cohesive elements for shells. Technical Report 214869, NASA Langley Research CenterGoogle Scholar
- 38.Bischoff M, Bletzinger K, Wall W, Ramm E (2004) Models and finite elements for thin-walled structures. Encycl Computat Mech 2:59–137Google Scholar
- 39.Reddy J (2003) Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells: theory and analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton. ISBN 9780849315923Google Scholar
- 43.Bažant Z, Oh B (1983) Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Struct 16:155–177Google Scholar
- 53.Turon A, Dàvila C, Camanho P, Costa J (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of selamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74:1665–1682Google Scholar
- 54.Falk M, Needleman A, Rice J (2001) A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of dynamic fracture. J de Physi IV 11:43–50Google Scholar