Advertisement

Modeling of delamination in fiber-reinforced composite using high-dimensional model representation-based cohesive zone model

  • B. Kesava Rao
  • A. S. BaluEmail author
Technical Paper
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Prediction of delamination failure is challenging when the researchers try to achieve the task without overburdening the available computational resources. One of the most powerful computational models to predict the crack initiation and propagation is cohesive zone model (CZM), which has become prominent in the crack propagation studies. This paper proposes a novel CZM using high-dimensional model representation (HDMR) to capture the steady-state energy release rate (ERR) of a double-cantilever beam (DCB) under mode I loading. The finite element models are created using HDMR-based load and crack length response functions. Initially, the model is developed for 51-mm crack size DCB specimens, and the developed HDMR-based CZM is then used to predict the ERR variations of 76.2-mm crack size DCB model. Comparisons have been made between the available unidirectional composite (IM7/977-3) experimental data and the numerical results obtained from the 51-mm and 76.2-mm initial crack size DCB specimens. In order to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed model, the results of the second-order nonlinear regression model using RSM are used for the comparison study. The results show that the proposed method is computationally efficient in capturing the delamination strength.

Keywords

Cohesive zone model High-dimensional model representation Response surface generation Finite element analysis Double-cantilever beam Crack growth 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Herrmann H, Eik M, Berg V, Puttonen J (2014) Phenomenological and numerical modelling of short fibre reinforced cementitious composites. Meccanica 49:1985–2000MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson WS, Mangalgiri PD (1987) Investigation of fiber bridging in double cantilever beam specimens. J Compos Technol Res 9:10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spearing SM, Evans AG (1992) The role of fiber bridging in the delamination resistance of fiber-reinforced composites. Acta Metall Mater 40:2191–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson T, Anderson TL (2017) Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sørensen BF, Jacobsen TK (1998) Large-scale bridging in composites: R-curves and bridging laws. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 29:1443–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shanmugam V, Penmetsa R, Tuegel E, Clay S (2013) Stochastic modeling of delamination growth in unidirectional composite DCB specimens using cohesive zone models. Compos Struct 102:38–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arora VK, Bhushan G, Aggarwal ML (2017) Enhancement of fatigue life of multi-leaf spring by parameter optimization using RSM. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:1333–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balu AS, Rao BN (2014) Efficient assessment of structural reliability in presence of random and fuzzy uncertainties. J Mech Des 136:051008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balu AS, Rao BN (2012) High dimensional model representation-based formulations for fuzzy finite element analysis of structures. Finite Elem Anal Des 50:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rabitz H, Alis ÖF, Shorter J, Shim K (1999) Efficient input-output model representations. Comput Phys Commun 117:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li G, Rosenthal C, Rabitz H (2001) High dimensional model representations. J Phys Chem A 105(33):7765–7777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bauer J, Kozubal J, Puła W, Wyjadłowski M (2012) Application of HDMR method to reliability assessment of a single pile subjected to lateral load. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 34(3):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balu AS, Rao BN (2011) Explicit fuzzy analysis of systems with imprecise properties. Int J Mech Mater Des 7:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naveen BO, Balu AS (2018) HDMR-based model update in structural damage identification. Int J Comput Methods 15(2):1840004–1840014MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ezzine MC, Amiri A, Tarfaoui M (2018) Experimental and numerical investigation of the fracture behavior of adhesive shear tests single lap joints. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sane AU, Padole PM, Manjunatha CM, Uddanwadiker RV, Jhunjhunwala P (2018) Mixed mode cohesive zone modelling and analysis of adhesively bonded composite T-joint under pull-out load. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panettieri E, Fanteria D, Firrincieli A (2015) Damage initialization techniques for non-sequential FE propagation analysis of delaminations in composite aerospace structures. Meccanica 50:2569–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barenblatt GI (1959) The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypotheses. Axially-symmetric cracks. J Appl Math Mech 23:622–636MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu G, Zhou D, Ma J, Han Z (2016) Numerical investigation of mixed-mode crack growth in ductile material using elastic–plastic XFEM. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38:1689–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roesler J, Paulino GH, Park K, Gaedicke C (2007) Concrete fracture prediction using bilinear softening. Cem Concr Compos 29:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park K, Paulino GH, Roesler JR (2008) Determination of the kink point in the bilinear softening model for concrete. Eng Fract Mech 75:3806–3818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park K, Paulino GH, Roesler J (2010) Cohesive fracture model for functionally graded fiber reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res 40:956–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jin ZH, Paulino GH, Dodds RH (2003) Cohesive fracture modeling of elastic-plastic crack growth in functionally graded materials. Eng Fract Mech 70:1885–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao BN, Kuna M (2008) Interaction integrals for fracture analysis of functionally graded magnetoelectroelastic materials. Int J Fract 153:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregory JR, Spearing SM (2004) A fiber bridging model for fatigue delamination in composite materials. Acta Mater 52:5493–5502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feih S (2006) Development of a user element in ABAQUS for modelling of cohesive laws in composite structures. Riso National Laboratory, RoskildeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rice J (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suo Z, Bao G, Fan B (1992) Delamination R-curve phenomena due to damage. J Mech Phys Solids 40:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Balu AS, Rao BN (2013) Confidence bounds on design variables using high-dimensional model representation–based inverse reliability analysis. J Struct Eng 139:985–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alış ÖF, Rabitz H (2001) Efficient implementation of high dimensional model representations. J Math Chem 29:127–142MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang SW, Levy H, Li G, Rabitz H (1999) Fully equivalent operational models for atmospheric chemical kinetics within global chemistry-transport models. J Geophys Res 104:30417–30426CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of Technology KarnatakaSurathkalIndia

Personalised recommendations