Advertisement

Failure Analysis of Triaxially Braided Composite Under Tension, Compression and Shear Loading

  • Biruk F. Nega
  • Kyeongsik WooEmail author
Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

In the current study, continuum damage mechanics-based progressive failure analysis was performed to predict the initiation and progression of failure in triaxially braided textile composite unit cell under tensile, compressive and shear loading conditions. Geometric and finite element modeling was done at mesoscale unit cell level, with repeating nature of the unit cell considered through the application of periodic boundary condition. Analysis result was first validated with experimentally obtained stress–strain curve for uniaxial tension loading. Then, failure prediction was extended for tension, compression and shear failure loading in different directions. Depending on the out-of-plane boundary condition, single ply and infinitely stacked symmetric and antisymmetric plies were also considered to investigate the effect of stacking sequence on the in-plane properties. Detailed examination of failure modes at different damage initiation and propagation stages was presented. After full mechanical properties were obtained from mesoscale virtual testing, macroscale failure analysis of laterally loaded triaxially braided composite cylinder was performed using predicted properties. The result was then compared with test result for validation of the method used.

Keywords

Triaxially braided composite Unit cell Progressive failure analysis Composite cylinder 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Defense Acquisition Program of Korea through Dual Use Technology Development Project 2017.

References

  1. 1.
    Li X, Binienda WK, Goldberg RK (2010) Finite-element model for failure study of two-dimensional triaxially braided composite. J Aerosp Eng 24(2):170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FAA (2018) Aviation maintenance technician handbook: airframe, vol 1, FAA-H-8083-31A. FAA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tang X, Whitcomb JD, Kelkar AD, Tate J (2006) Progressive failure analysis of 2 × 2 braided composites exhibiting multiscale heterogeneity. Compos Sci Technol 66(14):2580–2590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu L, Kim SJ, Ong CH, Ha SK (2012) Prediction of material properties of biaxial and triaxial braided textile composites. J Compos Mater 46(18):2255–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu L, Jin CZ, Ha SK (2015) Ultimate strength prediction of braided textile composites using a multi-scale approach. J Compos Mater 49(4):477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lomov SV, Ivanov DS, Truong TC, Verpoest I, Baudry F, Bosche KV, Xie H (2008) Experimental methodology of study of damage initiation and development in textile composites in uniaxial tensile test. Compos Sci Technol 68(12):2340–2349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Littell JD, Binienda WK, Roberts GD, Goldberg RK (2009) Characterization of damage in triaxial braided composites under tensile loading. J Aerosp Eng 22(3):270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohlman LW (2012) Evaluation of test methods for triaxial braid composites and the development of a large multiaxial test frame for validation using braided tube specimens. PhD Dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst G, Vogler M, Hühne C, Rolfes R (2010) Multiscale progressive failure analysis of textile composites. Compos Sci Technol 70(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miravete A, Bielsa JM, Chiminelli A, Cuartero J, Serrano S, Tolosana N, De Villoria RG (2006) 3D mesomechanical analysis of three-axial braided composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 66:2954–2964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang C, Li N, Wang W, Binienda WK, Fang H (2015) Progressive damage simulation of triaxially braided composite using a 3D meso-scale finite element model. Compos Struct 125:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang D, Waas AM, Yen CF (2015) Progressive damage and failure response of hybrid 3D textile composites subjected to flexural loading, Part II: mechanics based multiscale computational modeling of progressive damage and failure. Int J Solids Struct 75:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smojver I, Ivančević D (2016) High-velocity impact damage modeling of laminated composites using Abaqus/Explicit and multiscale methods. In: Proceedings of science in the age of experience, 2016 May 23–27, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geleta TN, Woo K (2017) Multi-scale progressive failure analysis of triaxially braided textile composites. Int J Aeronaut Sp Sci 18(3):436–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    (2014) Abaqus user manual, Version 6.14, Dassault Systems Simulia Corp., ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alpha STAR Corporation (2014) MCQ-composites theoretical manual. Alpha STAR Corporation, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alpha STAR Corporation (2014) GENOA 5 theoretical manual. Alpha STAR Corporation, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Vree JH, Brekelmans WA, van Gils MA (1995) Comparison of nonlocal approaches in continuum damage mechanics. Comput Struct 55(4):581–588CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murakami S, Liu Y (1995) Mesh-dependence in local approach to creep fracture. Int J Damage Mech 4(3):230–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemaitre J, Desmorat R (2005) Engineering damage mechanics: ductile, creep, fatigue and brittle failures. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saouridis C, Mazars J (1988) A multiscale approach to distributed damage and its usefulness for capturing structural size effect. In: Proceedings of France-US Workshop on strain localization and size effect due to cracking and damage, pp 391–403Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Triantafyllidis N, Aifantis EC (1986) A gradient approach to localization of deformation. I. Hyperelastic materials. J Elast 16(3):225–237MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geleta TN, Woo K, Lee B (2017) Prediction of effective material properties for triaxially braided textile composite. Int J Aeronaut Sp Sci 18(2):222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim K (2017) Final report-dual use technology development projectGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calme O, Bigaud D, Jones S, Hamelin P (2006) Analytical evaluation of stress state in braided orthotropic composite cylinders under lateral compression. Compos Sci Technol 66(15):3040–3052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calme O, Bigaud D, Hamelin P (2005) 3D braided composite rings under lateral compression. Compos Sci Technol 65(1):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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(10):1665–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang ZJ, Paulino GH (2005) Cohesive zone modeling of dynamic failure in homogeneous and functionally graded materials. Int J Plast 21(6):1195–1254CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 33(20–22):2899–2938CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M (1996) Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 56(4):439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geleta TN, Woo K, Lee B (2018) Delamination behavior of L-shaped laminated composites. Int J Aeronaut Sp Sci 19(2):363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Systems EngineeringChungbuk National UniversityCheongjuKorea
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringChungbuk National UniversityCheongjuKorea

Personalised recommendations