Effects of Size and Location of Initial Delamination on Post-buckling and Delamination Propagation Behavior of Laminated Composites

  • Abebaw Abie Mekonnen
  • Kyeongsik WooEmail author
  • Minsong Kang
  • In-Gul Kim
Original Paper


In this paper, buckling, post-buckling, and delamination behavior of composite laminates subjected to axial compression was studied. First, compression tests were performed for composite laminate specimens with through-width delamination and the history of buckling and delamination propagation was measured. Next, the tests were simulated using two-dimensional finite-element models. A geometrically non-linear post-buckling analysis was performed for the finite-element mesh seeded with small amount of geometric imperfection based on eigenmodes. The growth of delamination due to sub-laminates buckling was simulated using the cohesive zone modeling. The analysis results were compared with the test results for the verification of the numerical model. Then, the analysis results were examined to study the relation between geometric parameters of initial delamination and buckling loads and post-buckling delamination propagation behavior of the composite laminates. The effects of different sizes and locations of initial delamination on the delamination behavior were systematically investigated. It was found that the buckling loads, mode shapes, and the delamination growth behavior are affected by the geometry variation of pre-included delamination. The long and shallow initial delaminations prompt local buckling the deep delaminations induce global buckling mode.


Composite laminate Sub-laminate buckling Cohesive zone modeling Delamination propagation 



  1. 1.
    Abrate S (2005) Impact on composite structures. Cambridge University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Y, Wang S (2009) Buckling, post-buckling and delamination propagation in debonded composite laminates: part 1: theoretical development. Compos Struct 88(1):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li Z, Meng Z (2016) A review of the radio frequency non-destructive testing for carbon-fibre composites. Meas Sci Rev 16(2):68–76MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suemasu H (1993) Effects of multiple delaminations on compressive buckling behaviors of composite panels. J Compos Mater 27(12):1172–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang SF, Liu GH (2001) Buckling behavior of composite laminates with multiple delaminations under uniaxial compression. Compos Struct 53(2):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler R, Rhead AT, Liu W, Kontis N (1965) Compressive strength of delaminated aerospace composites. Philos Trans R Soc A 2012(370):1759–1779zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bajurko P, Czarnocki P (2014) Numerical and experimental investigations of embedded delamination growth caused by compressive loading. J Theor Appl Mech 52(2):301–312Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chai H, Babcock CD, Knauss WG (1981) One dimensional modelling of failure in laminated plates by delamination buckling. Int J Solids Struct 17(11):1069–1083CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang RG, Zhang L, Zhang J, Liu WB, He XD (2010) Numerical analysis of delamination buckling and growth in slender laminated composite using cohesive element method. Comput Mater Sci 50(1):20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang S, Zhang Y (2009) Buckling, post-buckling and delamination propagation in debonded composite laminates Part 2: numerical applications. Compos Struct 88(1):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Hosseini S, Mohammadi B (2010) Delamination buckling growth in laminated composites using layerwise-interface element. Compos Struct 92(8):1846–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitcomb JD, Shivakumar KN (1989) Strain-energy release rate analysis of plates with postbuckled delaminations. J Compos Mater 23(7):714–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whitcomb JD (1989) Three-dimensional analysis of a postbuckled embedded delamination. J Compos Mater 23(9):862–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yeh MK, Tan CM (1994) Buckling of elliptically delaminated composite plates. J Compos Mater 28(1):36–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang H, Kardomateas GA (1998) Buckling of orthotropic beam-plates with multiple central delaminations. Int J Solids Struct 35(13):1355–1362CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kyoung WM, Kim CG (1995) Delamination buckling and growth of composite laminated plates with transverse shear deformation. J Compos Mater 29(15):2047–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim H, Kedward KT (1999) A method for modeling the local and global buckling of delaminated composite plates. Compos Struct 44(1):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF (1977) A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech 9(4):931–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park K, Paulino GH (2011) Cohesive zone models: a critical review of traction-separation relationships across fracture surfaces. Appl Mech Rev 64(6):060802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bae H, Kang M, Woo K, Kim IG (2019) Test and analysis of modes I, II and mixed-mode I/II delamination for carbon/epoxy composite laminates. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alpha STAR Corporation “MCQ-Composites theorem manual”, Alpha STAR Corporation, 2014Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ABAQUS User Manual (2014) Version 6.14. Dassault Systems 2014Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson PE (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6(6):773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rice JR (1992) Dislocation nucleation from a crack tip: an analysis based on the Peierls concept. J Mech Phys Solids 40(2):239–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davila C, Camanho P, de Moura M (2001) Mixed-mode decohesion elements for analyses of progressive delamination. In: 19th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference 2001, p 1486)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Falk ML, Needleman A, Rice JR (2001) A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of dynamic fractur. Le Journal de Physique IV 11(PR5):Pr5–Pr43Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Valoroso N, Fedele R (2010) Characterization of a cohesive-zone model describing damage and de-cohesion at bonded interfaces. Sensitivity analysis and mode-I parameter identification. Int J of Solid Struct 47(13):1666–1677CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gao YF, Bower AF (2004) A simple technique for avoiding convergence problems in finite element simulations of crack nucleation and growth on cohesive interfaces. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 12(3):453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kutlu Z, Chang FK (1995) Composite panels containing multiple through-the-width delaminations and subjected to compression. Part II: experiments & verification. Compos Struct 31(4):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringChungbuk National UniversityCheongjuSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringChungbuk National UniversityCheongjuSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Aerospace EngineeringChungnam National UniversityDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations