Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Separation of skin and stringer is likely to be a failure mode in co-cured composites stiffened panels where there is considerable out-of-plane deformation. Such deformations are possible when a stiffened skin structure is loaded in compression/shear beyond buckling or in structures which contain a disbond/delamination at the skin–stringer interface. Prediction of damage initiation and progressive growth in numerical simulations require parameters such as interface fracture toughness which have to be obtained through specimen tests. Since interface toughness is generally mode dependent, this study deals with the design and testing of three different configuration of blade stiffened co-cured composite skin–stringer specimens under mode-I and mode-II dominated loading. Finite element numerical models are developed using three-dimensional cohesive elements to predict the disbond growth under mode-I and mode-II dominated loading. The work also addresses the complexities in the convergence of numerical simulations that arise due to cohesive elements. A systematic way to obtain the best values for cohesive element parameters while finding a balance between accuracy of the results, computation time and numerical stability is presented. The present cohesive element modelling and analysis methodology successfully predicted the disbond growth in skin–stringer specimen and can be used to predict disbond/delamination onset or growth in composite stiffened structures subjected to high bending.

Keywords

Abaqus cohesive elements interface fracture toughness numerical simulation skin–stringer specimens

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Krueger

Minguet

. A method for calculating strain energy release rates in preliminary design of composite skin/stringer debonding under multi-axial, composite structures: theory and practice. ASTM STP 2000; 1383: 105–128.

Krueger

Minguet

. Analysis of composite skin-stiffener desbond specimen using a shell/3D modeling technique. Compos Struct 2007; 81: 41–59.

Mohammed Waseem

Kumar

. Finite element modeling for delamination analysis of double cantilever beam specimen. SSRG Int J Mech Eng 2014; 1: 27–33.

Mikulik

Donald

Kelly

et al.

Prediction of initiation and growth of single level delaminations in a transversely loaded composite specimen using fracture mechanics. Int J Fract 2008; 149: 119–141.

Rybicki

Kanninen

. A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech 1977; 9: 931–938.

Singh

Dattaguru

Ramamurthy

. Fracture analysis of delaminated composite panels in compression using numerically integrated MVCCI. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2006; 13: 303–316.

Palani

Dattaguru

Iyer

. Numerically integrated modified virtual crack closure integral technique for 2-D crack problems. Struct Eng Mech 2004; 18: 731–744.

ABAQUS Version 6.5. Documentation, Providence, RI: ABAQUS, Inc, 2005.

Diehl T. Modeling surface-bonded with ABAQUS cohesive elements: beam-type solution. In: DuPont Engineering Technology, Abaqus users conference, Stockholm, Sweden, May 2005.

10.

Turon A, Dávila CG, Pedro P, et al. An engineering solution for using coarse meshes in the simulation of delamination with cohesive zone models. NASA Technical Report, NASA/TM-2005-213547, 1 March 2005.

11.

Dieh T. Using ABAQUS cohesive elements to model peeling of an epoxy-bonded aluminum strip: a benchmark study for inelastic peel arms. In: DuPont Engineering Technology, Abaqus users conference, 2006.

12.

Sorić J, Gruttmann F and Wagner W. Advanced numerical analysis of shell-like structures. In: Proceedings of special workshop: advanced numerical analysis of shell-like structures held in Zagreb. Croatia: Croatian Society of Mechanics, 2007, pp.26–28.

13.

Diehl

. On using a penalty-based cohesive-zone finite element approach, part I: elastic solution benchmarks. Int J Adhes Adhes 2008; 28: 237–255.

14.

Diehl

. On using a penalty-based cohesive-zone finite element approach, part II: inelastic peeling of an epoxy-bonded aluminum strip. Int J Adhes Adhes 2008; 28: 256–265.

15.

Giuliese G, Pirondi A and Moroni F. A cohesive zone model for three-dimensional fatigue debonding/delamination. Procedia Mater Sci 2014; 3: 1473–1478.

16.

Nadeem Masood

Viswamurthy

Gaddikeri

et al.

Buckling and postbuckling of co-cured composite stiffened panel under axial compression load – computation and testing. J Aerosp Sci Technol 2015; 67: 355–360.

17.

Orifici

Thomson

Degenhardt

et al.

A finite element methodology for analysing degradation and collapse in postbuckling composite aerospace structures. J Compos Mater 2009; 43: 26–26.

18.

Dávila

Camanho

Turon

. Effective simulation of delamination in aeronautical structures using shells and cohesive elements. J Aircraft 2008; 45: 663–672.

19.

Song K, Dávila CG and Rose CA. Guidelines and parameter selection for the simulation of progressive delamination. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Abaqus User’s Conference, Newport, RI, USA, 19–22 May 2008.

20.

Pereira

de Morais

MFSFDE

Moura

et al.

Double cantilever beam testing of multidirectional laminates. Compos Part A 2003; 34: 1135–1142.

21.

Wagner

Balzani

. Simulation of delamination in stringer-stiffened fiber-reinforced composite shells. Comput Struct 2008; 86: 930–939.

22.

ASTM 5528. Standard test method for mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fibre reinforced polymer matrix composites. American Society for Testing and Materials, 2013.

23.

Adams DF, Carlsson LA and Pipes RB. Experimental characterisation of advanced composite materials. CRC Press, 2002.

24.

Berry

. Determination of fracture surface energies by the cleavage technique. J Appl Phys 1963; 34: 62–68.

25.

Carlsson

Gillespie

Jr Trethewey

. Mode II interlaminar fracture of graphite/epoxy and graphite/PEEK. J Reinf Plast Compos 1986; 5: 170–187.

26.

O’Brien T, Murri G and Salpekar S. Interlaminar shear fracture toughness and fatigue thresholds for composite materials. Lagace P (ed.) Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture. Vol 2, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1989, pp.222–250.

27.

Nadeem Masood S, Singh AK and Viswamurthy SR. Simulation & validation of delamination growth in CFRP specimens under mixed mode loading using cohesive elements. In: Proceedings of 14th ISAMPE National Conference on Composites (INCCOM-14), Hyderabad, India, January 2016.

28.

ABAQUS Version 6.10. Documentation, Providence, RI: ABAQUS, Inc, 2010.

29.

Lee

. An edge crack torsion method for mode III delamination fracture testing. J Compos Technol Res 1993; 15: 193–201.

30.

Chen

J-F

Morozov

Shankar

. Simulating progressive failure of composite laminates including in-ply and delamination damage effects. Compos Part A 2014; 61: 185–200.

31.

Benzeggagh

Kenane

. Mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness using MMB apparatus for unidirectional glass/epoxy. Compos Sci Technol 1996; 56: 439–449.

Simulation and validation of disbond growth in co-cured composite skin–stringer specimens using cohesive elements

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References