The increasing popularity of composite materials in aerospace applications is creating the need for a new class of predictive methods and tools for the simulation of progressive damage in laminated fiber-reinforced composite structures. The unique challenges associated with modeling damage in these structures may be addressed by means of thin-shell formulations which are naturally developed in the context of Isogeometric Analysis. In this paper, we further validate our recently developed Isogeometric Analysis-based multi-layer shell model for progressive damage simulations using experimental data for low-velocity impact on a 24-ply flat panel. The validation includes a careful comparison of delamination and matrix damage patterns predicted by the Isogeometric Analysis-based simulation and those obtained from post-impact non-destructive evaluation of the damaged coupon. The Isogeometric Analysis-based formulation is then deployed on two additional examples: a stiffened panel and a full-scale UAV wing, to demonstrate its suitability for, and ease of application to, typical aerospace composite structures.
BazilevsYPigazziniMSEllisonAet al.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. Comput Mech2017.
8.
PigazziniMSBazilevsYEllisonAet al.A new multi-layer approach for progressive damage simulation in composite laminates based on isogeometric analysis and Kirchhoff–Love shells. Part II: Impact modeling. Comput Mech2017.
9.
MatzenmillerALublinerJTaylorR. A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in fiber-composites. Mech Mater1995; 20: 125–152.
10.
DengXKorobenkoAYanJet al.Isogeometric analysis of continuum damage in rotation-free composite shells. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng2015; 284: 349–372.
11.
LapczykIHurtadoJA. Progressive damage modeling in fiber-reinforced materials. Composites Part A2007; 38: 2333–2341.
12.
BažantZPOhB. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Struct1983; 16: 155–177.
13.
WellsJRGde BorstR. A solid-like shell element allowing for arbitrary delaminations. Int J Numer Meth Eng2003; 58: 2013–2040.
14.
RivallantSBouvetCHongkarnjanakulN. Failure analysis of CFRP laminates subjected to compression after impact: Fe simulation using discrete interface elements. Composite Part A2013; 55: 83–93.
15.
BischoffMBletzingerKWallWet al.Models and finite elements for thin-walled structures. Encyclopedia of Comput Mech2004; 2: 59–137.
16.
TanWFalzonBChiuLet al.Predicting low velocity impact damage and Compression-after-impact (CAI) behaviour of composite laminates. Composites Part A2015; 71: 212–226.
17.
FaggianiAFalzonB. Predicting low-velocity impact damage on a stiffened composite panel. Composite Part A2010; 41: 737–749.
Dàvila C and Camanho P. Failure criteria for FRP laminates in plane stress. Technical Report NASA/TM-2003-212663, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, November 2003.
20.
CamanhoPBessaMCatalanottiGet al.Modeling the inelastic deformation and fracture of polymer composites – Part II: smeared crack model. Mech Mater2013; 59: 36–49.
DuvautGLionsJ. Inequalities in mechanics and physics, Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1976.
24.
Dàvila C, Camanho P and Turon A. Cohesive elements for shells. Technical Report 214869, NASA Langley Research Center, April 2007.
25.
TuronACamanhoPCostaJet al.Accurate simulation of delamination growth under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: definition of interlaminar strengths and elastic stiffness. Compos Struct2010; 92: 1857–1864.
26.
ReddyJ. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells: theory and analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
27.
KamenskyDHsuMCSchillingerDet al.An immersogeometric variational framework for fluid-structure interaction: application to bioprosthetic heart valves. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng2015; 284: 1005–1053.
28.
ChungJHulbertGM. A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: the generalized-α method. J Appl Mech1993; 60: 371–75.
29.
TuronADàvilaCCamanhoPet al.An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of selamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech2007; 74: 1665–1682.
30.
FalkMNeedlemanARiceJ. A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of dynamic fracture. J Phys IV2001; 11: 43–50.
31.
YangQCoxB. Fracture length scales in human cortical bone: the necessity of nonlinear fracture models. Biomaterials2006; 27: 2095–2113.
32.
Ellison A and Kim H. Computed tomography informed composite damage state model generation 2018; –: –. Submitted to Journal of Composite Materials.
33.
McNeelRAssociates. Rhinoceros 5 user’s guide, Seattle, WA, USA, 2014.
34.
Pijaudier-CabotGBažantZ. Nonlocal damage theory. J Eng Mech1987; 113: 1512–1533.
35.
PeerlingsRBorstRDBrekelmansWet al.Gradient enhanced damage for quasi-brittle materials. Int J Numer Meth Eng1996; 39: 3391–3403.
