Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Article
A Three-Dimensional Ply Failure Model for Composite Structures
A fully 3D failure model to predict damage in composite structures subjected to multiaxial loading is presented in this paper. The
formulation incorporates shear nonlinearities effects, irreversible strains, damage and strain rate effects by using a viscoplastic
damageable constitutive law. The proposed formulation enables the prediction of failure initiation and failure propagation by
combining stress-based, damage mechanics and fracture mechanics approaches within an unified energy based context. An
objectivity algorithm has been embedded into the formulation to avoid problems associated with strain localization and mesh
dependence. The proposed model has been implemented into ABAQUS/Explicit FE code within brick elements as a userdefined
material model. Numerical predictions for standard uniaxial tests at element and coupon levels are presented and discussed.
Copyright © 2009 Maurı́cio V. Donadon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
associated with fibre failure in tension or compression and interlaminar stress value over the fixed distance reached the
matrix cracking in tension or compression are modelled interlaminar tensile strength.
separately. Engblom and Havelka [4] proposed the use of a Jen et al. [20] developed a model based on boundary layer
combination of the Hashin [3] and Lee [5] failure criteria. theory to predict initiation and propagation of delamination
They used the Hashin criterion to detect in-plane failure and in a composite laminate containing a central circular hole.
the Lee criteria to predict delaminations. The degradation The Hashin-Rotem failure criterion was adopted in their
was performed by reducing the stresses associated with model to predict the loading and location at which the
each failure mechanism to zero in the composite material initiation of delamination occurs.
constitutive law. Brewer and Lagace [21] proposed a quadratic stress
Shivakumar et al. [6] used the Tsai-Wu failure criterion criterion for initiation of delamination using the approach
and maximum stress criterion to model low-velocity impact suggested by Kim and Soni [19]. According to their criterion
damage in composites. In this approach the Tsai-Wu crite- only out-of-plane stresses contribute to delamination and
rion was used in order to determine whether the damage they assume that the predicted stresses should be indepen-
has occurred and the maximum stress criteria was used to dent of the sign of the interlaminar shear stress. A similar
identify the failure mode. Good agreement was obtained criteria was also proposed by Liu et al. [22] to predict
between computed and experimental damage areas. delamination in composite laminates.
F.-K. Chang and K.-Y. Chang [7, 8] proposed a pro- The disadvantage in using stress based criteria for
gressive in-plane damage model for predicting the residual composite materials is that the scale effects relating to the
strength of notched laminated composites. Three in-plane length of cracks subject to the same stress field cannot be
failure modes are considered: matrix cracking, fibre-matrix modelled correctly [13, 23]. In the failure criteria approach
shearing and fibre breakage. Their model is currently avail- either the position and size of the cracks are unknown. For
able in the material model library of the LS-DYNA3D explicit these reasons the fracture mechanics approach may be more
finite element code. In their model the shear stress-shear attractive. Fracture mechanics considers the strain energy at
strain relation is assumed to be nonlinear and an expression the front of a crack of a known size and compares the energy
proposed by Hahn and Tsain [9, 10] is used to represent with critical quantities such as critical strain energy release
composite behaviour in shear. For fibre breakage and/or rate.
fibre-matrix shearing the degree of property degradation The fracture mechanics approach has been used to
within the damaged area depends on the size of the damage predict compression after impact strength of composite
predicted by the fibre failure criterion. F.-K. Chang and laminates [24–27]. In such models the damaged area is
K.-Y. Chang [7] proposed a property reduction model for replaced by an equivalent hole and the inelastic deformation
fibre failure based on the micromechanics approach for fibre associated with fibre microbuckling that develops near the
bundle failure. It is postulated that for fibre failure both E y hole edge is replaced with a equivalent crack loaded on
and ν yx are reduced to zero, but Ex and the shear modulus its faces by a bridging traction which is linearly reduced
Gxy degenerate according to the Weibull distribution. with the crack closing displacement. The diameter of the
Choi et al. [11] investigated the low velocity impacts hole is obtained from X-radiographs and/or ultrasonic C-
on composite plates using a line-nose impactor. They used scan images. The results showed good correlation between
the Chang-Chang failure criterion to detect the initiation of analytical and experimental values.
matrix cracking and delamination. Good agreement between Another potential application of the fracture mechanics
experimental and numerical results was achieved. approach is its indirect use to predict progressive delam-
Davies and Zhang [12] studied the low-velocity impact ination in composites [28–31]. In such models stress-
damage in carbon/epoxy composite plates impacted by displacement constitutive laws describe the interfacial mate-
an hemispherical impactor. The plates tested were quasi- rial behaviour and fracture mechanics concepts are used. The
isotropic having a symmetrical lay-up. Different impact area defined by the constitutive relationship is equal to the
energy levels, thickness, dimensions and boundary condi- fracture energy or energy release rate and once the stresses
tions were considered. The finite element modelling was have been reduced to zero the fracture energy has been
carried out using plate elements. consumed and the crack propagates. Linear and quadratic
The Chang-Chang failure criteria were used for the in- interaction relationships were assumed to describe the crack
plane damage predictions and in general good agreement propagation in mixed-mode delamination. Comparisons
was obtained between the computed force histories and were made with experimental and closed-form results and
experiments.The Chang-Chang failure criteria have shown a good agreement was obtained.
reasonable performance for in plane damage predictions in However, the fracture mechanics approach cannot be
composite structures and therefore, their applications have easily incorporated into a progressive failure methodology
been widely reported in the literature [13–18]. because its application requires an initial flaw. A possible
The prediction of the onset of delamination depends on solution is to use a hybrid approach by using a stress or
the interlaminar stress state and interlaminar strength of strain-based criterion for the failure initiation and a fracture
the laminate. Kim and Soni [19] used the distribution of mechanics approach for the failure propagation.
interlaminar normal stress, and averaged that stress along The plasticity approach is suitable for composites
a ply thickness distance in all cases they studied. They that exhibit ductile behaviour such as boron/aluminium,
assumed that failure occured when the average of the normal graphite/PEEK and other thermoplastic composites.
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 3
Vaziri et al. [32] proposed an orthotropic plane stress composite laminates. The model was originally developed
material model that combines the classical flow theory by Matzenmiller et al. [39]. The model considers three
of plasticity with a failure criterion. In their work the damage parameters: fibre failure damage parameter, matrix
material constitutive law is assumed to be elastic-plastic failure damage parameter and an extra damage parameter
and it has two stages. The first stage is the post-yield and to account for the effect of damage in shear response.
pre-failure where an orthotropic plasticity model is used Individual stress based criteria for each failure mechanism
to model the nonlinear material behaviour. The second are used for the damage initiation. The failure criterion
stage is the postfailure where brittle or ductile failure modes defines certain regions in stress (or strain) space where
start to occur. Favourable agreement is obtained between the damage state does not change. The damage growth
experiment and the model results. law adopted by Matzenmiller is a function of the strain
The damage mechanics approach has been investigated and it assumes an exponential form. The stress/strain curve
by many researchers in recent years and its application to predicted by this damage function is a Weibull distribution
damage modelling in composites has shown to be efficient. that can be derived from statistical analysis of the probability
The method was originally developed by Kachanov [33] and of the failure of a bundle of fibres with initial defects. Impact
Rabotnov [34] and it has the potential to predict different simulations with different energy levels were performed and
composite failure modes such as matrix cracking, fibre the performance of the proposed model was checked against
fracture and delamination. the Chang-Chang failure criteria and experimental results.
Ladeveze and Dantec [35] proposed an in-plane model Some limitations of the model were pointed out by the
based on damage mechanics to predict matrix microcracking authors. Firstly, the response is predicted by a single equation
and fibre/matrix debonding in unidirectional composites. and, as a result the loading and postfailure responses cannot
Two internal damage variables were used to degrade the be separated, thus restricting the versatility of the model.
ply material properties, one of them associated with the Also, the dependence of the damage growth on the loading
transverse modulus and another with the in-plane shear rate as well as mesh size.
modulus. A linear elastic-damage behaviour was assumed for In his recent work Williams et al. [40] proposed a plane-
tensile and compressive stresses and a plasticity model was stress continuum damage mechanics model for composite
developed to account for the inelastic strains in shear. Dam- materials. The model was implemented for shell elements
age evolution laws associated with each failure mechanism into LSDYNA3D explicit finite element code. Also, the
were introduced which relate the damage variables to strain model is an extension of their previous work [41] and
energy release rates in the ply. Tension, compression and it deals with some issues related to the limitation of the
cyclic shear tests were performed to determine the constants model suggested by Matzenmiller et al. [39]. The approach
required in the damage-development laws. Comparisons adopted by the authors uses the sub-structuring concept
with experiments were performed by the authors and a good where one integration point is used for each sub-laminate
correlation between numerical and experimental results was and composite laminate theory is used to obtain its effective
obtained. material properties. The model assumes a bilinear damage
Johnson [36] applied the model suggested by Ladeveze growth law and the damage process has two phases, one
and Dantec for the prediction of the in-plane damage associated with matrix/delamination damage and another
response of fibre reinforced composite structures during with fibre breakage. The driving force for damage growth is
crash and impact events. The damage model was imple- assumed to be a strain potential function and the threshold
mented for shell elements into the PAM-CRASH explicit values for each damage phase are experimentally deter-
finite element code. An experimental programme was carried mined. High-velocity and low-velocity impact simulations
out in order to validate the model. Low velocity impact were performed in order to assess the performance of the
tests were performed using a drop test rig. The plates were model. Also, the results were compared with the model
simply supported on a square steel frame and they were proposed by Matzenmiller et al. [39] and the existing Chang-
impacted at their centre using a hemispherical impactor Chang failure criteria. Pinho et al. [42] proposed a three-
with 50 mm diameter. The mass of the impactor was 21 kg. dimensional failure model to predict failure in composites.
The plates were fabricated from 16 plies of carbon/epoxy Their model is an extension of the plane-stress failure model
with a quasi-isotropic layup. Different energy levels were proposed by Davila and Camanho [43] and it accounts for
considered to give a range of different failure modes shear nonlinearities effects. The model was implemented
from rebound to full penetration. Based on force history into LS-DYNA3D finite element code and the authors
comparisons between experiments and numerical results the obtained good correlation between numerical predictions
model overpredicted the peak load. According to Johnson, and experimental results for static standard in-plane tests.
the discrepancy between measured and predicted peak load However, neither strain rate effects nor strain localization
is explained by the neglected delamination in the model. This problems associated with irregular mapped meshes were
fact was demonstrated by the author in his subsequent work addressed by the authors.
[37] where the delamination was included in the damage This paper presents a formulation for a three-
modelling using contact interface conditions. dimensional ply failure model for composite laminates.
Williams and Vaziri [38] implemented an in-plane The proposed model is an extension of the authors previous
damage model based on continuum damage mechanics work [44]. The new version of the model incorporates
(CDM) into LS-DYNA3D for impact damage simulation in strain rate effects in shear by means of a semiempirical
4 International Journal of Aerospace Engineering
viscoplastic constitutive law and combines a quadratic stress system. The compliance matrix C −1 is defined in terms of the
based criterion with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion material axes as
to predict interfibre-failure (IFF) without knowing a priori
the orientation of the fracture plane. The new version of ⎡ 1 ⎤
−ν21 −ν31
the model also uses the Second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ E11 E22 E33
which potentially avoids material deformation problems. ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ν12 1 −ν32 ⎥
High-order damage evolution laws are proposed to avoid ⎢− 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ E11 E22 E33 ⎥
both numerical instabilities and artificial stress waves ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ν13 −ν23 1 ⎥
⎢− 0 0 0 ⎥
propagation effects commonly observed in the numerical ⎢ E E22 E33 ⎥
response of Finite Element Codes based on Explicit Time C −1 =⎢
⎢
11
1
⎥,
⎥ (3)
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
Integration Schemes. These laws compared to the widely ⎢ ⎥
⎢ G12 ⎥
used bilinear law ensure smoothness at damage initiation ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
and fully damaged stress onsets leading to a more stable ⎢ G23 ⎥
⎣ 1 ⎦
numerical response. Iterative energy based criteria have 0 0 0 0 0
been also added to the previous version [44] to better G31
predict damage under multiaxial stress states. The model
also incorporates a three dimensional objectivity algorithm
[45] which accounts for orthotropic and crack directionality where the subscripts denote the material axes, that is,
effects, making the model to be completely free of strain
localization and mesh dependence problems.
νi j = νxi xj
(4)
2. Formulation Eii = Exi .
S = T t CTe, (1)
σi j = J −1 FSFt , (7)
where e = [e11 , e22 , e33 , e12 , e23 , e31 ] is the Green-St. Venant
strain vector and T is the transformation matrix given by
where J is defined as the Jacobian determinant which is
⎡ 2
⎤ the determinant of the deformation gradient F. The present
k2 l 0 0 0 2kl
⎢ ⎥ formulation will predict realistic material behaviour for finite
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ l k2 0 0 0 −2kl ⎥ displacements and rotation as long as the strains are small.
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
T=⎢
⎢ 0
⎥, (2)
⎢ 0 0 k −l 0 ⎥ ⎥ 2.2. Degraded Stresses. The degraded or damaged stresses are
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
defined as stresses transmitted across the damaged part of
⎢ 0 0 l k ⎥
⎣ ⎦ the cross-section in a representative volume element of the
2
−kl kl 0 0 0 k −l
2
material. Based on the isotropic damage theory as originally
proposed by Kachanov [33], an orthotropic relationship
where k = cos(β) and l = sin(β). β is the inplane rotation between local stresses acting on the damaged configuration
angle around the Z-direction which defines the orientation can be written in terms of the local effective stresses in the
of the material axes with respect to the reference coordinate undamaged configuration at ply level as follows:
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 5
⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎧
⎤ σ1 ⎪ ⎫
⎪
⎪ σd ⎪⎪ (1 − d1 (1 )) 0 0 0 0 0 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪⎪ dc ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎥⎪⎪σ m ⎪
⎪ d⎪⎪ ⎢ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ σ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢ 0 t t
1 − dm 0 0 0 0⎥⎪⎪
⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
2
⎪
⎪ ⎢ m ⎥⎪⎪ ⎪
c ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪⎪ m⎪
⎪
⎨ σ3 ⎪ ⎨ σ3 ⎪
⎪ d
d ⎬ ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎬
⎢ ⎥
=⎢ ⎥ dc , (8)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
0⎥⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ τ12 ⎪
d t
⎪
⎪τ12 ⎪
⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 − dm
t 1 − d12 γ12 0 ⎪
m
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ m
⎥
⎥⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ d ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎪ c ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢
τ23 ⎪ 0 0 0 0 t
1 − dm m
t 0⎥ ⎪
⎪ τ
d m ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎣
⎪ ⎦⎪⎪ 23 ⎪ ⎪
⎩ d⎪ ⎭ ⎪ c ⎪
τ13 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎩τ m ⎪
⎪ d ⎭
13
2.4. Interfibre Failure (IFF). The interfibre failure modes The tensile and resultant shear stress components can be
consist of transverse matrix cracking either in tension or written in terms of the resultant stress as follows:
compression. Based on the Worldwide Failure Exercise
experimental results [50] Pinho et al. [42, 51] found that σ2t = σ tm cos(θ),
(23)
the failure envelope defined between the transverse stress τ t = σ tm sin(θ),
σ2 and in-plane shear stress τ12 is accurately described by a
quadratic interaction criteria. Thus, a failure index based on where θ is the angle defined between the resultant stress
the interactive quadratic failure criterion given in [42, 51] has and tensile normal stress in the transverse direction, that is,
been used to predict tensile transverse matrix cracking. For θ = a cos[max(0, σ2t )/σ tm ]. In a similar way the tensile and
tensile matrix cracking a failure index based on an interactive resultant shear strain components are given as follows:
quadratic failure criterion written in terms of tensile and
shear stresses is proposed in the following form: 2t = tm cos(θ),
2 2 2 (24)
σ2 τ τ γts,m = tm sin(θ).
F2t (σ2 , τ23 , τ12 ) = + 23 + 12 ≥ 1. (15)
Yt S23 S12
For the damage evolution law given by (16) the specific
Once the criterion above is met, the proposed expression fracture energies associated with tensile and shear stresses are
for damage growth due to tensile matrix cracking is given by respectively given by
tm,0 2f
t
dm tm = 1 − 2
1 + κm,t tm 2κm,t tm − 3 (16) σ tm,0 tm, f cos2 (θ)
tm gmt = σ2t d2 = ,
0 2
(25)
with γf σ tm,0 tm, f sin2 (θ)
s,m
tm − tm,0
gms = τ t dγ = ,
0 2
κm,t tm = , (17)
tm, f − tm,0
where the area under the stress-strain curves defined by the
where tm is the defined as resultant strain which is given by, proposed polynomial damage evolution laws is identical to
the one defined by the widely used bilinear softening law
given in [42, 44]. Substituting (25) into (21) we obtain the
tm = 22 + γ2s,m (18)
following expression for the final strain due to the combined
with tensile and shear stress state,
⎡ λ λ ⎤−1/λ
2 2
γs,m = γ12 + γ23 , (19) 2 cos2 (θ) sin2 (θ)
tm, f = t ⎣ + ⎦ (26)
σ m,0 gmt c gms c
tm,0 and σ tm,0
are the damage onset resultant strain and
stress, respectively, that is, where gmt c and gms c are the critical specific fracture energies.
These energies are related to the intralaminar fracture tough-
tm,0 = tm ,
F2t =1 nesses. By using a smeared cracking formulation [52] and
(20) assuming that for UD laminates the values of intralaminar
σ tm,0 = σ tm F2t =1 . toughnesses associated with tensile matrix cracking and
shear matrix cracking are comparable with mode I and mode
In order to account for damage irreversibility effects
II interlaminar fracture toughnesses, a relationship between
tm = max(tm (t), tm,0 ) must be used in (16), where tm is the
specific critical fracture energies and intralaminar fracture
maximum achieved resultant strain in the strain time history.
toughnesses can be written as follows:
The derivation of the resultant failure strain tm,f associated
with tensile/shear matrix cracking is based on a power law GI c
criterion, which accounts for interactions between energies gmt c = ,
l∗
per unit of volume of damaged material within the RVE (27)
subjected to tensile and shear loadings. The power law energy GII
gms c = ∗c ,
criterion is given in the following form, l
λ λ where l∗ is the characteristic length associated with the
gmt gs
+ sm =1 (21) length of the process zone for each particular failure
gmt c gm c mode. A detailed description about the characteristic length
calculation will be presented in the following section.
with λ = 1 for UD laminates. The resultant stress in the
The failure index to detect matrix cracking in compres-
transverse direction (or matrix direction) due to combined
sion failure is based on the criterion proposed by Puck and
tensile and shear loadings is given by
Schürmann [53, 54]. Their criterion is based on the Mohr-
2 Coulomb theory and it enables the prediction of fracture
σ tm = σ22 + τ12
2 2
+ τ23 = σ22 + τ tm . (22)
planes for any given stress state related to Interfibre-Failure
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 7
(IFF) Modes. This criterion is currently the state of the art also confirmed by Puck and Schurmann [53, 54]. However,
to predict transverse compression response of composite θf ≈ 530 is only valid for uniaxial compression loading.
laminates. The failure index to detect matrix cracking in This implies that θf changes for different stress states and
compression based on the failure criterion proposed by Puck alternatives are needed in order to handle such a problem.
and Shürmann [53, 54] can be written as follows, By examining (28) it is possible to see that the criterion has
2 2 also the potential of predicting transverse intralaminar shear
σnt σnl cracking for values of θf different from 530 . The transverse
F2c (σnt , σnl ) = + ≥ 1,
SA23 + μnt σnn S12 + μnl σnn intralaminar shear cracking is a very important failure mode
(28) because it leads to delamination between adjacent layers. In
order tackle this problem we have used an iterative procedure
here the subscripts n, l and t refer to the normal and tangen- to compute the fracture plane orientation for a given stress
tial directions in respect to the fracture plane direction. S12 state. The procedure consists of incrementally varying θf
is the inplane shear strength and SA23 is the transverse shear within the interval [−900 ≤ θf ≤ 900 ] for a given stress
strength in the potential fracture plane (Action Plane), which state defined at ply level and check if the failure index for
is given by [55], matrix cracking in compression being reached. Once the
failure index is reached the local shear components σnl and
Yc 1 − sin φ σnt acting on the candidate fracture plane are degraded to
SA23 = (29)
2 cos φ zero according to the following damage evolution law:
with cm,0
c
dm cm = 1 − 2
1 + κm,c cm 2κm,c cm − 3 (34)
cm
φ = 2θ f − 900 , (30)
with
where Yc is the transverse compression strength. The fracture
angle can be determined either experimentally or alterna- cm − cm,0
tively using (30), where θ f maximises the failure criterion. κm,c cm = , (35)
cm, f − cm,0
Following the Mohr-Coulomb failure theory the friction
coefficients can be determined as a function of the material
where cm is the resultant shear strain on the action plane
friction angle as follows:
which is defined as
μnt = tan φ = tan 2θ f − 900 . (31)
cm = nl
2 2
+ nt ,
In the absence of experimental values an orthotropic (36)
relationship for the friction coefficients can be used [54], σ cm = σnl2 + σnt
2
i
to the local material coordinate system using the following where γ12,0 and γ12,0 are the total strain and total inelastic
transformation: strain at failure (τ12 = S12 ), respectively, that is,
dc
c
σ2 m = m2 σnn − 2mnσnt 1 − dm cm + σtt 1 − m2 , γ12,0 = γ12 S12 ,
dc (48)
c
σ3 m = σnn 1 − m2 + 2mnσnt 1 − dm cm + σtt m2 , i i
γ12,0 = γ12 ,
S 12
dc
c
c
τ12m = mσnl 1 − dm m − nσlt , (40) γ12, f is written in terms of the intralaminar toughness in
c
dm 2
c
c shear:
τ13 = mnσnn + 2m − 1 σnt 1 − dm m − nmσtt ,
2Gshear
dc γ12, f = . (49)
c
τ23m = nσnl 1 − dm cm + mσlt . S12 l∗
In the absence of experimental results for Gshear , is
2.5. In-Plane Shear Failure. The observed behaviour of glass
reasonable to assume Gshear = GIIc for UD plies, where GIIc is
and carbon fibres laminates generally shows marked rate
the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness.
dependence in matrix-dominated shear failure modes and
for this reason a rate dependent constitutive model has been
used to model the in-plane shear behaviour. The constitutive 2.6. Objectivity Algorithm. The smeared formulation
model formulation is based on previous work carried out described in the previous sections relates the specific
by Donadon et al. [44, 56] and it accounts for shear energy within a Representative Volume Element (RVE)
nonlineatities, irreversible strains and damage within the with the fracture energy of the material for each particular
RVE. The stress-strain behaviour for in-plane shear failure failure mode. Since finite elements are volume based, mesh
is defined as follows, dependency problems will arise as a result of the mesh
refinement. The correction of the postfailure softening slope
τ12 = αG12 γ12 (41) according to the finite element size, as reported by Bazant
[52] seems an attractive solution for the problem. However
with
the approach has some limitations. Firstly, the crack growth
G12 = G012 + c1 (e−c2 γ12 − 1), (42) direction must be parallel to one edge of the finite element,
which is not the case for multidirectional composite
where G012 is the initial shear modulus and c1 , c2 are material laminates where layers can have arbitrary directions.
constants obtained from static/quasistatic in-plane shear Secondly, it cannot handle nonstructured meshes required
tests. α is the strain-rate enhancement given by the following in most of the complex finite element models with geometric
law, discontinuities. In order to overcome such limitations and to
ensure the objectivity of the model for generalized situations,
α = 1 + e(γ̇12 /c3 ) (43)
a methodology originally developed by Oliver [57] has been
where c3 is another material constant obtained from dynamic used and extended to handle composite layers [58]. The
in-plane shear tests. By decomposing the total shear-strain dependence of the characteristic length on the fracture
i
into inelastic γ12 e
and γ12 elastic components, the inelastic energy as well as its mathematical expression, were derived
shear-strain can be written in terms of the elastic and total based in the work proposed by Oliver [57]. The method
strain components as follows: ensures a constant energy dissipation regardless of mesh
refinement, crack growth direction and element topology so
i e τ12 γ12 that, it is still applicable to nonstructured meshes.
γ12 = γ12 − γ12 = γ12 − . (44)
G012
The failure index for in-plane shear failure is based on the 2.6.1. Crack Modelling in the Continuous Medium. Imagine a
maximum stress criterion and it is given by: singular line in a two dimensional domain as a continuous
material line, across which displacements are continuous but
|τ12 | displacement gradients are discontinuous. The condition for
F12 (τ12 ) = ≥ 1. (45)
S12 a point belonging to a singular line with unit normal n at this
The proposed damage evolution law for in-plane shear point is that the determinant of the acoustic tensor in the n
failure is given by direction be zero, that is [57],
i
γ12,0 − γ12,0 2
det ni Ci jkl nl = 0. (50)
d12 γ12 =1− i 1 + κ12 γ12 2κ12 γ12 − 3
γ12 − γ12,0
(46) Nonpositive materials bifurcate, producing singular lines and
the equation above permits their direction to be determined
with at each point. In the context of standard finite elements of
i C 0 continuity, a singular line can be modelled only by the
γ12 − γ12,0 − 2γ12,0
κ12 γ12 = i , (47) sides of the elements, these being the only points in the mesh
γ12,0 − γ12,0 − γ12, f where displacement gradient discontinuities can be obtained.
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 9
However, a crack produces not only displacement gradient The equilibrium across the singular band will be enforced by
discontinuities but also displacement discontinuities. This assuming the traction vector t acting on the plane defined by
latter kind of discontinuity cannot be modelled by a C 0 finite the normal n:
element mesh for finite levels of discretization. However, a
displacement discontinuity can be modeled as the limit of t i = σi j n j , (58)
two parallel singular lines Γ− and Γ+ which tend to coincide
with each other. The band delimited by these lines is known which is constant in the x direction that is
as singular band, and h is its width.
t x , y = t+ y = t− y . (59)
By assuming an orthogonal curvilinear coordinate sys-
tem (x , y ) in the interior of the band, where y coordinates
lines are parallel to the singular lines Γ− and Γ+ , and x are 2.6.3. Energy Dissipation Within the Band. For a generic
the straight coordinates lines. Let u+ (y ) and u− (y ) be the deformation process which takes place over a time τ(0 ≤ τ ≤
displacement vectors on Γ+ and Γ− the relative displacement ∞) the specific energy dissipation (energy per unit volume)
vector can be written as, within a closed domain Ω∗ (see Figure 1) is given by
∞ ∞
ω y = u+ y − u− y (51) gf = σi j x , y , τ d i j x , y , τ = σi j ˙ i j dτ. (60)
0 0
as a vector representing the displacement “jump” between For uniaxial deformation process g f would be, for a given
the two singular lines and point, the area under the stress-strain curve at that point. By
taking the linearized geometric equations g f can be expressed
δ y = limω y = lim u+ y − u− y , (52) as,
h→0 h→0
∞
1 ∂u̇i ∂u̇ j
If δ =
/ 0, the singular band is modelling a discontinuous gf = σi j + dτ
displacement field as the limit of a continuous one. This 0 2 ∂x j ∂xi
∞ ∞ (61)
allows a crack to be idealised as a limit (with mesh ∂u̇ 1 ∂u̇i ∂u̇ j
refinement) of a band of finite elements where, by means of = σi j i dτ − σi j + dτ.
0 ∂x j 0 2 ∂x j ∂xi
some numerical mechanisms, the condition δ = / 0 is satisfied.
The last integrand in (61) is zero, being the product of a
2.6.2. Displacement and Traction Vectors in the Singular Band. symmetric and antisymmetric tensor, so that
Consider a singular band in the solid, with a width h ∞ ∞
according to Figure 1. ∂u̇ ∂
gf = σi j i dτ = σi j u̇i dτ (62)
Along a coordinate line x , the displacement vector u can 0 ∂x j 0 ∂x j
be expanded from its value in the Γ− line using Taylor’s series
as where the Cauchy’s equations for quasistatic processes and
negligible body forces (∂σi j /∂xi = 0) have been considered.
− The total dissipated energy in the domain Ω∗ is
∂u
u x , y = u− y + Δx + O h2 , (53)
!
∂x ∞
∗ ∗ ∂
W = g f dΩ = σi j u̇i dτ dΩ∗ . (63)
and consenquently, for a point in the Γ+ line Ω∗ Ω∗ 0 ∂x j
− By applying the Gauss’s theorem to (63) and using (58)
∂u
u+ y = u− y + h y + O h2 . (54) we obtain,
∂x
" ∞ # " ∞ #
From the (51), (53), (54) we can write W∗ = σi j n j u̇i dτ dΓ∗ = ti u̇i dτ dΓ∗ (64)
Γ∗ 0 Γ∗ 0
−
∂u Owing to the infitesimal width of the band, the curvilin-
u x , y = u− y + Δx + O h2 , (55)
∂x ear integral in (64) can be evaluated only on the lines Γ∗+ and
Δx 2 Γ∗− (see Figure 1):
u x , y = u− y + ω y +0 h " ∞ #
h (56)
W∗ = ti u̇i dτ d y , (65)
∼
=u−
y + φ x , y ω y , Γ∗+ ∪Γ∗− 0
y’ y’
B
Γ− Γ+ Γ− Γ+
Γ∗−
h
Ω∗
n
Γ∗+
x’
x’
Γ∗
(a) (b)
ζ Φ1 = 1
η ξ
(ϕ1 , ζ) = (1, 0) Node 8
Φ2 = 1
x’, n Node 7
Node 5
ξ
η θj
y’ (ϕ4 , ζ) = (1, 0)
Node 6 n
Φ4 = 1
(ϕ2 , ζ) = (0, 0)
Node 3 Φ3 = 0
Γ(e)
where
where the partial derivatives with respect to the isoparamet- ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ ∂N ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ∂N ⎪
⎪
ric coordinates are written as ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
∂x −1
= Jxz
∂ξ
, (88)
1 1 1 1 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ∂N ⎪
∂x
= 1 + η x1 − 1 + η x2 − 1 − η x3 + 1 − η x4 , ⎩ ∂N ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎪
⎪
⎩
⎪
⎪
⎭
∂ξ 4 4 4 4 ∂z ∂ζ
ζ (5) Compute failure index for fibre kinking (σ1n+1 < 0):
η
x’, n n+1
Node 8
σ1
(ϕ1 , η) = (1, 0)
c
F1 σ1 n+1
= ≥ 1. (95)
z’ Xc
ξ
c n+1
Node 5 θf Node 7 Store (1,0 ) when F1c (σ1n+1 ) = 1.
(6) Compute IFF index for tensile/shear matrix cracking
(ϕ2 , η) = (0, 0) (ϕ4 , η) = (1, 0)
(σ2n+1 > 0):
Node 6 2 2 2
Node 3 σ2n+1 τ n+1 τ n+1
Node 1 F2t σ2n+1 , τ23
n+1 n+1
, τ12 = + 23 + 12 ≥ 1.
Yt S23 S12
(96)
(ϕ3 , η) = (0, 0)
Store (tm,0 )n+1 and (σ tm,0 )n+1 when F2t (σ2n+1 , τ23
n+1 n+1
, τ12 ) = 1.
(7) Compute IFF index for matrix crushing and
Node 2
intralaminar shear cracking ( σ2n+1 < 0):
Figure 5: Computation of the characteristic length for transverse 2 2
compression. n+1
σnt σnln+1
n+1 n+1
F2c σnt , σnl = A n+1
+ n+1
≥ 1.
S23 + μnt σnn S12 + μnl σnn
(97)
3. Numerical Implementation Store (cm,0 )n+1 , (σ cm,0 )n+1 and (θ f )n+1 when F2c (σnt
n+1 n+1
, σnl ) =
This section presents details about the numerical imple- 1.
mentation of the proposed failure model into ABAQUS (8) Compute failure index for inplane shear cracking:
FE code. The code formulation is based on the updated
n+1
τ12
Lagrangian formulation which is used in conjunction with F12 τ12 n+1
= ≥ 1. (98)
the central difference time integration scheme for integrating S12
the resultant set of nonlinear dynamic equations. The
method assumes a linear interpolation for velocities between Store (γ12,0 )n+1 , (γ12,0
i
)n+1 when F12 (τ12
n+1
) = 1.
two subsequent time steps and no stiffness matrix inversions (9) Compute characteristic lengths for each failure mode
are required during the analysis. The explicit method is using objectivity algorithm:
conditionally stable for nonlinear dynamic problems and the In-plane failure modes
stability for its explicit operator is based on a critical value of −1
∂φ(ξ j , η j )
the smallest time increment for a dilatational wave to cross l∗ ξ j , η j =
any element in the mesh. The numerical implementation ∂x
steps are listed as follows: ⎛ ⎡
(1) Stresses and strain-rates are transformed from the $
nc ∂N ξ , η
i j j
=⎝ ⎣ cos θ j (99)
element axes to material axes: ∂x
n n i=1
σld = T σgd , ⎤ ⎞−1
(92) ∂Ni ξ j , η j
˙ ln+1 = T ˙ gn+1 , + sin(θ j )⎦φi ⎠
∂y
where the indices l and g refer to the material (local) and
element (global) coordinate systems, respectively and T is the θ j = θfibre for fibre failure in tension and compression, θ j =
transformation matrix defined by (2). The superscripts n and θfibre + 900 for matrix cracking in tension/shear, θ j = θfibre
n + 1 refer to the previous and current time, respectively: for in-plane shear failure.
(2) Compute constitutive matrix C from (3) for trial Out-of-plane failure modes
stresses. ⎛ ⎞−1 ⎛ ⎡ ⎤ ⎞−1
(3) Based on the current time step compute strain ∂φ ξ j , ζ j $
nc ∂N ξ , ζ
i j j
l∗ ξ j , ζ j = ⎝ ⎠ =⎝ ⎣ ⎦φ i ⎠ ,
increments and update the elastic stresses and strains ∂x ∂z
i=1
σ n+1 = σ n + CΔ, (100)
(93)
n+1 = n + Δ. θ j = θ f , where θ f is the fracture plane orientation when
(4) Compute failure index for fibre failure (σ1n+1 > 0): F2c (σnt , σnl ) = 1 for matrix crushing/intralaminar shear
σ n+1 failure modes.
F1t σ1n+1 = 1 ≥ 1. (94) (10) Compute final strains based on intralaminar frac-
Xt
ture toughness and characteristic length associated with each
t n+1
Store (1,0 ) when F1t (σ1n+1 ) = 1. failure mode.
14 International Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Fibre failure U1 = 0
t 2Gtfibre
1, f = , U1 = 0
Xt l ∗ U1 = Up
(101)
c 2Gcfibre
1, f = ,
Xc l ∗
U1 = 0
IFF (Matrix cracking in tension/shear) U1 = Up
⎡ λ λ ⎤−1/λ
2 cos2 (θ) sin2 (θ)
tm, f = t ⎣ + ⎦ , (102) U1 = 0
σ m,0 gmt c gms c
U1 = Up
IFF (Matrix cracking in compression/shear)
2Gcmatrix 2GII
cm, f = = c c∗ , (103)
σ cm,0 l∗ σ m,0 l U1 = Up
U1 = U2 = U3 = 0 1
U1 = Up U1 = U2 = U3 = 0
U2 = 0
U3 = 0
0.75
U1 = Up
U2 = 0
U3 = 0 U1 = U2 = U3 = 0
Damage
U1 = Up 0.5
U2 = 0
U3 = 0
U1 = U2 = U3 = 0
U1 = Up
U2 = 0 0.25
U3 = 0
Undeformed shape
Deformed shape 0
–0.08 –0.04 0 0.04 0.08
Figure 8: Boundary conditions for in-plane shear loading. Strain (m/m)
0.5
Normalised stress
E11 (GPa) E22 = E33 (GPa) G12 (GPa) G13 (GPa) G23 (GPa) ν12 = ν13 ν23
100 8.11 4.65 4.65 5.0 0.3 0.4
0.6 1
0.4
0.8
0.2
Normalised stress
0 0.6
Damage
–0.2
0.4
–0.4
–0.6
0.2
–0.8
–1 0
–0.04 –0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 –0.04 –0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Strain (m/m) Strain (m/m)
0.6
0.8
0.6
Damage
0.4 Figure 16: Finite element mesh used in the tensile test simulation.
0.2
0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Absolute strain
Damage evolution
90
The tabs behaviour was assumed to be orthotropic linear
C1 = 3.71 GPa elastic. The virtual specimens were assumed to be fixed in one
C2 = 24 end and loaded quasistatically under displacement control
60 using the dynamic relaxation method and the meshes used
in the tensile and compression test simulations are shown in
Figures 16 and 17.
Figures 18–22 show the correlation between numerical
30
predictions and experimental results for the tension and
compression in both fibre and matrix directions and in-plane
shear tests, respectively.
0 In general, the numerical predictions agree very well
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
with the experimental results for all simulations carried
Strain (m/m)
out at coupon level. It can be clearly seen from Figure 18
Experimental model the stiffening effect in tension in the longitudinal direction.
This effect has not been taken into account in the model
Figure 15: Comparison between numerical and experimental development and it is due to the fabric arquitecture which
curves for the in-plane shear behaviour. leads to the development of high interlaminar shear stresses
between fibres located in the fill and warp direction during
the loading process which results in a reduction of the initial
stress and shear strain curve. A comparison between the crimp angle of the fabric therefore increasing the laminate
experimental and numerical shear stress-shear strain curves stiffness along the loading history.
together with the material model parameters c1 and c2 are Comparisons between the experimental and predicted
presented in Figure 15. As the experiments were carried out failure locations are shown in Figures 23–26. The numerical
quasistatically, a high value in the order of 109 was assigned predictions indicate that the use of sharp corners end tabs
to c3 in order to neglect the strain rate effects in the numerical leads to failure near to the tab due to the high stress
response in shear. concentrations in these regions. This effect was also observed
18 International Journal of Aerospace Engineering
×104
5
4.5
3.5
Load (N)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
×10−3
Displacement (m)
Numerical
Experimental (specimen-1)
Experimental (specimen-2)
Experimental (specimen-3)
Experimental (specimen-4)
Experimental (specimen-5)
Figure 18: Comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results for the fibre tensile tests.
3000
2500
2000
Load (N)
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (m) ×10−4
Numerical
Experimental (specimen-1)
Experimental (specimen-2)
Experimental (specimen-3)
Experimental (specimen-4)
Experimental (specimen-5)
Figure 19: Comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results for the matrix tensile tests.
in the experiments. The prediction of the failure location direction is a shear dominated failure mode with a fracture
for transverse compression, Figure 25, correlate very well plane orientated about 500 in respect to the through the
with the experiments indicating that the failure in transverse thickness direction. In order to avoid element distortion
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 19
12000
10000
8000
Load (N)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
×10−4
Displacement (m)
Numerical
Experimental (specimen-1)
Experimental (specimen-2)
Experimental (specimen-3)
Experimental (specimen-4)
Figure 20: Comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results for the fibre compression tests.
3500
3000
2500
Load (N)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
×10−4
Displacement (m)
Numerical
Experimental (specimen-1)
Experimental (specimen-2)
Experimental (specimen-3)
Experimental (specimen-4)
Experimental (specimen-5)
Figure 21: Comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results for the matrix compression tests.
problems, the failed elements in transverse compression have been presented and discussed in this paper. The relevant
been deleted from the mesh using an erosion algorithm contributions of the present formulation are the following:
available in the ABAQUS Finite Element Code.
(i) incorporation of strain rate effects on in-plane shear
behaviour by means of a semiempirical viscoplastic
6. Conclusions constitutive law,
A detailed formulation for a three dimensional failure (ii) implementation of thermodynamically consistent
model for composite laminates under multiaxial loading has degradation laws coupled with an advanced
20 International Journal of Aerospace Engineering
6000
5000
4000
Load (N)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
×10−3
Displacement (m)
Numerical
Experimental (specimen-1)
Experimental (specimen-2)
Experimental (specimen-3)
Experimental (specimen-4)
Experimental (specimen-5)
Figure 22: Comparison between numerical predictions and experimental results for the in-plane shear tests.
(b) Experimental
Figure 23: Comparison between predicted and experimental failure (a) Numerical prediction
locations for the tensile tests.
[25] C. Soutis, F. Smith, and F. Matthews, “Predicting the com- for composite laminates subjected to low velocity impact
pressive engineering performance of carbon fibrereinforced damage,” Computers and Structures, vol. 86, no. 11-12, pp.
plastics,” Composites Part A, vol. 31, pp. 531–536, 2000. 1232–1252, 2008.
[26] Y. Zhuk, I. Guz, and C. Soutis, “Compressive behaviour of [45] M. V. Donadon and L. Iannucci, “An objectivity algorithm
thin-skin stiffened composite panels with a stress raiser,” for strain softening material models,” in Proceedings of the
Composites Part B, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 696–709, 2001. 9th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, Mich,
[27] V. J. Hawyes, P. Curtis, and C. Soutis, “Effect of impact USA, June 2006.
damage on the compressive response of composite laminates,” [46] G. Voyiadjis and P. Kattan, Advances in Damage Mechanics:
Composites Part B, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1263–1270, 2001. Metals and Metals Matrix Composites, Elsvier, Oxford, UK,
[28] Y. Mi, M. Crisfield, and G. Davies, “Progressive delamination 1999.
using interface elements,” Journal of Composite Materials, vol. [47] P. Kattan and G. Voyiadjis, Damage Mechanics with Finite
32, no. 14, pp. 1247–1271, 1998. Elements: Pratical Applications with Composite Tools, Springer,
[29] J. Chen, M. Crisfield, A. Kinloch, E. Busso, F. Matthews, and New York, NY, USA, 2001.
Y. Qiu, “Predicting progressive delamination of composite [48] M. V. Donadon, B. G. Falzon, L. Iannucci, and J. M. Hodgkin-
material specimens via interface elements,” Mechanics of son, “Intralaminar toughness characterisation of unbalanced
Composite Materials and Structures, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 301–317, hybrid plain weave laminates,” Composites Part A, vol. 38, no.
1999. 6, pp. 1597–1611, 2007.
[30] M. R. Wisnom and F.-K. Chang, “Modelling of splitting [49] P. Maimi, P. Camanho, J. Mayugo, and C. Davila, “A con-
and delamination in notched cross-ply laminates,” Composites tinuum damage model for composite laminates: pat II—
Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 15, pp. 2849–2856, 2000. computational implementation and validation,” Mechanics of
[31] P. P. Camanho and C. G. Davila, “Mixed-mode decohesion Materials, vol. 39, pp. 909–919, 2007.
finite elements for the simulation of delamination in compos- [50] P. Soden, M. J. Hinton, and A. S. Kaddour, “Biaxial test
ite materials,” NASA/TM-2002-211737, 2002. results for strength and deformation of a range of E-glass and
[32] R. Vaziri, M. Olson, and D. Anderson, “Damage in composites: carbon fibre reinforced composite laminates: failure exercise
a plasticity approach,” Computer and Structures, vol. 44, pp. benchmark data,” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 62,
103–116, 1992. no. 12-13, pp. 1489–1514, 2002.
[33] L. Kachanov, “Time of rupture process under creep condi- [51] S. Pinho, P. Robinson, and L. Iannucci, “Physically-based
tions,” Izvestiya Akademii Navk SSSR. Odtelemie Tekhniheskikh failure models and criteria for laminated fibrereinforced
Nauk, vol. 8, pp. 26–31, 1958. composites with emphasis on fibre kinking: part II: FE
[34] Y. Rabotnov, “Creep rupture,” in Proceedings of the12th implementation,” Composites Part A, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 766–
International Congress of Applied Mechanics, pp. 342–349, 777, 2006.
1968. [52] Z. P. Bazant and B. H. Oh, “Crack band theory for fracture of
[35] P. Ladeveze and E. L. Dantec, “Damage modelling of the concrete,” Materiaux et Constructions, vol. 16, no. 93, pp. 155–
elementary ply for laminated composites,” Composites Science 177, 1983.
and Technology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 257–267, 1992. [53] A. Puck and H. Schürmann, “Failure analysis of FRP laminates
[36] A. F. Johnson, “Modelling fabric reiforced composites under by means of physically based phenomenological models,”
impact loads,” Composites, vol. 32, pp. 1197–1206, 2001. Composites Science and Technology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 1045–
[37] A. Johnson, A. Pickett, and P. Rozycki, “Computational meth- 1067, 1998.
ods for predicting impact damage in composite structures,” [54] A. Puck and H. Schürmann, “Failure analysis of FRP laminates
Composites Science and Technology, vol. 61, no. 15, pp. 2183– by means of physically based phenomenological models,”
2192, 2001. Composites Science and Technology, vol. 62, no. 12-13, pp.
[38] K. V. Williams and R. Vaziri, “Application of a damage 1633–1662, 2002.
mechanics model for predicting the impact reponse of com- [55] M. Vural and G. Ravichandran, “Transverse failure in thick S2-
posite materials,” Computers and Structures, vol. 79, pp. 997– Glass/epoxy fiber-reinforced composites,” Journal of Compos-
1011, 2001. ite Materials, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 609–623, 2004.
[39] A. Matzenmiller, J. Lubliner, and R. Taylor, “A constitutive [56] M. V. Donadon and L. Iannucci, “Bird strike modelling using
model for anisotropic damage in fiber composites,” Mechanics a new woven glass failure model,” in Proceedings of the 9th
of Materials, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 125–152, 1995. International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, Mich,
[40] K. V. Williams, R. Vaziri, and A. Poursartip, “A physically based USA, June 2006.
continuum damage mechanics model for thin laminated [57] J. Oliver, “Consistent characteristic length for smeared crack-
composite structures,” International Journal of Solids and ing models,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Structures, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2267–2300, 2003. Engineering, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 461–474, 1989.
[41] K. V. Williams, “Simulation of damage progression in lam- [58] M. V. Donadon, The structural behaviour of composite struc-
inated composite plates using LS-DYNA,” in Proceedings of tures manufactured using Resin Infusion under Flexible Tooling,
the 5th International LS-DYNA Conference, Southfield, Mich, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College,
USA, September 1998. London, UK, 2005.
[42] S. Pinho, L. Iannucci, and P. Robinson, “Physically-based
failure models and criteria for laminated fibrereinforced com-
posites with emphasis on fibre kinking—part I: development,”
Composites Part A, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 63–73, 2006.
[43] C. G. Davila and P. P. Camanho, “Physically based failure
criteria for FRP laminates in plane stress,” NASA-TM, 2003.
[44] M. V. Donadon, L. Iannucci, B. G. Falzon, J. M. Hodgkinson,
and S. F. M. de Almeida, “A progressive failure model
International Journal of
Rotating
Machinery
International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of
Journal of
Control Science
and Engineering
Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of
International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2010
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014