Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Modelling of CFRP crushing structures in explicit crash analysis

B.P. Bussadori a, K. Schuffenhauer b, A. Scattina a,⇑
a
Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica ed Aerospaziale, Corso Duca M. degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129 Torino, Italy
b
Automobili Lamborghini SpA, Via Modena, 12, 40019 Sant’Agata Bolognese (BO), Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The weight reduction has become a key driver in the automotive design. The study and the simulations of
Received 10 September 2013 non-conventional materials has become very important. This work is focused on the numerical
Received in revised form 23 November 2013 crashworthiness design of carbon fibres reinforced plastics (CFRP) structures. After a literature research
Accepted 9 January 2014
on the currently numerical models specifically used for CFRP, two different numerical models were
Available online 16 January 2014
developed in order to reproduce experimental crush test on CFRP tube previously made. The influence
of several different parameters on the final results was analysed. The work put in evidence the advanta-
Keywords:
ges of crushing zone modelling compared to a stacked shell one.
A. Carbon fibre
C. Finite element analysis (FEA)
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Computational modelling
B. Impact behaviour

1. Introduction
Nowadays the use of composite materials is becoming a com-
mon practice in several industry fields such as the automotive
and the aerospace ones [1–3]. The much higher specific strength
and stiffness showed by this kind of material, when compared to
the traditional employed metallic alloys, opened a large horizon
of possibilities concerning weight saving but also crashworthiness
[4–6]. In the automotive industry, carbon fibres reinforced plastics
(CFRP) have been successfully used making possible the design of
vehicles with higher performance, lower fuel consumption and,
as a consequence, lower CO2 emissions.
Compared to traditional metallic materials, composite materials
offer increased possibilities to tailor the performance. A part from
the matrix and reinforcements selected, material orientation and
stacking as well as processing parameters influence the structural
behaviour.
Concerning crashworthiness, CFRP structures fail through a
combination of several different fracture mechanisms [7–9]. These
complex failure modes, together with friction effects, contribute to
the overall energy absorption. This number of effects makes the de-
sign of energy absorbing structures much more difficult than met-
als, which are extensively used for this kind of applications.
In crashworthiness design, the finite element simulations play a
very important role thanks to its possibility to predict behaviour in
early design phases, thus enabling cost reduction and shortening of
the design phase. For metallic materials the available numerical
codes are capable to provide good levels of predictability. The
energy dissipation by plastic deformation in ductile metallic struc-
tures is well understood and may be modelled by elastic–plastic
material models in FEA. For modelling CFRP it is vital to reproduce
precisely the complex physics behind the composite’s crushing
behaviour and therefore to apply more complex modelling.
There are approaches using a very fine discretization of the
composite structure, modelling details of individual tows.
Currently these approaches consume too much computational
resources to be applied to analysis [10] of large automotive
structures.
It is necessary to develop models that are simple enough to be
employed in practical analysis situations but at the same time
capable to provide results with a suitable level of accuracy. At
the same time the approach shall be numerically robust and prac-
tical in model build phase.
The goal of this work is to study the overall capability of the ex-
plicit solver in modelling the crushing behaviour of a CFRP tube.
The most promising modelling techniques were adopted. After a
deep analysis of the state of art of the subject, two different finite
element modelling approaches were developed and the influence
of the most important model parameters was examined. The re-
sults analysis, where the numerical data were compared to exper-
imental reference values, allowed defining the best practice for the
simulation of this kind of problems.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 011 0906937; fax: +39 011 0906999. 2. Experimental methods
E-mail addresses: pedrombussadori@gmail.com (B.P. Bussadori), karsten.
schuffenhauer@lamborghini.com (K. Schuffenhauer), alessandro.scattina@polito.it Numerous tests have been proposed in literature to determine
(A. Scattina). the mechanical properties relevant in crashworthiness analysis.

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.01.020
726 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

The proposed tests range from large scale to small scale specimen, The average crushing force F is evaluated after the initial peak of
from high speed to low speed quasi-static tests. force, during the stable crush zone.
The crush test consists of a constant axial compression of the The CE is defined as the ratio between the peak force and the
tested specimen. It is one of the most important tests to study average crushing one:
the crashworthiness of a structure [11] since it allows to measure
F peak
the required properties and at the same time allows good observa- CE ¼ ð3Þ
tion of the behaviour at low cost. The most important result exam- F
ined is the force versus displacement curve. This curve (Fig. 1) If the crushing efficiency is equal to one the behaviour is called
usually has three well distinguished stages [6]. In the first one as perfect plastic and the load versus displacement chart would
the compressive load reaches its maximum value, just before the have a rectangular shape. The absolute values of the average and
beginning of the trigger collapse. The trigger has the function to peak forces are of great relevance for crashworthiness design, be-
initiate the collapse of the structure in a well-controlled way and cause they are strictly related to the accelerations transmitted to
also in a well-defined location. The value of the peak load and the vehicle’s occupants in a real situation of crash. Not only a cer-
the drop from it to the average crushing load, are strongly tain amount of energy has to be absorbed but also the values of the
dependent on the trigger geometry [6]. The second crushing stage peak and average loads have to remain below a properly threshold
is the transition one, in which the compressive load drops from its [12].
peak value and after some oscillation reaches the average crushing Starting from experimental results discussed in the following
load. The transition phase is usually very short. In the third final subsection 2.1, a theoretical reference crushing curve was defined.
stage the crushing proceeds through the specimen at a constant This reference curve was used to compare and to evaluate the
average load. This phase usually has a serrated behaviour, with numerical simulations results.
an oscillation of the crushing load around an average value. It is
during this phase that the major part of the energy is absorbed
2.1. Experimental results
by the specimen.
From this curve some relevant quantities can be calculated.
The specimens considered for this work were manufactured
These include: the specific energy absorption (SEA), the average
using a carbon-epoxy pre-impregnated fabric material. Table 1
crushing stress, the peak load, the average crushing load and the
contains a summary of the main physical and mechanical proper-
crushing efficiency (CE). The SEA is the energy absorbed per unit
ties of the used material.
of mass of crushed materials:
There is no standardised crush test for composite materials, a
E large number of different specimen geometries have been used
SEA ¼ ð1Þ
qAd for previously crashworthiness studies [6]. For this work a thin-
walled square tube was chosen. This kind of geometry profile is
where E is the energy absorbed obtained integrating the load over
widely used by the automotive industry, especially when concern-
the total displacement d, q is the material density, and A the cross
ing crashworthiness structural components [11,12]. The specimens
section area. The SEA is not an intrinsic material property. It de-
have a length of 150 mm with an inner side of 50 mm. The wall
pends not only on the material properties but also on several other
thickness is 2.08 mm. For the production of the specimens, during
parameters, especially the specimen geometry. Two specimens
the lamination phase, a female mandrel made of sand was used.
made of the same material but with different geometries can col-
The lamination lay-up is shown in Fig. 2, where there is a top view
lapse in very distinct ways, and as a consequence can achieve very
of the specimen. The bottom part of the tubes was attached to a re-
different values of SEA. The SEA allows comparing the energy
sin plate to avoid sliding on the test machine during the crush. The
absorption capabilities of two different materials and geometries
tests were performed in quasi-static conditions using an INSTRON
when the weight is an important parameter of project.
5900 250 kN electric machine, with a constant forward velocity set
The average crushing stress r is the average crushing force di-
to 20.0 mm/min throughout the test. The final vertical displace-
vided by the specimen cross sectional area:
ment was set to 100 mm (2/3 of the overall specimen’s length)
F while the load and the displacement of the machine cross beam
r¼ ð2Þ were recorded at a frequency of 10 Hz. The test was replied for
A
three different specimens. Fig. 3 contains the average experimental
curves obtained for the tested specimens, while the Table 2 sum-
Force marises all the relevant average parameters concerning the energy
absorption of the tests. Fig. 4 shows the specimen before and after
the crush test.
Peak load
Fpeak
Table 1
F: average Carbon-epoxy material properties.
crush load
Property Value
Nominal density (g/cm3) 1.528
Nominal cured ply thickness (mm) 0.227
Transition Stable crush
Resin strain energy release rate (J/m2) 250
zone zone
Filament count/tow 3000
Weave topology Twill 2  2
Dry weave areal weight (g/cm2) 95
Fibre volume fraction (%) 43
Tensile strength (MPa) 800
Tensile modulus (GPa) 65
Compressive strength (MPa) 800
Displacement Compressive modulus (GPa) 62
In-plane shear strength (MPa) 89
Fig. 1. Typical crushing load vs. displacement curve.
 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735 727

Fig. 2. Lamination lay-up scheme, top view of the specimen.
60
The load curve has a serrated pattern, with very small oscilla-
tions of the force around its average value during the stable crush
phase, very similar to the typical curve showed in Fig. 1. In this test,
the predominant collapse mode showed by the tube was the lam-
ina bending, or splaying one [13–15], clearly identified in Fig. 4. It
is possible to see that large amounts of delamination occurred be-
tween two main groups of plies which remained attached to each
other along the test. The outer plies (first group), moved to the out-
side, leading to the formation of large material fronds as also the
tearing of the corners. These plies were largely bent causing the
micro-fracture of the fibres and matrix which compose them. The
second group of fibres (inners one), remained stuck in the interior
of the tube, being completely crushed, leading to high amounts of
fibre and matrix fracture.
With these results the reference curve was made (Fig. 1). In this
curve the stable crush zone, after the first peak load and the de-
crease of the load, is a straight line. This means constant load
increasing the displacement. A SEA equal to 70 kJ/kg was defined
as a reference value for this theoretical curve. For the peak force
a value 20% higher with respect to the average one was used.
Starting from the expression described before, the values (Table 3)
of the main relevant parameters for the reference curve were
4.8
obtained.

50 4
3. Numerical simulations
Absorbed energy (kJ)

40 3.2 Considering the finite element method, crush tests of composite

Force (kN)

specimen can be analysed using non-linear approaches with impli-

30
cit or explicit time integration available in commercial solvers. To
2.4
enable the use of the developed models in a full scale vehicle anal-
ysis the explicit time integration was chosen. For this work the
20 1.6 numerical models were developed using the commercial code
Force PAMCRASH from ESI Group.
10 Energy 0.8

Table 3
0 0 Reference crushing values.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reference parameters Value
Displacement (mm)
SEA (kJ/kg) 70
F (kN) 47.80
Fig. 3. Average experimental load and energy vs. displacement curves of the CFRP
Fpeak (kN) 57.36
specimens.
r (MPa) 105.84

Table 2
Main parameters obtained from experimental tests on carbon-epoxy specimen.

Total absorbed energy (kJ) Collapsed mass (kg) Average crushing force (kN) Average crushing stress (MPa) SEA (kJ/kg)
4.32 0.067 42.41 95.32 64.48

Fig. 4. Composite tube before (a) and after (b) the test.
728 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

In literature, large variety of models can be found. In Fig. 5, a
classification of these models is proposed. It is possible to distin-
guish two major groups.
The first group is the micro-mechanical one [10,16–20]. In this
group the finite element models try to simulate the composite
crushing phenomenon through a detailed modelling of its micro-
mechanical behaviour. A very fine solid mesh is required to model
accurately the micro-mechanics matrix crack propagation phe-
nomenon. The computational effort demanded by this kind of
model is very high, what makes it unpractical for engineering crash
analysis. This approach is used mainly to perform simulations con-
cerning the delamination phenomenon, in which the growth
behaviour of a single crack is studied in a very detailed way.
The second group is the macro-mechanical one [21–30]. This
type of models provides a macro-mechanical description of the
material collapse. It is much more computational effective, and
consequently it is a suitable choice for engineering crash analysis.
However, it is not capable to model precisely all the main collapse
modes that occur simultaneously during a crush event.
The macro-mechanical group, in turn, can be divided in two
main different types of models: the single shell layer models
[17,21,22,24] and the stacked shell models [25,29,30].
The single shell layer models use a single layer of shell elements
to model the specimen. This kind of model is not capable to model
the inter-laminar collapse modes showed by composites under
crushing in an accurately way. However it is useful if a not detailed
representation of the failure physics but only load and energy level
predictions are required. The main advantages are its simplicity
and computational effectiveness, so for that point they are highly
suitable for practical engineering crash analysis. On the other hand,
they have a notable lower robustness due to large amount of
parameters calibration required to obtain acceptable global results,
for a given test configuration.
In the stacked shell models the composite material is modelled
with more layers of shell elements joined together by specific ele-
ments (cohesive elements, springs). These joining elements work
according to a specific model, which has the goal of reproducing
the composite’s matrix phase properties. The global stiffness ma-
trix of this type of model is the assembly of the stiffness matrix
of the shell elements and of the joining elements. The stacked shell
model allows a compromise between accuracy and efficiency
depending on the utilised number of layers. This kind of model is
capable to provide a better physical representation of the stratified
composite structure but at the same time it keeps the simplicity
inherent of the macro-mechanical approach. These two features
are the main reasons behind its wide use for this kind of
simulation.
In this work the two different typologies of the macro-mechan-
ical models have been taken into consideration, developing a
stacked shell model on one hand and a single layer shell model
on the other hand. The two numerical models are described in
details in the following sections.
3.1. The stacked shell model
The stacked shell numerical model developed, shown in Fig. 6,
can be divided in four components: the machine plate, the trigger,
the composite tube structure and the interlaminar elements, called
also as tied elements in the following.
The machine plate was modelled using shell elements as a flat
rigid body located few millimetres just above the tube. The com-
posite tube is modelled using different layers of shell elements
joined together with cohesive elements. The number of layers used
in the specimen modelling is a key feature of this kind of model,
having a great influence on the results and on the demanded com-
putational time. In the following, the influence of this parameter is

Solid element plies +

cohesive interface
Micro- Fine solid Intra-laminar and inter-
mechanical element models laminar behaviour
Only solid elements

SOFT parameter
calibration
Standard models
Global
approach Post-damage stress
calibration
Single shell layer
Global behaviour CZONE Model
models
(Abaqus)

New ESI crush model

Crushing zone model
(v.2012)

Macro- University of Stuttgart

mechanical model

Intra-laminar Several different

behaviour models

Stacked shell Spot-weld contact

models model

Tied contact

Inter-laminar Cohesive interface

behaviour model
Thin cohesive solid
elements

Fracture mechanics
Small solid elements
techniques

Fig. 5. Numerical models classification.

 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735
Rigid Plane
Trigger zone
Fig. 6. Detailed view of the stacked shell numerical model developed.
studied. To model the trigger, the first row of nodes at the tube end
was translated some millimetres towards the tube’s exterior and
the thickness of these elements was reduced (Fig. 6). For the tube
and trigger shell elements the material type 131 was used while
the ply properties were modelled through the fabric composite
global ply model, type 7, using five integration points through
the thickness and four Gaussian point on each element. The fabric
reinforced composite ply is modelled as a homogeneous orthotro-
pic elastic damaging material, whose properties are degraded on
loading, by micro-cracking prior to ultimate failure. The inter-lam-
inar material, which connects the shell layers to each other, is
modelled by using one dimensional cohesive element, which ties
one shell layer to each other according to a mathematical model
which reproduces the inter-laminar material micro-mechanics. In
particular the cohesive interface was modelled by using the mate-
rial type 303. A penalty formulation is used to connect the slave
node from one shell layer to the master segment from the other
shell layer [31]. The failure of the inter-laminar material is based
on the elastic energy stored in the crack proposed by Pickett
et al. [32] and depends on the elastic energy stored by the crack
in modes I and II of propagation. The elastic energy limit for both
modes is directly computed by the maximum allowed stress de-
fined as an input material property. Two different sliding interface
formulations (coulomb friction) are used in order to model the
interaction between the model parts that are not permanently con-
nected by standard finite element connectivity conditions. The first
sliding interface defines the contact between the tube structure
and the machine plate. The second sliding interface models the
possible self-contact between the different parts of the tube struc-
ture during the crushing process by using the self-contact treat-
ment. Fully-integrated elements are used in order to avoid the
problem of hourglass deformation. The nodes located at the base
of the tube were constrained in all their six degrees of freedom.
To the machine plate a constant velocity along the tube axis was
applied. In order to reduce the computational time, using the expli-
cit time integration and being the material model used not strain
rate sensitive, the velocity used in the numerical model was in-
creased respect to the experimental one to 0.5 m/s.
3.2. The single shell layer model
With the single layer models the deformation modes possible
are limited, several proposal for enhancements are made in litera-
ture and are implemented into commercial solvers.
Here the crushing zone formulation was chosen for the single
shell layer model. With this formulation the mechanical behaviour
changes when an element is assumed to go into crushing
729
Tied Element
condition. Only the relevant distinct features presented in this
model compared to the stacked shell one described in the previous
section, are exposed here.
In the crushing zone model the specimen and the trigger are
modelled by using a single layer of shell elements. The trigger
elements have a different material model formulation. This formu-
lation is progressively activated for the elements located at the
crush front (the region of the tube where the contact with the
machine plate occurs) when they reach a certain value of a pre-
defined parameter defined by the user. The parameter which
controls the activation of the crushing formulation for the subse-
quent rows of elements is the area ratio of the crushed elements
(actual area ratio initial one). When the crushing formulation is
activated, the mechanical behaviour of the element becomes elas-
tic-perfectly plastic in the axial crushing direction. When the area
ratio reaches a minimum allowed value, this element is eroded
from the model. To avoid numerical problems due to large
amounts of deformation, the strains are calculated using the coor-
dinates with respect to the moment when the option was triggered
and not the initial one.
In the model developed the crushing formulation of the trigger
element is already activated before the initial contact, in order to
initiate the crushing at the right location. For the other elements
not located at the crush front, the same law described for the pre-
vious model is still valid.
4. Stacked shell model simulations and results
In this section the simulations performed by using the stacked
shell model and their results are exposed and analysed in details.
The section was divided in several subsections, each one corre-
sponding to a specific parameter analysed.
4.1. Influence of friction coefficient and element dimension
The influence of the friction coefficient between the tube and
the machine plate (l1) and of the element dimension was studied.
The tube was modelled first by using three shell layers with a
7.0 mm size mesh. The mesh sizes used in this work are those typ-
ically adopted for simulations of full vehicle impact. Three different
values of friction l1 (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3) were examined, while the
friction for the tube self-contact (l2) was kept constant and equal
to 0.65. These values were chosen basing on coefficients find in
literature [33,34]. The same simulations with the three different
l1 values were replied using a finer mesh (element size equal to
4 mm).
730 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

Table 4
7.0 and 4.0 mm model energy results.

Simulation set-up SEA (kJ/kg) Total energy (kJ) Contact energy (kJ) Contact energy (%) Internal energy (kJ) Internal energy (%)
7.0 mm, l1 = 0.1 38.12 1.27 0.23 18.50 1.04 81.50
7.0 mm, l1 = 0.2 43.02 1.43 0.34 23.43 1.09 76.57
7.0 mm, l1 = 0.3 45.29 1.51 0.41 27.09 1.10 72.91
4.0 mm, l1 = 0.1 35.94 1.20 0.20 16.30 1.00 83.70
4.0 mm, l1 = 0.2 47.73 1.59 0.31 19.41 1.28 80.59
4.0 mm, l1 = 0.3 42.25 1.41 0.41 28.85 1.00 71.15

high values of deformation, absorbing larger amounts of energy if

Table 5
Internal energy components of the model with l1 = 0.1. compared to the elements located in the fronds. The only signifi-
cant difference using finer mesh concerns the energy absorbed
Internal energy components Size element 7 mm Size element 4 mm
by the trigger. In fact it is modelled with a single row of elements,
Inner layer (%) 20.65 20.03 so using the smaller mesh the trigger is smaller.
Middle layer (%) 13.76 13.02 Raising the friction from 0.1 to 0.3 promoted an increase of the
Outer layer (%) 23.44 28.10
Total layer (%) 57.85 61.15
SEA of 18.81%, nevertheless the maximum value found of SEA is
Trigger (%) 6.10 2.45 35% lower than the reference one (70 kJ). As expected results show
Inner corners (%) 8.50 8.43 also that the higher the friction the larger is the portion of the total
Middle corners (%) 7.97 6.74 energy due to contact (friction). Moreover, a higher friction also
Outer corners (%) 10.83 10.22
leads to higher internal energy absorption, because the frond ele-
Total corners (%) 27.30 25.39
Tied material (%) 8.75 11.01 ments, which slide against the machine plate, are submitted to
higher values of sliding contact forces. The frond and corner ele-
ments are the ones most damaged. It is known that the friction be-
tween specimen and test machine plate has a large effect on the
The energy distribution for the case with l1 = 0.1 was computed crush zone morphology because it contributes to the forces acting
in more details in order to understand how the energy is absorbed on the splaying fronds [35,15]. The increase of the friction coeffi-
by the different components present in the model. The results are cient from 0.1 to 0.3 and the use of finer mesh did not change sig-
summarised in Tables 4 and 5, while the Fig. 7 shows the crushing nificantly the crush zone morphology, in the sense that all the
collapse at the crush end and Fig. 8 contains the load and energy vs. three tubes collapsed in the same way. For all the three values of
displacement curves for all six tested configurations. friction the load vs. displacement curves have almost the same
More than 80% of the total absorbed energy came from the en- shape. In this sense, the effect of the friction variation was similar
ergy absorbed due to material deformation (the internal compo- to a scaling of the magnitude of the load curves. The model with
nent), while the rest was due to contact (friction). The energy bigger elements shows a magnitude of force oscillation higher than
absorbed by the inter-laminar material (tied elements) is lower the one showed by refined model, however the average force value
than 8.75% of the total internal energy. The few crushed corner ele- is the same.
ments are responsible for about 30% of the total internal energy.
The energy absorbed by these elements is about 2 times higher
than the one absorbed by the other elements. All the six tubes 4.2. Number of shell layer influence
developed the same main mode of collapse, called splaying [6],
in which large fronds of material are formed. During the crush In this section three different models with 3, 4 and 5 shell layers
these fronds move to the outside promoting the tearing of the cor- were investigated. For these analysis the element dimension was
ners of the tube. In this way, the corners elements are submitted to set to 7 mm while the values of friction for l1 and l2 were set to

Fig. 7. 7.0 (top) and 4.0 (bottom) mm model with l1 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 (from the left to the right) at the crush end.
 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735
Fig. 8. Load and energy vs. displacement curves, influence of element dimension
and friction coefficient.
0.3 and 0.65 respectively. Fig. 9 shows the crushing collapse
showed by each tested configuration at crush end.
Increasing the number of layers did not change the main mode
of collapse, all the three specimens collapsed in the same way.
Fig. 10 contains the load and total absorbed energy vs. displace-
ment curves while Table 6 contains the energy results obtained
from each simulation, and also the percentage of inter-laminar en-
ergy with respect to the total one.
The maximum relative difference found for the SEA was about
20%, between the models with 4 and 5 layers. Increasing the
number of layers promoted a drop of total inter-laminar absorbed
energy. The cohesive material of the model with 3 layers absorbed
Fig. 9. Models with 3, 4 and 5 layers (from the left to the right) at the crush end.
731
Fig. 10. Load and energy vs. displacement curves, influence of layers.
1.57 times more energy than the one present in the 4 and 5-layers
models. Apparently this is an unexpected result because the 4 and
5-layers tubes have a greater number of cohesive interfaces and
also a larger inter-laminar potential energy. For all the three mor-
phologies basically there was no delamination between the con-
nected shell layers; they remained tied to each other in a firmly
way with no relative detachment. All the initial tied connections
are still present in the model at the end of the crush, and the in-
ter-laminar material did not reach the full failure, the delamination
did not occur. Increasing the numbers of layers the deformations of
tied connections reduced: the smallest relative displacement be-
tween the layers was found for the 5-layers model. This explains
why the energy absorbed by each cohesive interface is much smal-
ler in the 5-layers model if compared to the 3-layers one.
4.3. Influence of inter-laminar material
The influence of the inter-laminar material was investigated
changing the ultimate absorbed energies GIu and GIIu in the models
examined in the previous subsection 4.2. These two parameters
represent the critical energy release rates [36] for the modes I
and II of inter-laminar crack propagation respectively. They are
strictly related to the strength of the inter-laminar connection, so
to the energy necessary to delaminate the tied composite layers.
In this study four different pairs of values for the inter-laminar
fracture energies GIu and GIIu were tested, as showed in Table 7.
The lowest values of GIu (attempt 4) are the original properties of
the inter-laminar material (Table 1). The value for the second
critical energy release rate GIIu was estimated starting from litera-
ture: Jurf and Pipes [37] investigated the inter-laminar fracture
characteristics of graphite-epoxy composite material. They found
that GIIu is 9.1 times greater than GIu . Nikbakht and Choupani [38],
732 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

Table 6
Comparison of energy results for models with different layers.

Model morphology SEA (kJ/kg) Total energy (kJ) Inter-laminar energy (kJ) Inter-laminar energy (%)
3-Layers 46.49 1.55 0.096 6.36
4-Layers 48.43 1.61 0.062 3.85
5-Layers 40.28 1.34 0.061 4.55

until now. Where the lower value of GIu and GIIu (attempt 3 and 4 in
Table 7 Table 7) were used, larger amounts of delamination occurred. The
Inter-laminar fracture energies values examined.
variation of this parameter from its physical value up to one or two
Attempt 1 Attempt 2 Attempt 3 Attempt 4 orders of magnitude higher did not promote a significant variation
GIu 2
(J/m ) 1e5 1e4 1e3 250 of the SEA. An unrealistic amount of delamination occurred be-
GIIu (J/m2) 1e5 1e4 1e3 500 tween the material layers, only for the two higher values this phe-
nomenon did not occur. Using values close to the real ones, the
cohesive interface shows an unrealistically brittle behaviour. The
crushed specimen showed a realistic post-crushing state only
investigated the same phenomena but for woven carbon-epoxy when the strength of the cohesive interface was virtually increased
material. They found that GIIu is 1.4 times higher than GIu . In this by large amounts.
work a value of GIIu two times greater than GIu as did by Greve
and Andrieux in their work [39] is adopted. The other three tested
configurations are an order of magnitude higher than the previous 4.4. Discussion
one.
The other simulation parameters are element dimension of The highest value of SEA obtained in the different simulation
7 mm, and friction coefficient l1 and l2 equal to 0.3 and 0.65 with the stacked shell models (48.43 kJ/kg), is considerably lower
respectively. than the reference one (70 kJ/kg). There is a significant underesti-
Fig. 11 shows for each morphology (3, 4 and 5 layers), the differ- mation of the energy of about 30% due to the fact that some energy
ent tested configurations at the end of the simulation, while the absorption mechanisms present in the real crush event are not ta-
force and energy results are presented in Figs. 12–14 and in ken into account by this kind of model. The overall dissipated fric-
Table 8. tion energy is under estimated. The highest value found for this
The variation of the critical energy release rate did not promote energy component was around 28%. In literature [15,40,41] it has
a different main mode of collapse with respect to the one observed been found that friction have a higher effect on crush test results

Fig. 11. Model comparison at the crush end: from left to the right different energy rates values, from top to bottom different shell layers adopted.
 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735 733

and it is responsible for more than 50% of the total energy absorbed
during crushing. Analysing the simulations, it is possible to observe
that the stacked shell models developed are capable to take into
account the friction between the fronds and machine plate and
the friction concerning the tube self-contact, but is not capable
to reproduce the debris edge which is formed in the crush zone.
Moreover the relative sliding of two adjacent layers does not pro-
mote any frictional energy dissipation because the shell layers are
not in direct contact, but they make only inter-laminar energy
absorption, due to the deformation of the tied elements.
This kind of model has very sensitivity behaviour: a small
modification in the parameters can completely change the way
in which the tube collapses, and consequently the absorbed
energy.
The underestimation of energy is the limited representativeness
of this kind of model concerning the reproduction of the complex
way in which the real tube collapses.

Fig. 12. 3-Layers model inter-laminar force (F) and energy (E) vs. displacement
curves. 5. Crushing zone model simulations and results

In this section the simulation performed and the results ob-

tained using the crushing zone model were exposed and discussed.
The model has an elements dimension of 7.0 mm, the values of
friction for l1 and l2 were maintained to 0.3 and 0.65 respectively.
The evolution of the tube crushing is shown in Fig. 15 while the
Fig. 16 contains the force and absorbed energy vs. displacement
curves.
With this model the tube collapsed in a completely different
way that the tube modelled with the stacked shell. There is not for-
mation of large fronds of material but a progressive compression.
The load curve has a sine square behaviour. This particular shape
is due to the crushing formulation. When the machine plate
touches the trigger, the crush force rises immediately to a certain
value. This value is a directly consequence of the pre-imposed
crushing stress. After this initial contact, the crush of the trigger
begins. The pre-activated trigger elements collapse then in a per-
fectly plastic way that is with a constant force. When the trigger
elements reach their maximum allowed deformation, which is
controlled by the ratio of surface area to initial area ASTOP (set
to 0.05 in this model), the crushing of these elements stops, begin-
ning then the one for the second row of elements. Whenever a sub-
Fig. 13. 4-Layers model inter-laminar force (F) and energy (E) vs. displacement
curves. sequent row of elements begins to crush, the crushing force for this
row is temporally amplified by a scaling factor (SSCAL). This tem-
porary scaling only of the neighbour elements is done in order to
assist the sequential crushing of the tube. For this simulation a
scaling factor equal to 1.15 was used. In this way, the second
row of elements starts to crush with a force approximately 15%
higher than the pre-stipulated one. When this row of elements
reaches the pre-defined area ratio ANEIG (set to 0.5 in this model),
first the crushing formulation is activated for the subsequent row,
then the temporary stress scaling is deactivated and the crush pro-
ceeds with the normal value of stress until that the elements reach
their maximum allowed deformation. The second row of elements
continues crushing with the imposed value of crushing stress until
its full collapse, when the subsequent row begins to crush and the
cycle restarts.
The load curve of the crushing zone model matches very well
the theoretical one. Table 9, which summarises the relevant results
obtained with this model, reveals that there is a very small overes-
timation respect to the reference curve. This overestimation could
be reduced by decreasing the crushing stress scaling factor (SSCAL),
in this way the obtained average crushing stress would be even
closer to the reference one. This model does not represent the com-
Fig. 14. 5-Layers model inter-laminar force (F) and energy (E) vs. displacement plex physics phenomena present during the crush, but provides
curves. similar values of force and energy with respect to the ones found
734 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735

Table 8
Comparison of energy results for models with different inter-laminar fracture energies values considered.

No of layer GIu and GIIu values (J/m2) SEA (kJ/kg) Total energy (kJ) Inter-laminar energy (kJ) Inter-laminar energy (%)

3 GIu = GIIu = 1e5 45.29 1.51 0.096 6.36

GIu = GIIu = 1e4 44.10 1.47 0.0138 9.39
GIu = GIIu = 1e3 39.82 1.33 0.019 1.43
GIu = 250; GIIu = 500 38.07 1.27 0.001 0.08

4 GIu = GIIu = 1e5 48.43 1.61 0.062 3.85

GIu = GIIu = 1e4 43.13 1.44 0.023 1.60
GIu = GIIu = 1e3 44.55 1.49 0.023 1.54
GIu = 250; GIIu = 500 44.50 1.48 0.014 0.95

5 GIu = GIIu = 1e5 40.28 1.34 0.061 4.55

GIu = GIIu = 1e4 43.22 1.44 0.127 8.82
GIu = GIIu = 1e3 40.65 1.36 0.035 2.57
GIu = 250; GIIu = 500 41.89 1.40 0.019 1.36

in the experimental tests. Moreover this model is much less time

demanding (at least 30%) if compared to the staked shell one.

6. Conclusions

In this work two different type of finite element model were

developed and investigated in order to provide a prediction with
an acceptable accuracy of the energy absorption capability of CFRP
tube during crush test. The results of the numerical simulations
were compared with data obtained from the experimental tests.
The first model developed was a stacked shell one. The influence
of several parameters were analysed in order to fit the numerical
results with the experimental ones. The parameters analysed in
this work were the coefficient of friction between the tube and test
machine, the mesh element size, the number of shell layers and the
inter-laminar material properties. This type of model provided an
Fig. 15. Evolution of crushing zone model collapse. underestimation of the SEA of the virtual crushed specimen. The
significant underestimation of the results is due to the inability
of the model to reproduce the complex way in which the compos-
ite tube collapses during the real crush event. Some important en-
ergy absorption mechanisms present during the real crush were
not reproduced well by the numerical model. In particular several
friction mechanisms which occurred during the real crush test
were not completely modelled with the stacked shell model devel-
oped. This problem contributed to the underestimation of the total
absorbed energy. Moreover this model appeared very sensitive to
parameter modifications. A small modification can change com-
pletely the way in which the tube collapses and consequently also
the value of the absorbed energy.
The second model developed was a crushing zone one. The re-
sults obtained from this model matched very well the reference
ones, both in the terms of force and energy absorbed. This kind
of model does not attempt to reproduce the real complex physics
phenomena developed during the crush event, but it is able to
avoid the major problems faced by the stacked shell model and
to provide the desired results. However the way in which the tube
collapses does not have any similarity with the reality. The compu-
Fig. 16. Force and energy vs. displacement curves for the crushing zone model. tational time for this last model is at least three times lower than
previous one. It is an interesting option to be used in practical engi-
neering analysis, where large crashworthy structures have to be
Table 9 modelled.
Crushing zone model results compared to the reference one. Predictive modelling of the complex energy absorption mecha-
nisms present during crushing of composites remains challenging
Model Average crushing Total absorbed SEA
force (kN) energy (kJ) (kJ/kg) and therefore experimental testing is required. For this reason
the modelling using case dependent material properties, one for
Reference curve 47.80 2.39 70
Crushing zone model 51.38 2.41 72.28 crushing and for all other cases, like the crushing zone model ap-
pears promising for engineering application.
 B.P. Bussadori et al. / Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 725–735
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Luciano De Oto,
Attilio Masini and Stefan Klaus Nothdurfter of Lamborghini’s
Advanced Composites Research Center for the support and advice.
Luigi De Sario and Carlo Vitiello of Lamborghini’s Advanced
Composites Research Center are kindly acknowledged for their
help during production and testing of specimen in the testing
phase.
References
[1] Smith GF. Design and production of composites in the automotive industry.
Compos Manuf 1990;1(2):112–6.
[2] McCarthy RFJ, Haines GH, Newley RA. Polymer composite applications to
aerospace equipment. Compos Manuf 1994;11(6):83–9.
[3] Davies G. Material for automobile bodies. Oxford: Elsevier; 2000.
[4] Feraboli P, Masini A. Development of carbon/epoxy structural components for
a high performance vehicle. Compos Part B: Eng 2004;35:323–30.
[5] Kang K-T, Chun H-J, Park J-C, Na W-J, Hong H-T, Hwang I-H. Design of a
composite roll bar for the improvement of bus rollover crashworthiness.
Compos Part B: Eng 2012;43(4):1705–13.
[6] Garner DM, Adams DO. Test methods for composites crashworthiness: a
review. J Adv Mater 2008;40(4):5–26.
[7] Guoxing L, Tongxi Y. Energy absorption of structures and
materials. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2003.
[8] Guimard J-M, Allix O, Pechnik N, Thevenet P. Energetic analysis of
fragmentation mechanisms and dynamic delamination modelling in CFRP
composites. Comput Struct 2009;87:1022–32.
[9] Jumahat A, Soutis C, Jones FR, Hodzic A. Fracture mechanisms and failure
analysis of carbon fibre/toughened epoxy composites subjected to
compressive loading. Compos Struct 2010;92(2):295–305.
[10] Chatiri M, Gull T, Matzenmiller A. An assessment of the new LS-DYNA layered
solid element: basics, patch simulation and its potential for thick composite
structures analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th European LS-DYNA conference,
Salzburg, 14–15 May, 2009.
[11] Peroni L, Avalle M, Belingardi G. Comparison of the energy absorption
capability of crash boxes assembled by spot-weld and continuous joining
techniques. Int J Impact Eng 2008;5(7):498–511.
[12] Morello L, Rosti Rossini L, Pia G, Tonoli A, editors. The automotive body, vols. I
and II. London: Springer; 2011.
[13] Farley GL, Jones RM. Crushing characteristics of continuous fiber-reinforced
composite tubes. J Compos Mater 1992;26(1):37–50.
[14] Eshkoor RA, Oshkovr SA, Sulong AB, Zulkifli R, Ariffin AK, Azhari CH. Effect of
trigger configuration on the crashworthiness characteristics of natural silk
epoxy composite tubes. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;55:5–10.
[15] Mamalis AG, Manolakos DE, Demosthenous GA, Ioannidis MB. The static and
dynamic axial crumbling of thin-walled fibreglass composite square tubes.
Compos Part B: Eng 1997;28(4):439–51.
[16] Wagner W. FE – modeling of fiber reinforced polymer structures. In:
Proceedings of the 5th world congress on computational mechanics, Vienna,
7–12 July, 2002.
[17] Feraboli P. Development of a corrugated test specimen for composite material
energy absorption. J Compos Mater 2008;42(3):229–56.
735
[18] Greco F, Luciano R. A theoretical and numerical stability analysis for composite
micro-structures by using homogenization theory. Compos Part B: Eng
2011;42(3):382–401.
[19] Sun H, Di S, Zhang N, Pan N, Wu C. Micromechanics of braided composites via
multivariable FEM. Comput Struct 2003;81(20):2021–7.
[20] Tabiei A, Aminjikarai BS. A strain-rate dependent micro-mechanical model
with progressive post-failure behavior for predicting impact response of
unidirectional composite laminates. Compos Struct 2009;88(1):65–82.
[21] Crashworthiness Working Group of the CMH-17. Simulation of the quasi-static
crushing of a fabric composite plate. Abaqus Technology Brief; 2011.
[22] Feindler N, Drechsler K, Doll J. Test method to analyse the energy absorption of
composite material using flat coupon testing. In: Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on composites testing and model identification,
Lausanne, 14–16 February, 2011.
[23] Borovkov A, Palmov V, Banichuk N, Saurin V, Barthold F, Stein E. Macro-failure
criterion for the theory of laminated composite structures with free edge
delaminations. Comput Struct 2000;76:195–204.
[24] Johnson A, Pickett A. Impact and crash modelling of composite structures: a
challenge for damage mechanics. In: Proceedings of the 9th user conference
EURO-PAM, Darmstadt, 7–8 Octoberm, 1999.
[25] Greve L, Andrieux F. Deformation and failure modelling of high strength
adhesives for crash simulation. Int J Fract 2007;143(2):143–60.
[26] Tang CY, Tsui CP, Lin W, Uskokovic PS, Wang ZW. Multi-level finite element
analysis for progressive damage behavior of HA/PEEK composite porous
structure. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;55:22–30.
[27] Barut A, Madenci E, Tessler A, Starnes Jr JH. A new stiffened shell element for
geometrically nonlinear analysis of composite laminates. Comput Struct
2000;77:11–40.
[28] Mohite PM, Upadhyay CS. Region-by-region modeling of laminated composite
plates. Comput Struct 2007;85:1808–27.
[29] Huang J, Wang X. Numerical and experimental investigations on the axial
crushing response of composite tubes. Compos Struct 2009;91(2):222–8.
[30] Joosten MW, Dutton S, Kelly D, Thomson R. Experimental and numerical
investigation of the crushing response of an open section composite energy
absorbing element. Compos Struct 2011;93(2):682–9.
[31] PAM-CRASH FE code. Engineering systems international, Rungis Cedex.
[32] Pickett AK, Johnson AF, Rozicky P. Computational methods for predicting
impact damage in composite structures. Compos Sci Technol
2001;61(15):2183–92.
[33] Dhieb H, Buijnsters J, Eddoumy F, Celis J. Surface damage of unidirectional
carbon fiber reinforced epoxy composites under reciprocating sliding in
ambient air. Compos Sci Technol 2011;71(15):1769–76.
[34] Schön J. Coefficient of friction and wear of a carbon fiber epoxy matrix
composite. Amsterdam: Wear; 2004. p. 395–407.
[35] Hull D. A unified approach to progressive crushing of fibre-reinforced
composite tubes. Compos Sci Technol 1991;40(4):377–421.
[36] Li JCM, editor. Microstructure and properties of materials. Singapore: World
Scientific; 2000.
[37] Jurf R, Pipes R. Interlaminar fracture of composite materials. J Compos Mater
1982;16(5):386–94.
[38] Nikbakht M, Choupani N. Experimental investigation of mixed-mode fracture
behaviour of woven laminated composite. J Mater Sci 2009;44(13):3428–37.
[39] Greve L, Andrieux F. Deformation and failure modelling of high strength
adhesives for crash simulation. Int J Fract 2007;143(2):143–60.
[40] Fairfull A, Hull D. Energy absorption of polymer matrix composite structures:
frictional effects in structural failure. In: Wierzbicki T, Jones N, editors.
Structural failure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1989.
[41] Carruthers J, Kettle A, Robinson A. Energy absorption capability and
crashworthiness of composite material structures: a review. Appl Mech Rev
1998;51(10):635–49.