Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN COMPOSITE LAMINATES
. by ·
4 Ever J.
BarberoDissertation
submitted to the Faculty of the
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Engineering Mechanics
APPROVED:
7
E :\,7
R. H. Plaut
Lläbpescué
L.;
T. Haftka —S. Hendricks
October, 1989
Blacksburg, Virginia
ON A GENERALIZED LAMINATE THEORY NITH APPLICATION T0
BENDING, VIBRATION, AND DELAMINATIDN BUCKLING
IN COMPOSITE LAMINATES
by
Ever J. Barbero
J. N. Reddy, Chairman
Engineering Mechanics
(ABSTRACT)
tational models presented herein are accurate for global behavior and
iii
DEDICATION
iv
TABLE 0F CDNTENTS
Page
Abstract........................................................... ii
Acknowledgements................................................... iii
Table of Contents.................................................. v
List of Figures....................................................viii _
1. INTRODUCTION................................................... 1
1.1 Background................................................ 1
1.2 Dbjectives of the Present Research........................ 3
1.3 Literature Review......................................... 6
1.3.1 Plate Theories..................................... 6
1.3.2 Delaminations and Delamination-Buckling............ 9
1.3.3 Fracture Mechanics Analysis........................ 12
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUEO)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
References......................................................... 282
Vita
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
2.14 Variation of the transverse shear stress axz through the thickness
of a three-layer cross—ply laminate under sinusoidal transverse
load.
ix
LIST 0F FIGURES (continued)
x
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
3.21 Smooth lines show the transverse shear stress 6XZ distributions
obtained from equilibrium equations and guadratic elements.
Broken lines represent the transverse shear stress 6 distri-
butions obtained from constitutive equations and linéär
elements. ARALL 2/1 and 3/2, and the geometry and boundary
conditions of Figure 3.38 are used.
xi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
3.35 Effect of the number of layers and the lamination angle 6 on the
fundamental frequencies of symmetric angle-ply laminates.
3.36 Effect of the number of layers and the orthotropicity ratio E1/E2
on the fundamental frequencies of symmetric angle-ply laminates.
xii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
6.3 Detail of the cracked area of the cylinder with external crack.
Only part of the mesh is shown. Hidden lines have been removed.
6.5 Side and front view of the 50% side—grooved compact-test specimen,
B = 0.5 W, a = 0.6 N.
xiii
LIST DF FIGURES (continued)
7.5 Strain energy release rate G for a thin film buckled delamination.
7.8 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of diameter for several values
of the applied inplane uniform strain ex.
7.9 Distribution of the strin energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of diameter Za = 60 mm for
several values of the applied inplane uniform strain ex.
7.11 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r = 1
(c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
7.12 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r =
0.5 (c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
7.13 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
L boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r = 0
(c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
7.14 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r =
-0.5 (c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
7.15 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r =
-1 (c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
7.16 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in (c.f.
Caption 7.10) for several values of the load ratio -1 < r < 1 to
show the influence of the load distribution on the likelihood of
delamination propagation.
xv
LIST OF TABLES
xvi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
to this study.
3-0 problem to a 2-0 one by using a refined plate theory. This allows
consideration.
1
2
a plate theory does not have any aspect ratio limitation because the
undamaged).
of all plate theories in the sense that the problem is reduced to two
needs to be refined only in the areas of interest and does not suffer
from aspect ratio limitations associated with 3-0 finite element models.
keep the cost of the analysis to a minimum. The von Kärmän hypothesis
energy criteria are the most accepted. The virtual crack extension
be assumed.
The finite element model of the plate theory will be developed and
_accurately model both the global and the local behavior of plates. A
response is expected when a few large elements are used in the model.
(e.g., ARALL). _
release-rate G(s) using an energy method has the advantage that standard
study will show both the fundamentals of the theory of GLPT and its
for example, can be derived either way. Since the displacement method
thickness, and we can arrive at exactly the same equations using the
7
classical plate theory, which does not account for the transverse shear
Reissner and Thomas [4], Hencky [5], Midlin [6], Uflyand [8], and
buckling loads obtained using classical plate theory are poor even for
theories are due to Stavsky [14], Ambartsumyan [15] and Whitney [16].
Yang, Norris and Stavsky [7] extended the Hencky—Mindlin theory, termed
plates, and later Whitney and Pagano [19] presented the Navier solutions
the in—plane stress distributions. Among them, Whitney [21] and Nelson
and Lorch [22], and Lo, Christensen, and Wu [23] used second-order
8
of the plate.
stresses are those theories that allow for a layer wise representation
Srinivas [28], Sun and Whitney [29], Seide [30] derived theories for
and piece—wise linear functions were used by Murakami [36] and Toledano
and Murakami [37]. While the mixed theories are more complex than
proposed by Pryor and Baker [34] and Chaudhuri [38] for Seide's theory
panels have reduced load—carrying capacity in both the pre- and post-
noted by Obreimoff [39] and Inoue and Kobatake [40] that axial
[41], Simitses, Sallam and Yin [42], Kachanov [43], Ashizawa [44],
Sallam and Simitses [45] and Kapania and Wolfe [46]. According to these
models, the delamination can grow only after the debonded portion of the
laminate buckles. However, the delamination can also grow due to shear
release rate.
Fei and Yin [50] analyzed the problem of a circular plate with
[51,52].
simple models. The material was considered isotropic in most cases and
The Rayleigh—Ritz method has been used by Chai [41], Chai and
Webster [47].
plate element is added for each delamination. The MPC approach becomes
through the thickness. Third, all plate elements have their middle
surface on the same plane, which is unrealistic for the case of
12
After the local buckling occurs, the delamination can grow only if
for the initial growth of the delamination has been used by Chai [41],
the crack grows only if the strain energy released by the structure
Whitcomb [56]. A variation of the virtual crack closure method was used
Isoparametric elements are among the most frequently used elements due
point element introduced by Henshell [61] and Barsoum [62] became very
over the years. Most of them are designed for 20 problems and their
specially tailored for 30 analysis (for a review see Raju and Newman
[64]). The direct methods obtain the stress intensity factor as part of
the solution. They require special elements that incorporate the crack
tip singularity, for example Tong, Pian and Lasry [65]. The indirect
crack tip as done by Chan, Tuba and Wilson [66] and the nodal-force
method of Raju and Newman [67,68]. We can also use integral methods
like the J-integral method of Rice [69], the modified crack closure
the one by Ramamurthy et al. [71], and the virtual crack extension
method of Hellen [72] and Parks [73]. The indirect and integral methods
2.1 Introduction
theories that can model the local behavior of the plate more accurately
effects.
14
· 15
plane of the laminate, and U and V are functions which vanish on the
reference plane:
n . .
U(><„y.z) = Z ¤J(><„y)¢"(z)
J=l _
n
V(><„y„z) = jil vj(><„y)¢j(2). ’(2·3)
aj
where uj and vj are undetermined coefficients and are any continuous
and uj and vj are the global nodal values of U and V (and possibly their
setting n = pN + 1, where
k-th lamina, Figure 2.1. The linear global interpolation functions are
‘
given by
k zk_1 s z s zk
a (2) = (k = 1,2,...,N) (2.6)
zk s 2 s 2k+l
vgk)
where (i = 1,2) is the local (i.e. layer) Lagrange interpolation
function associated with the i-th node of the k—th layer, Figure 2.1.
midplane interface, those variables are no longer needed and they are
Hamilton principle:
17
ft
Q = { {N X (Ei!)
BX
+ Ny (E5!)
By
+ N xy (EE!
By
+ EE!)
BX
0 Q
+ Ox EM + Qy ä
BX By
Qjuj Qjvj] ft
+ + — [I (üsü + G60 + waw)
- 6w}dAdt f
|"I . .
+ Z1 Ij(üj6ü + üsüa + üjaü + 06iJ)
j=
TI . .
+ 1‘J(ü‘6üj + v‘6»7j)}dAd1;. (2.7)
1 Z 1
Is]:
where
h/2
(Nx,Ny,Nx ) = _h/2
I (¤X,c ,0x )dz
Y Y Y
h/2
(Ox-Oy) —
Ih/2 (¤xz,¤yZ)dz
h/2 .
(Ni,Ng,Niy) = I (cx,¤y,oxy)¢J(Z)dZ
—h/2
J J. -— I h/2
(0X„Qy) gj (Z)dZ (2-8)
-h/2
(¤xz-¤yz) dz
h/2 . h/2 . .. h/Z . .
I1J
Io = f
f-h/2 pdz ; IJ = f p¢Jdz ; =
-h/2 -h/2
•• n juj
I¤U + U
Nx,x + Nxy,y = -§1 I
J
•• n .
J••j
wmx + why = 1ov + 1 v
J21
u Nxnx + Nxyny
v Nxynx + Nyny
w Qxnx + Qyny
uJ Nxnx J
J + Nxyny
vJ J
Nxynx J
+ Nyny (Z.9b)
where (nx,ny) denote the direction cosines of a unit normal to the
““- —
0x (k) - (X) (X)
011 012 016 0 0 0x
0y 012 022 026 0 0 0y
’ 016 0 0 (000)
°Xy 026 066 Yxy
0xz 0 0 0
066 054 Yxz
0yz 0 0 0 054 Yyz
044
Nx au
A11 A12 A16 0 0 5;
0
Ny 0_
A12 A22 A26 0
av
00 00 00 0
01112 16 ax
. . . j
J J J
026 0 0 L
012 022 ay
n . . . j j
J J
026 J L +ax
+j§1 016 066 0 0 ay L
0 0 0 -3
055 -3
045 u3
0 0 0 -3
045 -3 v3
044
20
B2
BB2 B22 B22 B25 B
BB2, B22 B22 B25 B
BB2= B25 B25 B25 B
B B B B25 B25
no 00B22
B22 B22 B B
B22 B22 B22 B B
00
0
0 0 uk
0 0 0 Ei'; Egg vk (2.11a)
where
N 2k+l
(k) (p,q = l,2,6;4,5)
Apq = kil fzk Qpq dz
Bgq B <B·B B
(6,6 = 1,2,6)
622
(k) gdz
pq·ki1,[-zk Qpq -
(P•q·4•5)
21
2**1
555pd-kil
" Izk Opd<5<)d+Äd+Ä
dz dz dz (PA-4,5) (?·llb)
layer in the laminate. When ¢j(z) are linear in each layer, we have
that for the j—th location through the thickness, ¢j(z) ¢ 0 only on the
5 _- Qpd hJ
5-1 —— 5 —N
Bpd 2 + Qpd 2 ; (p , ¤ =1,2,6 ) ( 2.13 ¤)
we have
·—ii Qi-1 Qi
_
°If9 - .29. _ .29 .
2.1.
Therefore
. .. . h)° = 1 + 1)
ij J1 1 ——
D
29 = D
29 = Q29 6 ;
(2.9 = 1.2.6) ( 2.15 C)
and
-1J.—11.-E21.‘°"‘“”
Dpq Dpq i , (2.15d) 4
h (2.9 = 4.5)
All the coefficients Bgq, Fgq, Dgä, Ügä with 1,j = 1,...N+1 are computed
¢j
using the entire set of interpolation functions including that
coefficients Bgq, Ügq, Dgg, Dgg, Ügä, D23 with r denoting the midplane
position are eliminated. The remaining coefficients are then renumbered
layers of the same thickness h/3 and the following material properties:
E2 = ].•0 msi,
0•5,0.2, 25,
before elimination
and 023 = 032 = [0] because the nodes through the thickness number 2 and
only the properties of the layers adjacent to the j-th interface because
each layer to its adjacent nodes (located on the interfaces) are then
V
2.3.1 Cylindrical Bending
dx k=1 dx
26
2
d w
N k du k _‘°
^ss;;2*EBssF*°'
. 2 . N . 2 k .
Z
k=l dx
B <B-BB>
Equations (2.12) consist of N + 2 equations in u, w, ul, u2, ... uN
AH, B21, A55, B25, ana with 5,k = 1,...,N+1 are camputea For
the N+1 interfaces according to Equations 2.12-15. Then the
Equation (2.20).
1 2 (2.21)
cx2=U' a4=w' ¤6=(U)' ¤8=(U)°
(2.20),
{Bu} = [A1{„} + {F} (2.2261)
where
[A1 = {Al'1lBl
{F} = iA1‘l{¤} <2.22¤>
27
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
{Al = 1
0 A11
B110 0 0 0 B11 0 2
0 0 A55 0 0 0 0
0 011 0 0 0 nä 0 nä
0 611 0 0 0 nä 0 nä
0 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 . 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
[B} = ; {Q} =
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 —Bé5 0 -Bä5 Q -f(x)
0 0 0 n§5 nä 0 nä 0 0
0 0 0 n§5 ng; 0 nä 0 0
(2.22c)
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -6/5 0 -6/5 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
_ 0 0 0 0 0 1/2 0 -1/2 -fo/24
[Al = ; {F} =
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 -6/5 3 0 9/5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 6/5 9/5 0 3 0 0
(2.23)
11 = 12 = 13 = 14 = 15 = 16 = 0
17 E 2.19
_ 18 = - 17. (2.24)
For this case we have only four linearly independent eigenvectors, which
{gl} = {k1,0,k2,0,0,O,0,0}T
To obtain other linearly independent solutions, we use the solution
l¤1{:2} = {al}- {
This yields
x
{¤p(x)} = fo [o(x - s) · ¢'1(0)] · {F(s)}ds (2.25)
where
0 1 0 x 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 x 0 x2/2 x3/6
0 0 1 0 x x 2 /2
= 200 1 0 x 5/6 + x /2
O 0 0 0 1 x
0 0 -1 0 —x -5/6 - x2/2
0 0 0 0 -1 -x .
(2.26)
u(—a/2) = u(a/2) = 0
w(—a/2) = w(a/2) = 0
u1(—a/2) = u1(a/2) = 0
u2(—a/2) = u2(a/2) = 0,
vector {k}.
For the particular choice of a = 20 in. and uniformly distributed
2 4
w(x) = - + % x2 - 22.9167) - 10-6
3
10-286-2°19X 10-26e2°19X) 10-6
u1(x) = (Q x - + 1.18 x + 6.15 x ~
ääö
3
u2(x) - (- Q X + {E + 1.18 X 10-286-2°19x + 6.15 X 10-26e2'l9X) - 10-6
(2.28)
ratio a/h are shown in Figure 2.3 for three types of boundary
For all cases a uniformly distributed load is used. Values for the
exact 3-D solution [76] for the simply supported case are also shown.
The deflections are normalized with respect to the CPT solution. The
deformation.
ply [O°/90] plate strip. The material properties of a ply are taken to
Once again, it is clear that the present theory yields very accurate
· results. '
N _
k k k k k k k _
+ + + B66(U•YY + 0
kil [B11u•Xx B12v•v¤ V,xy)]
N _
+ k k
+ k k k
+ B12u’xy k k
+ B22v’yy] — 0
A w [Bk uk Bk vk
_ + A w + + ] + q = I w
55 ,xx 44 ,yy 55 ,x 44 ,y 0
k=l
J + J J
+ B66(V,yy + v,xy) ° 5
Bl1u,xx BI2v,yx 855w,x
5 + + J + J 5
” B44w,y
B66(u,yx V,xx) B12U,xy B22v,yy
„ N . . . .
gk k k gk k gk k _ gk k
044v [ = 0
(2.30)
conditions,
v=w=vk=NX=N;=0;x=0,a;k=l,...,N
U=w=uk=Ny=N:=O;_y=0,b;k=l,...,N. (2.31)
procedure is used):
33
u = 2 X cos aX sin ey
m,n mn
w = 2 N
mh
sin ax sin ßy
m,n
°’
k . ay
k cos ax sin
u = 2 Rmn
man
k_ ° . ax cos ßy
k
v 2- sin (2.32a)
m,n Smn
where
- mg .,
G ··
a
B = Q1
b
., k = 1,...,N.
_ _ k . .
where {A 1 } T — {Xmn,Ymn,Nmn}, {A 2 } T — {Rmn,Smn},
k
and the coefficients
[K], [DJk], and [KJ] are given in Appendix 1.
34
’y’ z) Rk
6
xy (x = Q E
66 m’n {[e(X
mn +
k=1 mn
¢k(z))
(2 ’ 34)
sk
+ 6(Y + 2 ¢k(z))]cos GX cos ey}
mn k=1 mn '
The shear stresses are computed integrating the equilibrium equations of
’ ’
¤ xz (><y2)= E [{l(0 11 ¤2+0 66 62)Xmn
m n
1 +(0 12 +0)6Y
66 ° mn 12+):) {l(0 11 ¤2+0 66 62)Rkmn
k=1
+ (Q )
+ Q 66°‘
eSk ‘*’ kdz} + H 1 }cos
°‘x sin eY }
12 mn lf
yz
’ ’
66 +0 12 )¤·6Xmn +<0 66¤2+0 22 62)Y mn lz
m n
T
35
N k T (06682 T 2 )SmnU
k 8 k dz}
T {N066 T Q12)°BRmn 0228
kjl
+ Gi}sin ax cos ay] (2.35)
stresses.
transverse load. This problem has the 3-D elasticity solution [77] and
the classical plate theory (CPT) solution. The high quality of the
the stress distributions through the thickness for ax, dy, axy, ayz
and cxz for a/h = 4 (see Figures 2.5-2.9), and a/h = 10 (see Figures °
the exact 3-D solution and is not shown here. In all cases the present
error.
elasticity solutions.
2.4.1 Formulation
N . .
¤1(><.y„z) = ¤(><„y) + jgl ¤J(><„y)¢"(z)
37
N
¤2(x„y„z) = v(><.y) + jl v .1 (><„y)¢ 1 (z)
J:
¤3(><.y.z) = w(><„y)
where N is the number of layers, u, v and w are the midplane
uj vj
displacements, and are the displacements at interfaces between
functions (2.6),
5-1 .
v2(Z) , zj_1 5 z s zj
¢ j (Z) = _
v1(Z) , zj s z s 2j+l
J .
with the i—th node of the j-th layer. In this section we compute the
inertia terms,
11 Zk
1°= Q [ pkdz
k=l Zk_l
ZN
1I = EN f 1 k
a (z)p dz (2.37)
k=l 2k-I
15 N Zk
I = j f ¢ 1 (z)¢ 5 (z>¤ k dz
k-1 zk_1
If the rotary inertia is neglected we have IN = INJ = 0 for all i,j
composite plates using GLPT can be developed for the case of rectangular
eiwt
w(x,y) = X N sin Eli sin
mn a b
equations are transformed into an algebraic system for each of the modes
(men):
{Xmn} T T
- J 5 (2'41)
{Xmn’Ymn’wmn’Rmn’Smn}
39
frequencies umn and mode shapes {xmn}. The stress components can be
results much closer than CPT for all the cases considered. The .
influence of the shear correction factor is quite small for GLPT, due to
Table 2.2 to illustrate the accuracy of the GLPT solutions for different
between different layers. All layers are isotropic and they have equal
not change the results much. As in the previous case, it can be seen
that the GLPT results are not significantly affected by the value of the
40
the finite element model (Chapter 3) are slightly larger than the exact
Numerical results are presented for various values of the aspect ratio
a/b and thickness ratio a/h. It can be seen from Table 2.3 that CPT
between CPT and GLPT can be observed for ARALL Laminates. This is
laminates. The results sh own in Tables 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 can be
o ~ /ä
following two cases of inequalities between 2/1 and 3/2 ARALL Laminates:
Similar inequalities hold for aluminum and 2/1 or 3/2 ARALL Laminates.
then B21 < B32. Similarly, if we replace K32 and M32 by Ka] and Ma], we
arrive at the inequalities
In the present study Case 1 is valid for thin laminates (i.e. a/h 2 20)
and Case 2 is valid for thick laminates (i.e., a/h < 20). For thick
laminates, while mass remains the same as for thin laminates, the
ratios. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 show that the differences between the
42
results of GLPT and CPT are more evident as the aspect ratios a/b
thickness ratios (i.e. a/h < 20). This is because the reduced flexural
rigidity, due to the presence of layers with low shear moduli, outweighs
the effect of the slightly lower density of ARALL Laminates. For large
thickness ratios (i.e., a/h > 20), both effects cancel out, and the
frequencies.
results for several values of the Fourier modes (nz mode number along
the fiber direction, and mz mode number across the fiber direction).
2/1 in Table 2.6, ARALL 3/2 in Table 2.7 and an Aluminum plate in Table
2.8. It can be seen that the difference between GLPT and CPT reduces as
persist over a broader range of thickness ratio for the higher modes.
This can be attributed to the fact that shear deformation effects remain
2.6 to 2.8, the differences between GLPT and CPT are more pronounced for
Aggendix 1
*<!* P') N
II Il II Ti
.x 14 x X g
L J-!
Q) “ö
>.
O c
‘«E»’
E E
l$" $*5 „;
“~
3.- Z
2*
.9
2
V!
S
I3
u
:
an
E
::
.9
H
FÄ ¢'\
éä~r
rn N ¤ •
Q.
D D D 3 3
A AII AII AII A *5*1;
SN ÜN Sim SN G.- °"§
D D D D D
II E gg
II II II II ·¤ g
1 1 1 1 1 2 g
0 •• •• S2
~ 0
0EE
LD <i* V7 N .-•
II
•- II
•- II II
•-·•
E
.A S3
°-A
GJ
O
O
*4-
g
CD
-4-*
E
45
¢ P') N U
II II Il Ti f,
x .x x x “-
*— o
g c
¤
“ . -9
1a'
Q
§?‘ cr E
sr E
E
ä
tfeu
‘é’
___ 5
sr 2
Ü
u-
_ä
13
o
E vi
c -•.>
3,_ ‘ „- 2C‘° 2•¤
~1- vo N
> > > > > g.
Ü P7 • •— g G)
3 :3 3 3 3 E g
•• •• .*.5 E
o n ä ·¤E
>
<|- N) GJNC
.
Q, CD
U LJ
" ~·•—
O
E g
GJ
- -6-»
E
46
2.2
‘
L Sim ply supp. 3-0
.... Simply sugp. GLPT
\ Clomped LPT
-.. .. Conti
[ \ -- ever GLPT
gn .6
E x‘
s:
.2
-•Ö* 1‘\
1.4 \
CD
. 4*: ‘~
\x
\
· G) \ \
Q x
——T .—
1.0 • . _ _ 10
'' ·
15
Thnckness rotno o/h
‘
4.5
‘
._
4° O Simply supp. 3-D
.... Simply supp. GLPT
\
- .. Clomped G PT
gig \ -..- Contilever GLPT
{3.0 1
E \
s: 2.5
.9 \
-I-J
gg 2.0 \
—
qö \
1 \
Q 1.5 \
\\ — Q
.; — —
“ ‘ “ ‘ — 2·———7
1.0 •
_ 10 _ 15 20
_ Thlckness rotlo 0/h
0.5
4/
0.3 / 1
’
1
1
....1
0.1
2/h
-0.1
———— 3-0.
-0.:6 — — GLPT
·——— CPT
’ (¤/h=4)
-0.5
-0.8 -0.4 -0.0 0.4 0.8
Normol Stress 0,,,,
0.5
0.3
O.1
/
2/Ii
1
1 .
-0.1 1 _
1
1 ———- 3-0
7 .
-0.:6 1
— —·-— GLPT
-
· CPT
{
I (G/h=4)
· -0.5
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6
Normol Stress ow -
·
O•5 \
\
0.3 \
\
\
0.1 \\
Z/h
\
· ‘
-0.1
-—— :6-0
— — \
-0.:6
6 — — — — GLPT
CPT
t ‘\
(¤/h=4) ‘
-0.5 ‘
-0.050 -0.025 -0.000 0.025 0.050
· . Sheor Stress 0*,,,
0.5
‘
0.:
0.1
2/h
———
3-D
·°·1 — — o¤.¤=T
———
- CPT
-0.3 (0/h=4)
-0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sheor stress 0,,,
0.5
0.3
0.12/
h
-0.1
/ -——-— 6-0
-0.:6 — ·—— GLPT
·· — —— — CPT
(¤/h=4)
-0.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Sheor stress 0*,,
0.5
/’ 1
0.3
1
-I/
1
0.1
2/
h-0.1
——— 3-D
— — t
—
GLPT
-0.3 --- CPT
(o/h=10)
’
-0.5
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
~ Normol stress 0*,,,,
0.5
0.3
0.1
2/h
,//
-01
‘ —i 3-D
-— —- GLPT
-0-3 ———— CPT
{
[ (O/h=1Ü)
-0.5
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Normol stress cw
0.5
0.3
0.1
2/ h
-0.1
"—·*—* 3-Ü
— — x
-0.s GLPT"
—' " CPT x
x
(0/h=10) \
-0.5
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Sheer Stress 0,.,
· 0.5
0.3
0.1
z/ h
-0.1
·———— 3-0
— — GLPT
·· O ·?· ———— cm
(6/n=1o)
-0.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 . 0.15
n Sheor stress 0*,2
0.5 ~
0.3
0.1
2/h
-0.1
...... 3_D .
—— — GLPT
-0.:6 — — CPT
--
(6/h=1o) _
-0.5 '
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Sheor stress 0,,,
UQOGIU
IN SD®M
O S0--•O•—•¤s
•—•IIC N¤SOL¤•—•
II•—•
Q«—•MNN
• • • • •
Q ¢\| Q
·•-— .1<•-• ••·
OOOOO
S- O
L I~CDO•—•I.n •-IO
In
4-* Sv S¤S3S¤•-•c'•
0 >, N•-ONQ II
-: 1-III
II•··• ¤'•ChOM•—-•
4-* Gr-MNN
• • • • • 0
L
O ,_ ¢\|.¥•—•
Q
GGOOO (JIQ
••
Ä D- N
r- ..I 1-4
®I\•-4|-DU?~
Q- (D \O Q¢<‘|\Q O
I N •—•0M¤~N
C 0•
(II I=I|
u•-• QNGM1-I
0 Q1-1NNN
• • • • • O
L ;¢•—•
Q| Q
OGOOG II
LD
L NM
•—•¤.: mn-IOGI
¤\<r<rS0•—< LD
O U
_ *4- N >~,
I=II
r-•S3MMI.l‘)
SQQNU ••· •
||•-4 •-4NNN
• • • • • I-O 'O
Q]A¢•—•
Q Q• Q)
‘¤
QOOOO
S0 v-4 3
Q 1-
4-* ®N¤'0N II U
U <f¢"7U')(OlD C
•v-
Q. ld Q N-SQ-IO U
\ >< I QQQMv—4 <f
I..I..I M O1-4NNN
• • • • •
L} SU
•r-
,§
••·
, 3 OGOOC) 4-*
0 S-
II N
--•m Q GJ
0-••—•S.n0 OS• •r·
C
· I3 \dJ $QOOM •—4
>• N >; <fQMI\
I=|I
|I•—-• QNI\Q'<f' GJ
U ON'<!'NN
• • • • • II C
c ¢\[ Q
A¢•-·• Q
0 I- OOOOC) N r-
3 Q N Q.
U U LJ C
•1-
Q) er- •••
S- MN
*4- 9-/ 1-GOOG
-•I.n•-•«-—• Q II
•·— 00 IL •—·•
00 Q•
6 (J(J Q
•
{J . Q U-4
Cd.) •*
G)4-* zszs II
ESG G
UC •··IN •-IOOOO N -4
'¤••— «·—••.nI.n•—•
00 «-I
CE S30 L) II
3 (JL)
••
XL? .C
N N
-C G fd
1-4
1-41-41d1-IW)•
E • • • ••
• • (V) •
•-•
N .c OOOOO M
SD II II
I- .C «-•
.¤ \ •—••-••—••—•«·-•
• • • • • .¤
Q 1-4
1-4I-
.c OOQOO U eu
Y
59
en QOON Mc¤r~
0 LDOOIN Lf)¤'s<V)
• v—4 II Z ¢O¢*'|¢*7
|\UiN®
|\<I'N
*~0L0f\
Q) III-1 OO!-lr-O
• • •
Lg ;¢•-•
§-) L|,|Q| • 1-·I•·-IQ
• • •
Q
QGCG COC
E
••-
ä ¤¤NNC> <f'LOLh
r- O O•~D®<!' MQO
C I-0C)¤’)<f (DED?)
U •—•u I\OiN® womrx
•I'
III-Q QQ•-lv-I •-lv-IO
• • • • • • •‘ ••
Q, Q] Q
-¥•—•
O GOCC GGG O
•—«
L
4-*
O II
Ih
••' Ih €@LDN €'•-lv-C
0 U'|G\O£D ¢O\•—-• S
<TG\<"‘)¢'•‘)
Z I\<I'\‘*) \
>$ -—•II |\®N® RDLDVN ¢¤
F"
¤_ |||-I QQ•-I!-I •·-O1-·IO
• • • • • • • ••
N Q
I .¥»-• QOOQ ccc •—•
0 I-
0 Q. II
L -| N
-C (D •—*
®<f'®®
\D0\•—¢N $0NlD .O
4-* ZO \0U7N \
N C <TO\NG\ I'V)«-40*) G!
L PII
|I•—• I\®N|\
GO•··|•-I l0LD|\
•·—¢•—|© ••~
O • • • • • • • _€
Q. (\| Q
.¥•—• •—¢
OGOG OCC
O
N (N G
gg «-am u1M¤¤-• OC>¤' II
Z ZG) v·4¢‘*)Q'lD
<fG$•—¢®
O'$|\§D
N Z N®N N)
N PII
||•—• |\®N|\
@@•-4•—I SDI-0|\ S
• • • •
v-•«·—•Q
• • •
Q N Q
.¥•—·• ||
\ OCDGG GGG •-•
S
3 .:
II N®|\\D |\®G'$ ••
I-DU\Q'~0 U7©N Q")•
I3 +-» <rcsMM r~¤.o~
U uxwmw mcmrx
•—••—•O Q
0 ru Q OC>•-•«-—•
• • • • • • •
Q
•· X | ||
Lu 0*) •
GGCDG GGG
fd N 'O
> 9 0
C N
•—•m •• 'U
Q) lDGs¤\<I' Lhlntß 3
D7
•P' !—N\0 ©G'•0’)k0 ®N&O N) r-
Z |\f*)NL¢7 l0N<T 9 U
Lu Q. PII |\O\¢*)•—• ¤'•CDI\ C
II•—• -••-•O •r-
1— U OO-•N
• • • • • • • II
N Q
.¥•·—•
fd GGOCD GOG v-I G5
4-* 9
C ·¤··
4-*
N •••
0 L
E c¤ M sv
I6 \ r—INLf)LK7 LDI.D•—• gg C
•r'
1-I r-O 1-I1-4
C L') II
3 •·—I 0
LL \’VJ¢")N C
•—{ <'*7<*)<'*7<"')
• • • • • • • LD fd
r—
••
N•. 9 GOGG GOG Q
CV) C
•r—
N Q.
v—•
0 II II
r- Q. Y*•Y'*V*•!“‘
.Q Z ¢\IfV7v—| v-I U-!
¢¤ -4 c. ¤.
Q. •—•
I'-
60
— ab /°AL
Table 2.3 Fundamental Frequency m = w E- E- for a/b = 1.
AL
— ab /°A1
Table 2.4 Fundamental Frequency o = m E- E- for a/b = 2
Table 2.5.
, — _ ab °Al _
Fundamental Frequency w — u E- J ä- for a/b — 5
_ Al
a/h Theory Rotary Al ARALL ARALL
Inertia 2/1 3/2
. ab /°AL .
Table 2.6: Natural Frequencies ul = — — for ARALL 2/1 with
mn h EAL
a/b = 1, using GLPT, compared to CPT.
a/ h
m=1 m=1 m=l m=2 m=2 m=2 m=3 m=3 m=3
n=l n=2 n=3 n=l n=2 n=3 n=l n=2 n=3
CPT 6.33 15.80 31.61 15.82 25.30 41.10 31.65 41.13 56.92
5 3.70 7.17 11.96 7.22 10.16 14.60 12.07 14.67 18.74
10 5.07 10.44 17.37 10.48 14.82 21.03 17.49 21.10 26.65
_ _—
. ab /L .
Table 2.7. Natural Frequencies umn wmn-E- for ARALL 3/2 with
EAL
a/b = 1, using GLPT, compared to CPT.
a/ h
m=l m=l m=l m=2 m=2 m=2 m=3 m=3 m=3
n=l n=2 n=3 n=l n=2 n=3 n=l n=2 n=3
CPT 6.07 14.98 29.91 15.54 24.29 39.10 31.38 40.02 54.65
100 6.06 14.91 29.60 15.45 24.08 38.57 31.03 39.46 53.64
~
65
/0
Table 2.8: Natural frequencies wmn = mmnqél EÄI for aluminum plates
with a/b = 1 using GLPT, compared to CPT
a/h m=1 m=1 m=1 m=2 m=2 m=2 m=3 m=3 m=3
n=1 n=2 n=3 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=1 n=2 n=3
CPT 6.04 15.11 30.21 15.11 24.17 39.28 30.21 39.28 54.39
100 6.04 15.09 30.16 15.09 24.14 39.19 30.16 39.19 54.22 ·
Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
- interlaminar stresses.
66
67
of the numerical results obtained using the present plate element are
follows:
'“
(u,v,w,u 1 ,v 1 - 1 1 (3.1)
strain vectors {e} and {ej}. The constitutive equations of the laminate
N
{N} = {Alk} + Z {Bkl{¤k}
k=1
(3.3)
{NJ} = [Bj]{e} + {¤j"1{e"}
k=1
where the constitutive matrices are given in equation (2.11b). The
Using Eqs. (3.1) in the virtual work statement (2.7), we obtain the
3. . . 0
{kN21 1 ··
22
[kNNl {AN} {0}
where the submatrices [kl1], lkäzl, lkäll and [k§2] are given by
{ku} = {T [BL]T[A][BL]dsze
e n
e
the shear stress distribution through each layer with a quadratic func-
The average shear stresses on each layer are computed from the
3
constitutive equations and the displacement field obtained in the
finite-element analysis.
= ' +
°xz,z (°xx,x °xy,y)
(3.5)
are used to compute and GyZ,Z directly from the finite-element
Vj
°,t 011 012 012 ät V jgl
the finite element model and to display the features of the GLPT in the
composite laminates that can be analytically solved using the full 30-
is one in which one of the planar dimensions of the plate is much larger
(in theory, of infinite length along the y-axis) than the other. The
consider only a unit width along the y-axis. The problem is then
condition. A
Analytical solutions to the 3D-equations of elasticity for
case and the closed form solutions of GLPT from Chapter 2 for the three
are used to represent one—half of the plate for the SS and CC cases,
taking advantage of the symmetry of the problem and 10 elements are used
for the CT case, which has no symmetry. Very good agreement is found
analyzed. The plate can be analyzed using any strip along the length.
The underlying assumption is that every line along the length deforms
into the same shape (called cylindrical bending). The problem becomes
condition. Under these conditions, both elements gave exactly the same
results.
inplane normal stress computed in the CLPT (see Figure 3.3) differs
oxx
even in sign at the interface of laminae.
equations, and the result is shown in Figure 3.4. Note that the 3D
the top surface is unsymmetric about the midplane, while the GLPT
used are the same as those used in Section 3.4.2 Due to symmetry
system with the origin at the center of the plate is used for
w = u = uj = 0 at y = 1 a/2
w = v = vj = 0 at x = 1 a/2
results: .
’
(Ü,V)=}E)Eg·(uv) ’ w=%w ’ (Ü )=L(¤
qohS3 qohS4 xz’Eyz qos xz’ o)
yz
(3.10)
QOS
where s = a/h, a is the length of the square plate and h is the
Uxx (lf),
16 16
Uyy (ä—,é—)ündo
16 16
(B-,lä).
xy 16 16
(3.11)
3.5-3.7 for s = 4. The quality of the GLPT solution and the accuracy of
on x = a: v = w = vj = 0
on y = b: u = w = uj = 0 (3.12)
stress for aspect ratio a/h = 10, is shown in Figure 3.8. The
axx,
75
Figures 3.9 and 3.10 contain similar plots of the interlaminar shear
smooth solid line represents the stress distribution obtained using the
equilibrium equations. Stresses obtained using the GLPT and FSDT are
stresses computed in the FSDT and GLPT theories are significant for a/h
While the inplane stresses obtained using FSDT and GLPT in a cross-
ply plate are reasonably close, the stresses differ significantly for an
on x = 0: uj
v = = 0
vj
on y = 0: u = = 0
on x = a: v = w = vj = 0
on y = b: u = w = uj = 0 (3.13)
= 0.0528a. The shear correction factors used for the FSDT and GLPT are
1.0. The difference between the stresses computed by the FSDT and GLPT
still persist, however reduced, even for thin laminates. For example,
and 100. The results show striking differences between FSDT and GLPT.
The difference does not vanish as the aspect ratio grows. It can be
100. The reason for the difference can be attributed to the GLPT's
edge.
plate. The difference between the two theories can be attributed to the
that the FSDT requires a shear correction factor smaller than one to
u
77
be inferred from Figure 3.17, where the maximum value of axx, normalized
with respect to the analytical solution, is shown for different
3.3).
Mindlin plate element), it yields very accurate results for all stresses
middle layer represents the fiber-rich part of the Aramid layer, and the
layers on either side represent resin—rich parts that bond the Aramid
W
78
fiber to the Aluminum layer. In this study, aluminum layers are taken
(Am/resin/Ar/resin/A2)S.
Aluminum:
¤(¤/2.y) = ¤j(¤/2.y) = 0
v(x,b/2) = vj(x,b/2) = 0 (3.15b)
where j = 1,...,N, and N is the number of layers in the laminate.
79
stresses are linear in each layer and they approximate closely the exact
the Gauss points closest to the points where the solution has a maximum,
used:
(;,E,$ )=(„,„,„ )L
x y xy x y xy qS2
W = iEEE%& w, (3.16)
qhs S
where q is the intensity of the uniform transverse load.
(Figures 3.18 and 3.19), we can observe that the maximum occurs in the
aluminum layers, either at the outer layers for ARALL 2/1 or at the
center layer for ARALL 3/2. This may be an advantageous factor because
the matrix material has low strength in shear. The first-order shear
deformation theory (FSDT) predicts even lower shear stresses at the
80
Aramid layers because unlike GLPT, FSDT does not account for variable
shear strain through the thickness. For hybrid composites like ARALL,
more compliant Aramid layers, thus relaxing the shear stresses through
the laminate. However, shear stresses do not reach high values in the
equations one can even use linear finite elements. Figure 3.21 contains
fields computed from the constitutive equations agree very closely with
deflections obtained by the FSDT are lower than those predicted by the
GLPT. In general, the GLPT gives a more flexible model than the FSDT
81
because GLPT accounts for the different behavior of stiff and compliant
layers.
Four different boundary conditions, called SS1, SS2, SS3 and SS4
plate under uniform transverse load. For simplicity, the Aramid layers
where the Aluminum middle layer is represented as two layers, one above
and one below the middle surface. For all cases, the same symmetry
‘
boundary conditions are applied along the x- and y-axis. 0n the
'
SS2: u(x,·%) = w(x,·%) = 0
vj(§. y)
v(%„ y) = = w(§. y) = 0
of the stresses ox, oy, axy, and oxz and oyz. It can be seen that the
82
angle, orthotropy and thickness ratio are investigated. The theory and
3.5.1 Formulation
plate was given in Section 2.1. The form of the variational statement
used to derive the finite element model, and the corresponding Euler-
83
2.2. The finite element model can be found in Section 3.2 for the
static linear case, and in Section 4.3 for the static nonlinear case.
u lk
1°= 1 1 ,,*.12
k=l Zk_1
N lk .
I1 ¢"(z)pkdz
= Z f
k=l Zk_1
r‘°.. N lk .
= 1 1 ¢‘<z>AJ<z>A"¤z
k=l Zk_1
In the finite element model the generalized displacements
j . m . .
where m is the number of nodes per element. The finite element model
{mgl} . {A"}
\
and
84
im§§1 = in 1‘¢‘iH1Tih1¤Ae
ä
with °
(u,v,w,uj,vj) = [nm} (3.20)
If the rotary inertia is neglected we have Ii = Iij = 0 for all i,j
be eliminated at the element level to reduce the order of the system and
A
3.5.2 Numerical Examples
is presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 with the 3-D solution [82] for cross-
Table 3.1 and unsymmetric laminates in Table 3.2. In all cases the
85
while layers of the same class have the same thickness. The GLPT
of the plate. The inplane inertias are included and the shear
corresponding errors with respect to the 3-0 solution are included for
comparison. Very good correlation between the GLPT and the 3-D
solutions is observed.
laminates with all layers having the same thickness are considered. The
az
nondimensional fundamental frequency is defined as.] = o JEYÜQ. In
all cases the GLPT solution is compared with the analytical CPT
conditions. A similar study to the one presented in Section 4.5 for the
The effect of the thickness ratio a/h is shown in Figure 3.31 for
important role for low values of the thickness ratio. The effect of the
86
because the shear deformation effects are more important for the
the orthotropic plate (or, the number of layers approaches ¤), which
while all layers in the same class have the same thickness. Both a 4 x
4 mesh in the full plate and a 2 x 2 mesh in a quarter of the plate give
the previous example and the same material properties are used for 3-,
higher frequencies are observed for the t45° lamination. The effect of
87
coupling Bij which in turn increases the value of the free vibration
and the shear deformation effects are evident from the examples
in the laminate.
w, ul, vl, u2, vz, ..., un, vn. Figure 3.31 depicts the relationship
between the various displacements and their corresponding degree of
freedom. Both linear and quadratic elements are used for approximation
ZMLE
Under the *NODE option card, the nodal data of a 2D planar mesh is
listed in the usual way, giving the x and y coordinates of the modes in
the mesh.,
*USER ELEMENT
completion of the *NODES optipn. This is because the *USER ELEMENT card
- TYPE = U1
- COORDINATES = 2 (3.21)
- VARIABLES = 2
freedom starting with 1 and up to NDOF, the number of d.o.f. per node
computed as
— NDOF = 3 + 2*NLAYER (3.22)
*UEL PROPERTY
up. ak is the angle between the material coordinate system and the
is the material property set number of the k-th layer. The superscript
The connectivities are given with a *ELEMENT card using TYPE=U1 for
*BOUNOARY
the number of DOF and the displacements for a typical node. In the
@@1ns
Two types of load are implemented. Transverse load, bilinear over
each end-node defining side 1 of the element (i.e., the side limited by
ELEMENT, q1,q2,q2,a4,Ei,E;,E§,f§
where qi = pressure at node i
we describe the output files and how the output can be further post-
processed.
file lists, among other things, the displacements (u,v,w) in the first 3
corresponds to u, U2 to v and U3 to w.
92
where
— IEL: element number
interfaces (1PE13.5).
bottom and top surfaces respectively, for each layer. Each card
(6(1PE13.5)):
z,¤xx,¤yy,¤xy,¤xy,¤yZ,¤xz
Finally we have a list of the coefficients in the third-order
processor program to give a series of values of oyz and oxz through the
(w). For element number 1, the magnitude of the transverse load at the
on node 1 of side 1 are equal to 0,0 and the two components at node 2
are 0,0.
- on x = 0: u = ¢x = 0
— on y = 0: v = ¢y = 0
- on x = a/2: v = w = ¢y = 0
- on y = a/2: u = w = ¢X = 0
The *BOUNDARY option card describes the boundary conditions for this
example. 0n each card, one node and the specified d.o.f. are given.
properties:
-·E1
= 1.2549E7
- E2 = 7.6525E5
- G12 = 2.8955E5
- G23 = 2.6462E5
- vlz = 0.3458
—
v23 = 0.4459
Immediately after the *NOOES option is completed, we declare the *USER
- NODES = 8
- TYPE = U1
- COORDINATES = 2
- PROPERTIES = 23
95
Since NDOF = 11 is this example, the next card lists the d.o.f., i.e.,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
given with a *UEL PROPERTY card for the ELSET = CUBE. According to
· NLAYER = 4
- NMATS = 1
- NGAUS = 2
— NGPRD = 2
— SCF = 1
- 61 = 0
- tl = 0.833
-m1=1
- 62 = 90
- tz = 0.417
—m2=1
- 63 = 90
- t3 = 0.417
—m3=1
- 64 = 0
- t4 = 0.833 _
—m4=1
- E1 = 1.2549E7
- E2 = 7.6525E5
96
—
G12 = 2.8955E5
— G23 = 2.6462E5
- G23 = 2.6462ES
- vlz = 0.3458
—
v23 = 0.4459
The *ELEMENT option uses element TYPE = U1 and declares all the
proper link with the main ABAQUS program. A complete report of the
Aggendix 2
E ME
BX BX
M
By
M
vv
k 2 k k
- „+„·*¢*
22 M M M
6,+6X
*2*-
aw
5; Uk
aw
ay Vk '
0*
LO 0 ***1 0 0 ****12
'ä"••• 0 ***0
ä
‘
98
0 vl 0 v2 ... 0 vm
99
Appendix 3
Computation of Higher-Order Derivatives
additional computations.
- 1
are related to those with respect to the local (or element) coordinates
uiax
}=
2 1
according to
}z [J]'1
ag ag ag ag
(a)
By If
ön
ex
8n
{
Ä Ei 811
E
3n
the geometry:
r
X = xj¢j(€•n)
and (5,n) are the element natural coordinates. For the isoparametric
formulation r = m and wi = wi. The second—order derivatives of wi with .
respect to the global coordinates (x,y) are given by
100
özwi özvi
axz a;2
B21
1211
——- -1 1211
———
ax
where
—
Q2
(B;) EX 2
(BZ) 2 El Q
BE BE
ÄÄ Ä Bl ÄÄ + Ä Ä ((1)
Bn BE Bn BE ön BE Bn BE
Q
ag?
fx
BSZ
_ Q Q
B11 B11
a 2x a 2y
ana; a;an (8)
The matrices [J1] and [J2] are computed using Equation (b).
101
4.5
Simply supp. 3-D
4_O .... Slmply supp. GLPT
_ Clomped GLPT
\ -
- - - Contllever GLPT
'g3,_5 ¤¤¤¤¤ F.E.M.
\
E 1
\6.0
E 1
C 2.5
0 \ _
-+—J
¤\
0 2.0
E
Qt°’
‘
Q 1.5 x „ \
\
\ ÜQ
P
—
1.0 * * 52;;.-. _ _ Y
O 5 10 _ 15 20
Thlckness 1*0110 0/h
0.5
/
/
’/z
0.6 ’z
/
0.1 . /—/
\x
Z/I']
\
-0.1 X
\
/
/ ———— 3-D
-0.6 — — CPT
— — — — GLPT
(0/h=4)
05
.-1.0 -0.5 _ -0.0 0.5 1.0
Inplone dnsplocement u
0.5
/
/
/
0.3 / /
/
0.1
2/h-0.1
1 Z
Z
/ —-— 3-0
-0.:6 — — CPT
··— — — GLPT
(¤/h=4)
-0.5
-20-15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
_ Normdl Stress 0,,,
0.5
E
\ se
0.3 .
0.1
2/ h
-0.1
———— 3-0
— — GLPT
—O.3 (G/h=4)
-0.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Tronsverse Sh€GI’ Ünxz
I
0.5
«’ /
0.:6 /
/
0.1
2/h
-0.1 , -
7
/ "— H)
/
-0 ‘ 6 0 — —· — — GLPT _
— — CF)T
_O
5-0.80 -0.40 -0.00 0.40 0.80
. lnplone stress 0,.,,
0.5
0.3
0.12/
’ 3
h
/
-0.1
1- 3-D
-0.3
_ 1 ' 1 1 1 GLPT
l-0.60
-0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60
. Inplone stress ow
0.5
x
x
x
0.1 x
\l
2/ h
‘
-0.1
\
x
——— 3-0
-0.3 __—
__ _
— “
CPT \
_O 5 (¤/h=4)
40.060 -0.025 -0.000 0.025 0.050
||'lpIGVl€ stress 0'xy
0.6 QY
0.5
3 .3
\
x
0.1
2
l-—;..|
g 2/h
-0.1
GLPT
-0.:6 — — FSDT
--
-0.5 C·‘«’r
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
· lnplone stress 6,,,,
FSDT. °
under uniform load, (a/h = 10) as computed using the GLPT and
109
0.5
1
I
0.3 '
*‘
* *1
0.1
z/h
I
-0.1 _
__ _ I
U
-0.3 ——— GLPT EQUIL.
I — —
I ——- GLPT CONST.
FSDT CONST.
:
-0.5
0.0 0.1 _ 0.2 0.3_ 0.4
Interlcmnnor stress 0,, -
0.5
0.3
I I
Ü.1 I
2/h {
U
I
-0.1 l
L ....... _
- GLPT Eount. T I
— GLPT cowsi. I
-0.3 ——— FSDT CONST. .
-0.5
_ 0.0 0.2 _ 0.4 _ 0.6
Interlomnnor stress 0,,,
0.5 \
\
\
\‘
0.3
\
0.1 x
\
Z/h x_
-0.1
-0.:6 —— GLPT \
¤\
———
·· FSDT\
\
-0.5
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 _0.2 0.4
Inplone stress 03,,.
0.5
0.3
/
\
0.1 \
\
z/h )
/
-0.1 /
/
\
——— GLPT
\
‘\
-0.3
‘ —
" — FSDT x
\
\
-0.5
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
lnplone sheor ox,
0.5
\
\
\
\
0.3 \
\
\\
Ü.1
\
Z/h x
-0.1
0.5
I
I I
0.3
0.1
2/h ...
-0.1
__ I
I
-0-3 { ——-
— — oI.I=·T EOUIL.
{ ——— cI.I=T comsr.
[ { FSDT CONST.
I
-0.5
0.0 0.2 _ 0.4 0.6_ 0.8
Interlommor stress 0,,
' 0.5
I
' I
0.3
’1
0.1
2/h
-0.1
_.Il... I _
1.5
1.4
..._ GLPT
-.._.. FSDT s
1.3
W
I
I
1•2
\
\
\
\\
”
1J1.0
0 20_ 40 50 80 100
Thuckness rotuo 0/h
1.1
1-
$2
X 1-0 1--——· an
—
-
>£ I
b
g .
E
LU; u.
»;§‘0.9
¤¤¤¤¤ Linecr ·
...... Quodrotic X
0.8
0 5 10 15 20
Number of elements
——— 3/2
2/1 GLPT GLPT — — 3/2 FSDT
0.5
0.3
0.1
2/h
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5 .
0.00 0.25 0.50
Interlominor stress 0,,
0.3
0.1
2/h
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
0.00 0.25 0.50
Interlominor stress cry,
°·‘
I5 · — ‘·-4,
6LPr
|"”‘“i" ‘~.
25
cu 0,2 °
II 4
.E
g Equilibrium '···;;·
•"\
^R^'·F 2/1 .
o 4
g OD
Üg —-— Constitutive
-.. equatuons [_' ‘
E A
‘ §
_g ARALL 3/2 -
-0.2 g
S I"°’°‘*— · 0
" x'
-0.4 _„_--· g'
”“‘~ ,_
5hi O-4 ‘°Q „s GLP?
a/h=4
i \\
E 0-2 *· .. 2/1
9 Equulnbnum e L- _
§ .
gg
m 0-0
•
__
'°" Constitutive
equations [6} Q
•i_
J
!
• ARALL 3/2
C
'
jé ,0 2 -
-=
'“ · I I ,\
+----6
· I
20 „
I
.5 1 ——
."' 16 ___ GLPT ARALL 2/1
1 FSDT
o
GLPT
° 12 -...'FSDT ARALL 3/2
···
E
58»
5 8\· ~_
zu 4
E .
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Side to thickness ratio, a/h
.:
; ¤-4 —GLF’TARAu. 2/1
. \ \x ·—FSDT
2
2 0.2 \
*5 f-};
¤ 1
g ] a/h=4 ·
¤ 0.0
0:
cn
2
.1: -0.2
.9
.:
l-
‘
-0.4 \\
0.5
0.3
1
0.1
2/ h
-0.1 _
-0.3 -
-0.5
-0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2 0.4
lnplone Stress 0*,,,.
0.3
0.1
2/h
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
-0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2 0.4
lnplone Stress ow
0.5
0.3
0.1 2
Z/1’l ~
"'O•1 /
-0.3
SS1 und SS2
— — — SS3
// ond SS4
-0.5
-10 -5 0 5 10
Inplone stress ow
0.5
0.3
0.1
2/h
-0.1 1
\
\
\
-0.3 /A
/
SS1 ond SS2
// --— SS3 ond SS4
-0.5
-10 -5 0 5 10
1V1p1G|’\€ stress Uxx
0.5 „
\
\
\
\
x
0.3I
0.1
2/h
-0.1
-0.3
C)-ES IHIIIII|||||lll|""’
I}
I
0.3 ‘ I
II
V
1/ I
0.1
/I -
Z/h i- SSI and SS2
SS3 ond SS4
I
'·
I
-0,3 I
I
Q ‘\
0.5 V?
I
0.3 1
I
0.1 p
/I
2/h '
SS1 und SS2
_O•1 nn _- SS3 cmd SS4
l I
\
I
-0.3 I
I
|\
30.0
[45/-45] 3
20.0 .
— [45 -45]
Q) .............Z.....
10.0.___
— — GLPT
· — CPT
0.0 -
0 20 40 60 80 100
0/h
25.0 __ .. ..
I
A'
20.0
anX
sx
xs
15.0 U
g,
;
X
”
;
‘ ‘ ’ ° _
_ _
H
10.0
=+¤—¤-¤—¤ [0/-0]
GLPT
5°O ¤¤-¤—¤—¤ L0/—-01 CPT
·=-¤—·=—¤—¤
[0/-0];, GLPT
M-¤—¤—¤ [0/-0];,,
CPT
‘
0.0 .
0 51015202530354045
0
LO ‘^“”^*·—A——A--6-—A——A--A-—— ..
\ ‘
0.8 n\ · _
Gx ‘ -
°
„ BN — -
O•6 : * ~B— —
_
—
.
I
„ 0.4
:
: —
[45/-45] GLPT
BB-¤-BB [45/-45] CPT
O·2 ·=-¤—¤-B [45/-45]; GLPT
M-¤—¤-¤ [45/-45];, CPT
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
E1/E2
30.0
·‘
/ ’ ’ l- QQ_
20.0 „’
4/
4/
-
1
100 E .._. 3 Ioyers
- - - 5 Ioyers
-_
.. 9 Ioyers
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0/h
3.34 Effect of the number of layers and the thickness ratio on the
fundamental frequencies of symmetric angle—ply laminates.
135
16.0
14.0
CO
12.0
__. 3 Iczyers
- - .. .. 5 Icyers
.. _ 9 Ioyers
10.0
0 51015202530354045
3.35 Effect of the number of layers and the lamination angle 6 on the
fundamental frequencies of symmetric angle—ply laminates.
136
20.0
15.0 z
, / "; ,·
” ,
, v - ··
’[ ”
Ö /Z Zé
’/
/
10.0
5·O 3 Ioyers
- - - - 5 Ioyers
.. .. 9 Ioyers
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
E1/E2
Z U4,V4 (70,77)
Z -I U U UUUU
I
I
·» **2‘*·——·„
"=«~** Q
l l ll
l ltl ••• ··¤·
*3.38
Finite element mesh on a quarter of a simply—supported plate
mogelled using the symmetry boundary conditions along x = 0 and y
139
—
Y
Cl .|
4 7 3
8 6 b
1 5 2 x
E1/E2
Source Layers 3 10 20 30 40
El/E2
Source Layers 2 10 20 30 40
Noor 0.25031 0.27938 0.30698 0.32705 0.34250
GLPT 0.25133 0.27897 0.30517 0.32429 0.33905
Error 2 0.41% 0.15% 0.59% 0.84% 1.01%
CPT 0.27082 0.30968 0.35422 0.39355 0.42884
Error 8.19% 10.85% 15.39% 20.33% 25.21%
Noor 0.26182 0.32578 0.37622 0.40660 0.42719
GLPT 0.26094 0.32702 0.38058 0.41337 0.43572
Error 4 0.34% 0.38% 1.16% 1.67% 2.00%
CPT 0.28676 0.38877 0.49907 0.58911 0.66691
Error 9.53% 19.34% 32.65% 44.89% 56.12%
Noor 0.26440 0.33657 0.39359 0.42783 0.45091
GLPT 0.26262 0.33566 0.39420 0.42974 0.45385
Error 6 0.67% 0.27% 0.15% 0.45% 0.65%
CPT 0.28966 0.40215 0.52234 0.61963 0.70359
Error 9.55% 19.48% 32.71% 44.83% 56.04%
Noor 0.26583 0.34250 0.40337 0.44011 0.46498
GLPT 0.26348 0.34011 0.40134 0.43848 0.46372
Error 10 0.88% 0.70% 0.50% 0.37% 0.27%
CPT 0.29115 0.40889 0.53397 0.63489 0.72185
Error 9.52% 19.38% 32.38% 44.26% 55.24%
= = = 0-5, H/h = 10.
V12
142
Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
bifurcation buckling.
plane of the laminate, and U and V are functions which vanish on the
143
144
reference plane:
Ex —
u2 ’
-211 + ä + 1 (ax) Ey -u
” u2
il 1 (ay)
ax ax 2 ay + ay + 2
+ 21 2°yz -2M
“ y (4°3)
2°xz ' az ax' az + ay'
n .
U(><„y.z) = 3: ¤J(><..v)¢j(z)
J=l
" v 1 (><.y)¢j(z)„
V(><.y.z) = 3:1
J:
(4-4)
145
uj
where and vj are undetermined coefficients and aj are any continuous
and uj and vj are the nodal values of U and V at the nodes through the
using the virtual work principle. Substituting Equation (4.4) into the
E5!O
'- In + ) + Ny(ay + ) + Nxy (ay +
{Nx(ax ax ax ay ay ax
n . j . j . j j
+ [Nx3 aau j a6v
+ Ny
j aau asv
)
jfl ax ay + Nxy ( ay + ax
Qiuj Qgvj]
+ + - p6w}dA, (4.6a)
h/2
= (¤xZ„¤yz)dz
Th/2
146
. h/2
J J J ‘-
(Nx•Ny•Nxy)
h/2 d¢.
__,1
J J
(QX,Qy) = (z)dz. (4.6b)
(h/2 (¤xZ,¤yZ) dz
N><„x + Nxy„y = 0
0’
Nxy„>< + Ny„y =
Om + 0y_y + N(w) + p = 0,
J 5 _ J
NX•X
+ Ox = 0°
NX.)/•.Y
j=1,2’•••’nNxy„x
j j j
+ Nyay - Q! = O'
where N(w) is due to the inclusion of the von Kärmän nonlinearity in the
theory:
' L
N(w) - (Nx 21. + Nxy 2*1..
ay) + L (Nxy 2.*1 + ä
ay) (4'7b)
ax ax ay ax Ny
w, uj, vj). The form of the geometric and force boundary conditions is
given below:
u Nxnx + Nxyny
v Nxynx + Nyny
w Qxnx + Qyny
uj ° Ninx + Niyny
vj uiynx + Ngny (4.8) '
147
Ay av 1 aw 2
A12 A22 ^26 0 0 ?§*2(ä)
Nxy -
° 0 0 E + ii + MH
A16 A26 A66 ay ax ax ay
0 0 0 aw
0x ^66 ^46 BY
aw
148
BBis
'Bis Bis Bis B
BBj; Bis Bis B
Bis Bis Bis B
B0
0 0 B25 B25 02
0 0 0 B25 B24 V2 (4.10a)
Ni Bis Bis Bis B B %Bi<%>2
N2
0Niy
B22 B22 B25 0
B Bis Bis Bis B
BQi
B B B Bis
Bis02
0 0 0 B25
BTBiä
Biä Biä B
B24Bii
Biä Biä B B
0
00
0 0 B2'5 uk
1 1 - '"
(u,v,w,u ,v ) — 1 11
(u ,v ,w ,u ,v.)w. (4.11)
iäl i i i i 1
where m is the number of nodes per element. Using Equation (4.11), the
{el = [BMA}
{eJ} = [F]{0J} (4.12a)
where
. 1 _
form
0 =} ({61}T{01T[A1{01{11} + {11}T{01T1A1[6NL1{11}
0
+ 2{61}T{ßNL1T{A1{ß1{A} + 2{61}T[6NL1T[A}[BNL}{1}
N . . _ .
+ Z [{6A}T[B]T[Bj][B]{AJ} + 2{6A}T[BNL]T[BJ][B]{AJ}
J
+ {6Aj}T1ä1T1¤j11ß1{A} + {6Aj}T1ä1T1¤j11¤„L1{A}
150
N —
} lvl lv gr llBl{A 2 }ll - ¤6w)dA-
+2 l{6A 51-1
T
{11} {q}
[kN21 22
lkNNl {A N } {Q N } (4-13)
where the submatrices [k11], lkäzl, [kgll, [kg?] with i,j = 1,...,N are
given in Appendix 4.2. The load vectors {q}, {q1}...{qN} are analogous
au N auj
1 aw 2
¤; G11 G12 G1: 3; + 3 (ä) + j§1 TK 'lj
av 1 (ay)
112 N 1yÄ
Oy · G12 Q22 Gzs 5*2 *1§1 ay N5
Q 13 QZ3 33
Q°xy ay ax ax ay ay ax j
j=1
(4.14)
Next, the interlaminar shear stresses (uxz and ayz) are recovered (see
”
°yz,2 = (°xy,x + °y,y)' (4·l5)
The nonlinear equations are also linearized to formulate the
[KG] is the geometric stiffness matrix, obtained from the nonlinear part
symmetric laminates.
to reduce the maximum stress from the value predicted by the linear
theory. As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the membrane effects dominate
over the bending effects as the load is increased. The linear theory
152
are significant.
load parameter, which compares well with that of Reference [83]. For
surfaces and to increase at the middle surface of the plate. The stress
= 0.527a.
U = w = ¢1 = 0 at y = a/2
153
u = al = 0 at x = 0
v = ¢2 = 0 at y = 0 (4.17)
where ¢1(x,y) and ¢2(x,y) are the rotations about the y and x—axes,
model are reported in Figure 4.4. For cross-ply plates, the symmetry
the load parameter x, shown in Figure 4.4, are identical for both
models. This turns out not to be the case for angle-ply laminates as we
shall see in the next example. The distribution of the inplane normal
in
shear.4.5
l
Symmetry Boundary Conditions for Angle-Ply Plates
quarter of a plate and a 4 x 4 mesh to model the full plate. The nine-
must be noted that the symmetry boundary conditions used in the quarter-
plate model were derived [80] using the exact solution to the linear
= U sin äl
u cos=
v V cos LL · 11
a sin b
= N sin gl
wsinj
v = V 5 cos E1
a sin
· X1
b
uj uj
= sin äl cos %£, (4.18)
conditions at the center lines (x = a/2 and y = b/2) of the plate for
However, once the nonlinear terms are incorporated into the stress
longer satisfied:
zwz 2
§Bä— cos (yu/b) ¢ 0
N1(a/2,y) =
A12
„2w2 2
N2(x,b/2) = cos (xn/a) ¢ 0 (4.20)
A12 Egg-
specified, the problem solved is not the one in which Equations (4.20)
are valid. Since a plate with nonzero inplane forces is stiffer than
It can be shown that the normal to the middle plane does not remain
Figure 4.8.
can be found using the linear theory (Chapters 2 and 3) and that those
E = lälg (4.20)
and we can always write the strain-displacement matrix [Ü] as the sum of
Z _ ^T ^T _
6 1r(U) -1 [GB 1odV +1 [B ]60dV — O (4.22)
we obtain
Therefore
_ 2 _ ^T ^T ^
0 — 6 ¤(u) — I [6BNL]¤dv + (f [BL][C][BL]dv)6u
“ ^ ^T
^T ^T ^
+ (IV {[B|_l[Cl[B|_l + IBNLIICIIBNLI + lBN|_l[CllBLl}dv)<Sg
(4.26)
OT
158
or
[KT]6u = 0 (4.28)
equilibrium position.
linear solution and that linear solution renders the nonlinear stiffness
62¤
= ([KL] + [K0])6u = Q (4.29)
we shall see the geometric stiffness matrix [KU] depends linearly on the
load, for any load level Apo, with A an unknown constant, we have
62n
= ([KL] + A[K°])6u = 0 (4.30)
satisfied, then Apo is the buckling load, A obtained from the eigenvalue
problem (4.30). For the particular case of plates, the condition [KNL]
Equation 3.4. The geometric stiffness matrix [KG] involves the stresses
[C19
K 6 = Gä d
fVg[NLlr ( 4.31 )
Nxywhere
V is the volume and n is the surface of the plate. Equation
BGW
srIKOIGU
*5***~
=
Q
3*;,
y N X_Y N_Y @1
ax
Ü Ü GU
6 [G] =
¤ ¤
; ‘
GU = GV
.„„ (4.35)
ay
[N1 (4.36)
XY Y
buckling equations exists for this case [87], the boundary conditions
Figure 4.9. Both the nonlinear and eigenvalue analyses estimate the
= x·Nyo (Nyo = 6.25 N/m) is considered next. In this case the pre-
(4.17), are used for the 4 x 4 full-plate model (although the 2 x 2 mesh
the effect of the number of layers, four laminates are analyzed as shown
in Figure 4.10. The values of the critical buckling load given by the
formally written as
E(>5.¤) = Q (4-37)
where p is the load and
load under which the structure will undergo large deflections without
positions (bifurcation) for the same load state. Assuming that at least
one equilibrium state (i.e., xo) can be found solving Equation (4.37), a
¤E(5„p)
[(5.p) - [(50-p) — (4-39)
-51 Q
X~o
Since xo is an equilibium state, we have,
§(5o-p) = Q (4-40)
Therefore,
¤E(5.¤)
1
X~o
lJ(50„p)l·51 = Q (4-42)
which is the condition for a secondary (buckled) equilibrium state to
exist. This leads to an eigenvalue problem for the critical load in the
load, say po, and then obtain the pre-buckling solution for any load by
parameter x,
p = Ä °
pref
163
go = x·gref (4.43)
Substituting Equation (4.23) into Equation (4.42), the nonlinear
dependence on go is eliminated,
<‘*·"‘*>
9
The Jacobian [J] does not depend on gl because gl is small, and
there are terms in Equation (4.24) that do not depend on the load,
errors into the analysis and the predicted critical loads are not
questionable usefulness.
configuration [85,86].
165
Aggendix 4
Strain—displacement matrices
The strains {e}, {n}, and {ej} appearing in Equation (4.12) are
ß wi 1 (au)?
ax ax 2 ax
E! Eli l.(ä!)2
ay ay 2 ay
Q! + 11 ’ {B J· } = J J
{E} -” ay
BE. + 11. .’ {“} = ä!.ä!
ax ay ax ax ay
gg uj 0
gg vj 0
awi
-——- 0 0
ax .
avi
aw. aw.
[B] = ..1 ..1 0
(5x3m) av ax
awi
0 0 5;-
awi
166
-Äwi
F °
w‘
Bvbi
°
_
[B] ‘ y wl
Bd: Bib.
(5x2m) ¥
0 wi
Bib.
BW 1
° ° ww-
Bw.
BW 1
° ° wär
_ 1 avi avi
aw aw
;“N1‘)·ä ° ° äzw+wär
5x3m
o o o
o o o
with (1=1,...,m).
167
Aggendix 5
Stiffness matrices
+ 21BNLlT1A116NL1)d1€
[käll = 2819(l§lTlBjl[BlE
11«§§1 = InE
E
Jacobian Matrix 4
R 1O
@@1 .... @@1
0 0
R 11 1
1+}** @@111
.... @@111
3 A a{A1} a{AN}
where -
11 .
1R°1 = [k11l{^} +Z1
{RR} = l1<§1l{1} +;11 (1 =l„--•.N)
168
6.0
Q Top surface
\
S 3.0
cn
m
*1) .
3cn Mnddle surface
0.0
cn
cn
E
c
0
‘5·,‘
_3_O Bottom surface
1:
EE
-6.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load parameter Ä
0.8 r
r<0.6
g ·
ID
-[-I I
E
U0•4
'· ”/
E /
/
0. ,, /
/
/
'U ’/
¤ 0.2
O ·· ,,
J
, — - - Lxnegr O
,= —l- Nonlunecr
Rgf_
¤¤¤¤¤
0.00.0
1.0 _ 2.0 3_.0 4.0
Moxnmum deflectnon
0.5
.c
E 0.3
-2 /
O 1
IE
*:3 (].1 /
0/0
L
70 1
-0.1 /
Q 1
0: /
-5 1 /
0 -— 03
. /’ 1 ———
/ .
E /-—- k=O.1 Iuneor
g- [ — — X=O.1 nonhneor
[ 7«=O.8 nonlmecr
-0.5
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0
Dumensuonless stress 0*,,,./p
2.0 :
4-)
L
qg
¤¤¤¤¤ 2_x2 quorter plote model ~
———
Lineor solution
H
ä
01.0
L. ··
0
0. ..
*0
80.6 ~
.1
0.0 =#
0.0 1.0 _ 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Moximum deflectuon w
0.5
0.3
0.12/
h
x
\
— — — A=0.1 Iineor
non|ine¤r\—
A=2.0 nonlineor\
-0.5 ·
-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Dimensionless stress 0*,.,./p
0.5
1
0.5
11
\
\
WZ/h 0.1
X
~ -0.1 O—· ° \
).=0.1 lineor l
- 7\=0.1 nonllneor
- -— /
-0.3 7\=2.0 nonlineor Ä
/
/
-0.5 '
-0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10
Dimenslonless stress 0*,,/p
2.0
_
—_ full plate
’<1'5 ¤¤¤¤¤ P quarter plate
— —— Linear
solution °
at; (45/-45)
-·„-; ¤=>~·p¤ =·
E 1.0
E ¤
0**
D
‘¤
§o.s ¤ ’
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 _ 3.0 4.0
Maximum deflectxon w
0.50
0.25
z/h
-0.00
+45 Ä X = 1 linear
——— X 1 nonlinear
— — X = 10 nonlinear
—- = X — 20 nonlunear
_0•25
-0.50
0.0 0.5_ 1.0 1.5
lnplane dlsplacement u(z)
2.0
[0/90]
N
Y [+/-45] 7
1.0
0.0
5.1 Introduction
[91-93].
effects of transverse shear and normal stresses are taken into account
177
178
Reissner [97], among others. Exact solutions of the 3-D equations and
discrepancies were found between the exact solutions and the classical
laminated plates.
au
-; au
-_;
1 2 . BX-
8X
_T °“6 _ °“2
$96 1 [SET T U2] T 12 _ 1
(a+2) 2 B6 B6 ' ' (a+2) 86
'
€22
az
1 aux aua
YX8 '- (a+2) 86 T ax T ßxße .
Yxz az ax
— 1 auz aua
*62 · im; lm · **6] + am (53)
2-1 ""6 T
896
T (66*
E U2) T 212.
B6 ’ B6 '- ' 1E
a aa
aux aua
- 1
_ 1 auz aua
*62·a[m·“6]*m· (M)
Substituting for ux, ua and uz from Equation (5.1) into Equations (5.3)
180
Bxx ”-.w ä 1 2
ax + ax + 2 Bx
Boa = ä Bgä + gg + W + W] + 2 BS
€ =‘&
zz az
Yxa -u
y
' ax + ax + Lw[aa + ä
aa] + BxB6
a
xz az ax ax
-lä 2.*1
W
ä
¤x·-laxmxl
69 —- - lu ä
9 [99 + 99]. (5.5)
T
Ü = fo [IV (0x66XX + GGÖEBG + 026622 + 0XZ6YXz
where 6x, 69, 62, 6xZ and 692 are the stresses, q is the distributed
181
(5.6), we obtain
E
T 2
' 2
+ (w + W)6(w + W)l}dAdz
ro ä'h
f f(x,6,z)dz = f f f rdrdQ = f f
Z
f · (1 + ä)dzdA
V ri Q h_ Q
' 2
182
E
2
= f [ f·dzdA for z << a, (5.8)
Q n
' 2
where (ri, ro) denote the inner and outer radius, respectively, of the
n j .
U(x,6,z,t) = _2 u (x,6,t)¢J(z),
J=l
n . .
V(x,6,z,t) = 2 vJ(x,6,t)¢J(z),
5=l
'“
N(><.¤.z„t) = J:_¤1 w6 (><„6„t)·1• 6 (2). (5·9)
where uj, vj, wj are undetermined coefficients and ¢j(z), wj(z) are any
¢j(0) = 0 ; j = 1,2,...n
(5.10)
j
w (0) = 0 ; j = 1,2,...m.
0 Q X 8X 8X 8X a 9 89 6 89 89
Z X2 BX a 89
m „ J J
X BX BX BX BX
j=1
^j
^j2
. .
89 89 89 89 a 8X 89
d
X BX BX az 8 B9 B9
j=1 k=l
a XG BX 89 a XG 8X 89
n . . .
— [I°(ü6ü + G60 + 6466:) + 2: IJ(ü6üJ + 06%]
J=l
n n . .
+ 1 1 1¤"(1¤11" + \;j6)}k)
j=1 k=1
m m „. .
+ z 2 Idkndöükl - q6w}dAdt. (5.11)
j=l k=l
E
’ I2
(“x·"6·"x6·dxz·d6z) h (°x’°6’°x6’°xz'°6z)dz
' Ü
E
1 1 1 1 ’ Iz 1dz
("x·M6·"x6·"6z) h (°x’°6’°x6’°6z)d
' Ü
E
. . 2 j
1 1 ”- I
(dxz’d02) & dz
h (°xz’°6z) dz
'Ü
~
^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 = z 1 dz
(Mx’M6’Mx6’Mxz’M6z) I (°X°¤9°GX9°¤XZ°°9Z)w
' Ü
h
E
.- 2 5
dz1 , I dz ß
dz dz
h
'Ü
E
. . . 2
(LxJk 'L6Jk ’Lx6)
Jk -
' I (°x°°6'°x6)d’
1 d k dz
h
'Ü
E „.
2 . . .
r° = 1 pdz 1 <1¢',1°> = 1p<«»J,1J>¤z
'
h
Ü
3
185
o••J-
LN
+N6+LQ
9,9 6 92 X9,X _
j—1
1 1 aw 1 aw
· 6·N9 + Qxz,x + 6 Q92,9 + [NX 3X],X + [S? No 39],9
+ [ÄN
E!]6 E.!} + [-LN •_1
X9 3X ,9 6 X9 39 ,X X 3X ,X
1- *1 aß 1,9
+ [az M9 + la 1 *1 ],9 + la 1 *1 ui ],X)
39 MX9 3X MX9 39
.. Hl .. „-
= lw + 2 w*3IJ — q
.i=1
111111-1“1k"k
+
_
+ - I V + I V
6 M9,9 6 M9Z Q92 Mx6,x kil
^J—
1^.i_^1
M9 Q2 + + M9Z,9 + [MX + [az M9
6 Mxz,x 6 3X],X 39],9
. .
'“ . k . k
1*1y
[6 MX9 + [6 1*1111 aka Lakä ],9
+ + {[LX ],X + [az L9
3X],9 MX9 39],X 3X 39
kil
186
u aNxnx + Nxana = 0
v aNx6nX + Nena = 0
‘
"uj a°xz"x * QQZ"6 °
aM£nX + Miüna = 0
vj “
aM£8nX + Mgna = 0
wj ahiznx + Ügzna = 0 (5.14)
where (nx,n6) denote the direction cosines of a unit normal to the
The theory can be easily simplified for linear behavior and/or zero
assume that the transverse normal strain is small and neglect the
J J
%;'—% = 0 with 6, 6 = x,6. (5.15)
the interfaces. A11 but the 1ast Equation (5.13) remain unchanged, and
-1*1
M6 *1 *1 1*1 *1111 + [az
.L^Jä·'.
a ' oz + Mxz,x + a M6z,6 + [Mx ax],x M6 66],6
*1
+ [a1 MXB y *1
+ [a1 MX9 y *1·· "' *1¤<··¤<
39],X -- 1 w + kil 1 w . (5.16)
reduce to
1
” EINS + Qx2,x +‘a1 062,6 + [Nx $Y],x
aw 1 N6 aw
+ [S2
0,. m
+ [a Nxa ax],6 + la Wxo 86],X ' I W+j;1 W„j^j
I ' q
'“
*1 _ Q2
1 M6
' a
*1 + *1 *1 *1··
+ 1a M6z,6 1 I W + kill*1•<··¤<
W ° (5°17)
Mxz,x
0bvious1y, there is a range of app1icabi1ity for each of the cases
discussed above.
06
1 av 1 1 6 2
ä62C12 C22 C23 Ü Ü C26 +
ä
+
aw v
M J·
J
M ‘° J·
ax ax ax
"
littja
36 a a 36 36
n
0
m
VV 1E
dz_
+ Z + Z
j
J=l U JM J=l M VJ
dz ax
V 1 _ 1 1) 1111 1
(dz a a 89 V
°
16uj @,1 lawawj yyjlj
(5.18)
where C11 denote the elastic constants. Here the nonlinear strains used
are those consistent with an intermediate class of deformations and
NX B B au 1 aw2
A11A12
A16lav w 1 1aw2
aw
N xs A
_l6 A26 0 0 A66 lä‘i+Pl+älä
aaq ax axaaa
. au J
B11 B12 B B B16 (B g
lav J
B12 B22 B B B26 gw
I1
B
* j=1 0 0 6 55 6 54 0 115
0 0 vj
645 644 0
1 au J av J
190
BX BX
B11 B12 B13 B B B16 1 (W5 1 1 M @1
a a B9 B6
6 12 ä 22 é 23 0 0 ä26 _
WJ
m
+ Z ^ ^ .
0 0 0 B55 B54 0
:1:1
BX
0 0 0 B45 B44 0
a B9
B16 B26 B63 B B B66
1d 1 1 16 ad).
BX B9 B9 BX
(5.19)
0 0 F45 1
082 F44 0 V)
J
F16 FZ6 B
1Mxa B F66 a (aa + B ax + ax B8)
191
. J
U11 U12 U U U16 (U ,k U1
Ö
U12 U22 U U U26 5%
+ "z 0 0 0 55 0 54 0 u 6
11:1
1 a U a U
016 026 0 0 066 E -1%- + St-
8X 8x
^ ^ ^ ^ (Lk)
U11 U12 D13 U U U16
1a (W5 1 1ggf1
a 86 86
D 12 D 22 D 23 O 0 D 26 .
WJ
+ 0 0 0 055 054 08x
kil
0 0 0 D45 D44 0a
86
(5.20)
192
Ü Ü H45 H44 Ü V)
(Lk)012
011 012 0 0 016
022 0 0 026
0 0 0 Vj
046 044
^ ^ ^ ^ (1.k)
012 013
M011 0 0 016 BX BX
„ „ . „ .
1 ("’ 1 + 1 MM1 )
012 022 023 0 0 026 6 6 88 89
(5.21)
1 ”- -1
Maz M + -1
H45(ax) 1 M ” 1a)
H44(a aa
n . . m °°ääV“> <¤ä‘. é k . k
+3 + + ,3 1%- + 09111%%) <5·22>
<öä'§··"
(Lk) (Lk) E P! 2
Lx E11 E12 E16 BX * l2 (6x)
E6 ‘
_
(E
1 av “’ 1 1 (66)
y 2
)
E12 E22 E26 E * "' 2 6
1 au av aw 111
Ex6 E16 E26 E66 E (E * E E * E 66)
194
r
G16n
G12 9k9G11
r
+ gl 1
G12 G22 G26 5%
G16 G26 G36 l r r
5%+%
^^^^<J,k,r)
G11 mi
G12 G16 G12 ax ax
m ^^^^ r
+ gl G12 G22 G26 G23 6 (W + 666W)
1 r 1 aw aw
^^^^
G61 G62 G66 G63 aw awr
1 (66 aw awr
6 W WW) +
wr (6.22)
where A's, B's, F's, etc. are the laminate stiffness defined by
h
G2.
A pll —I C pll d 2 (¤,q — 1 ,2,6)
' 2
h
E
. 2 .
BJ J • s
= IhCpq¢dz (pq
s = 126)
pq
° 2
h
J. . 2
J ‘- ( (G66·G46) QL5 GZ
(G66·G46)
h dz
' 2
h
J J· ‘- (2
(G64·Ga4) QLJ ‘ L.1 )GZ .
'
h (c54’C44)(dz 6
2
h
.. 2 .
BJ
=
J
(pq = 12645)
pq,IhCpq11»dz 9 9 9 9 9
'2 .
195
E
. 2 .
Fg; = I Cpqdddz (p,q = 1,2,6)
h
' Ü
E
. 2 j
Fäq = I Cpq dz (P,¤ = 4,5)
h
'Ü
E
Jk z 1 1<
'Ü
E
. . 2 j k
(dssddas)
ak ak „
dz dz dz
Ih (C55’C45) $L9;>;..
'Ü
H
. . 2 k j k
Jk Jk = ‘ )dz
'Ü
h (C54’c44) dz (dz d
.*1
. 2 . k
J*< . Jß
'2
E
Jk. .
2
J. 2k - 2.k
2
„jk E2
j k
db 192969495)
' 2
E
^ ^ ‘ . 2 . k
Jk .
(Q13’Q23’Q63) Ih (C13·C22·c62)“’ J QL
dz
° 2
E
. 2 j
*"21·"22·"s6* J -‘ I h (C31’C32’C36) dz dz ä
'2
.*1 "
. 2 j
(Q31’Q32’Q36) ‘-
Jk 9L d *< dz
I h (C3l’C32’C36) dz
2
Q2 j
22. *’dz
.
- *<
Q32°fhC32dz
' 2
11 j
. 2 k
dz dz dz
das °- “I h das $*..**1..QL
2
E
[2
(T-ij45' HJ44 ) = (c 45’ c 44 )d¢*dz
h
' 2
h
.
—Jk ä . k
das ‘- I Casd J QL
dz dz
d '
h
2
197E
.
—Jk 2 k k
044*
, Ih (:44** J& d NZ
(dz - L
'2
E
(Üjk Üjk) = I2
46- 44 (C 46- C 44 ) jwkd2
'2
h °
h
. 2 jk
pq = fh C pqdddz (pg
9 = 126)
9 9
' 2
E
Gjkr = I2
pg C pq wjdk¢”dz (p ’ q = 1 ’ 2 ’ 6)
h
'2
E
12
61** = 6pq 4—14"4»”4z
nu
(4 ’ 4 = 1 ’ 2 ’ 6)
h
'2
" E
[Z
(é 13* Ea 23* é 63 )¢"" = (c 13* c 23* c 63 )djdk ä
dz dz ° (6 ’ 24)
h
' 2
N as shown in Figure 2.2. Note that the model must include an interface
198
at the middle surface. If the middle surface does not coincide with an
motion combined with the constitutive relations are solved exactly for
is assumed:
-‘°°°1
u 1 (x ’ 6 ’ t) - 2 2 Y
m n mn cos m6 cos ax Tmn (t) .
199
C11 = 0.08, C12 = 0.05, C13 = 0.07, C22 = 0.19, C23 = 0.32, C33 = 1.0,
C44 = 0.04, C66 = 0 03, C66 = 0.34, and the outer layers are assumed to
have stiffnesses 20 times those of the inner layers. The results are
presented in terms of a non—dimensional parameter A,
6A—
= 6 ro —Vj——————i (5.27)
.¤
@$31=1
where ri is the radius of the i—th interface and ro is the outer radius
of the cylinder.
laminate (r1 = 0.8 ro, r2 = 0.82 ro, r3 = 0.98 ro) are presented in
200
Table 5.2. The exact results using 3-0 elasticity are taken from
Srinivas [98]. In Table 5.3, results for a two—ply cylindrical shell are
in. The three lowest frequencies are presented in Table 5.3 in non-
mainly ue, play an important role in the behavior of the shell. This is
transverse normal strain are also presented. They were obtained using
the reduced stiffness matrix instead of the 3-0 stiffness matrix. The
by Srinivas [98].
201
”
z
,
h ,
l
f
5 —2
*:1: E
-'
•v-
.c
!—¤J •~mLn•——•N •—•r~•—•c¤cx
2
_'_
C NmcnM•-• cu
LP O’)\"0¤·-—•|-OO <'@|'\<!'|-0 <!'¢\|L0r-•<' 'U
S LL..U O<I'%D<tu‘> <!'¤)O•\m |\•—•¤.n-am O
·“ I5 O•··*<f¢D¢\I lOI\¢\IkD•-4 «—•<'\'*)G'•<T E
)(
LU (VTÜTÜTÜTC
>e
x:
.,.
‘¤
3 00 3
G)I <fO$O&¤-ux •-•¢\100¢\HD ®O•—•OCh P
°*‘
I\¢*')¤I|\® G¤D|\G\G\ GSPWOOCB
U I- Qcsmmux mnmrxm
•—•¢*>C>¤s•-• wcswchcä Am
L ¢/7 w¤¤<I·N•—4 N-•®•—eu7 PC
S
,— ..1
• • • • •
G$I\!•DI\
•
¢\|<T|\ • •
CO
1-|•-|q—(•—|•—| • • • ••—-I • • ••—I•—l d)r—
(Q
fu U th
¤J••
'OC
CQ) LC
L O3 D.
O
“_ U
<f|\d)\O® -·¤
G10) LDv—¤G\C\|C\I <T®G'1®f\
—-•¤¤•-1„—-•••D C
CAL-6-> wrhäv-emu
•·—¢© OLBNLOLD >~,¢¤
m
Q LLU \0® '~0G’$¤'•—I<I'
•·—1f*)GG•—¢ O\C!\G\0'\® L
Or—
fd ®|\<|'t\Iv—I
• • • • • • ¢\I¤—¢®•—¤kD
• •
U X ¤'s|\\DC!>
• • • ••-I t\|<!'I\
• •
ww
|„|,,l 1-I•—I•—4•-lv-I •v-Cr-4 .C•r—
C ‘
(U I-P
C
3L
KO «·—•GJd)
lOLOI\¢*')I\
O¤.n•—•C>€¤ <|'GS|\£Dl\ O'•¢\|®\O<’ UNCU-
U- m<rcs•~¤N mmmcsm
,_ ·-—-ME
· I- r~¤Jcs~0~¤ Mmwcm cscnßsom :
U1 ¢\If")•·OO¤I CDCORIO GNMQN vl¤)U
eu .| ¢*)¢'*7¢*)‘¤'<|' t\I¢")¢*)hI¢\1 NGO ••-··•• ¢¤PL
C
_° (Q
• • • • • • • • • • • • •Q
u ·•—cu
>td•r-
PC C••··
Z, ·r·E••
Vid)
C L: L«¤E
w
_E
•r-
(/).1 ••
L1. •-4|\|\f\ ¢\|•—•®O\¤' G'\<'¢OI\
J6 LP tD0')f‘0<fG ®O§O0LO•·—• G'•LDG\<!'¢'*) E‘O.C
C LLU <!'&D|\<'L0 <\|LO®C7'•¤' ONCLDGSGJ OUP
O fd £\J<'V)\0O¢\| ®OO•-*O OI\¢*'H0¢\J LNUI
'·•—•r··C
X ¢*)¢")<")<f<!' ¤1¢*)¢'*)<\1<\I ¢\1©GC>v—•
Z I I I I I ICQ)
LL] I I I I I I I I I I
wdr-
• PL
,—q)••
F.
·
Ln
EV-
ääß
4.)•••|•-
ur—·¤
Q
*— ¢¤</745
cd •-• ><.1L
c N
II
.¤ ··)¢<H-45
203
•—•®O¤9O
•~r~•.n<·•-¤ mNcn.nN •~<r-emu:
I- Mmwmm mm<r•-ew
C)
U V) G)O'•U)©G\ ¢*7Lf)LO|\O') ¢"‘)LI)t\1$-DO)
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
,_| LQQ
(U •—·|v—I•—|¢\]•·—• •
„_, U(§ •·—4•·—l«-lv-I1-4 •«-«I•-41-4
C UC
LG)
E
eu .C
I'—¤)
x L LDOFWRDG)
U GIGKNGNN
_: ld I\|\|\f\|\ <!'<I'<"‘)U')I\ ¤'&D¢*)*-DG)
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
,— X LQQ
P4!-C•—|•-4 •
LIJ 1-In-lv-lv-lv-I •1—Iv-lv-I
L
GJ
>1
¢¤
jl <'¢*)©¢"7<'V) L¤¢V)•—4C\IG kC©¢'*‘)t*)¢\|
G) I- OM--•mO «-•NMr~¤¤ •—-n\<r•-n<r
G) Q O(*)I\(\I® O®LDG\<f'
I\¤&•—-«<r•-• CDOGNI-D®
_| •
U') Lt><rN«—1-—• N&DN«-407
L
_: • • • •
xlßgßfES
’5
“_ ww
(/7L O\•···|¢\|P·*®
|-0<!'¢t\|CD LO!\<'*)I\<\I
LL-U OG)!-I')<'<' ¢\I§D®LDO\ LD©®<fU$
m U
¢¤
•••••
>< •-4•—|•—I¤—| ®I\lDCI)•<\1<t‘®••
• • • ••-4 • •
L;.] •1·-dr-4
U
C
0)
3
CT
|—
f"‘)O¤I®® ¢©C\¢'*‘)I.D ®O$•··¢f\©
U- 2 ®<!'L¤«—•<' O!-0ßJ<\l® §O\D|\¤1<f
V) CD¤|l0«—«I¢'*) ¢\|L0<f®¢\I •—•&D®CDCD
-0-*U-I <f'<I'<fLDLt') f*7(')¢'*)¢\|¢"') C\I©©•—•¤1
T5 (ACQQ
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
C LG)
O
„,- E:
*8 cu
L
u.
4-* 0'7<'U\®<'*) ©|\<|'0\|\ <'<*)I\LD«-•
.¤ U <'•—·I<I'ChkD c¤•.nc~OO
•—•L¤M<DM wn¤1\<rn¤
C ru ONOON «-MDCDCDQ
>< <f'<!'<fLI')Lf) ¢"7<'*1<*)<\I¢") ¢NOG•—|¤1
O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LL]
Z
¢\| .
I
Ln
EQ)
r-
.¤
M
** eu •-•
c N cc
.¤
«—•
I\
•-4II
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
|\
(SEM
N
GJ NNNNM -1--••-INN ••—•«—-INN
·¤-
-4-*4-*
OL
LGJ <I>I~¢I>¤*7•-• MU1<!'&D¢\I 0010-1C
C MNCDN«—1
O"' (D L0*·DG7¤|® t\IL(7(‘0U'7'<f' ©O$G<'(*7
UC 1t
O O O O O
•·-•«-—••—·•<\I<\I
O O O O O O O O
•«—••-•<\I¢\I
O
GJ GJ NNNNM
3
L
G) G)
'O
LC O-••-•<rr\
•r- I.¤.¢¤
•f*r- 6¤<rwC>~ <rr~mC>x¤
'¤+-I II • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
N |\
L) •••*GJG) •-—••-••-·I¢\I(*7
GJ (\I¢\It\I¤„I(*7 ••—I1-—4(\I(*7
.CC'U
>1 I—•v—3 .
X I-
O Au <|'®C\I¢(\I O®I\LO|\ ®®¢\|(*7
Q. LC O7@®(*7C §D|\®¢\I|\ •—•L.O(*7(*7¤·I
Lu (dw- G ®t\ILD•—•(*7 (*7tDI-!7(*)|\ ®G$(*7-—I\D
I -6-I 16 ¢N<\I¢\II.0•-I
• • • -—-I-—1I\<I'C>
• • kDOI~<!'O
• • • • • • • • •
Q Q N |\
4-I S- NNNNM •—••—••-•<\I¤¤ •„-••-•¢\1<*>
••·— GJ
.C
O.
(5 ®|\<f(DO\ G®G1\D® ¢\ICD¢\l(*7\D
(*7®G•·••® \D®(*7®(V7
L G COQCDOS
r~•-••-INM
U} A II QNCINN wm-40101
Lfd
(U"'
Q)r-
Q +-*4-*
OL
I LG)
O U C L¢'7LD®<|'I\
¢\|O'7®•—¢® C¢©|\O7 (*7¤1<f'<fI\
3 CO"' O •'*OG®G7 \D®(*7®(*7
I- GIC 16 • • • •
N |\
|\GJ
*4- L
O LI.¢d
-1-(/7GJ
•r·- CL'O Il • • • •
®¢\|®¤I(*7
SD-It\I(*7<I' @117-(OO
|\L) QQQ N |\
Q)C L)C'¤
GJ·¤··3
GJ V7 v-
::6 Au
U'
LCGJS-
-6-> 16 ANQNM 6o•—•~m<t‘ <!>L¤•-<OO
Lg Q N f\
••-·-·I•—4•·—••—I • • • • •
Q) •«——I1-•L\|L\j
F'°
E
O (*7®|\(*7LD \D*«DCLD(*7 |\O$•—•LDLt7
•r-In G1--•¢:n6¤•—• •—-••-•<!'Lnt'•'> c1<r<f·—••—1
A II
C L(¤ N £D<'¤Jt\|(V7 (*7¢\1•-I«—I<\I ©©©•——•(\|
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GJ (Ü"' Q)
E
·v— +-*+-*
OS-
'U LG)
C UO••-C 0*>NI~1~•-• 60mI~m<r wCh<rI~M
O C LDLD(”V)*•Dv··4
(*7-•O$k¤•—• @(*7OSv-I-! G7(‘*7Ll7<!'(*7
I\<t<r•—I•—•
Z CC 1l v-I•—·I(*7L('>(*7
G) N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(*7
•
GJ
LD Lfd I\c$•—•mLn
LG-- QMQQN LnLnwC>«-•
GJ
•— G f\kD(*)kDO'\
(*|•—*G7*~D© ®(*7Ch•-*07 G\(‘*’ILO(*7®
|\<T<Tv—(•-(
-4-*
-6-*L‘O II P·¢•—((*)I-DCNI
.D VIGJGJ N lD<|'€\.I¢\I(*7
• • • • • (*7¢\1•-lv-•¢\I
• • • • • OGG-•<\J
• • • • •
Q Lc‘¤ Q)
I,. .,-.,-3
•—
L1.
>7U
LC OVIRDSOOS LD(*)YA®(*7 !\O7<'I\(*7
¢U·¤·· G I\LO(*‘7kDO ®(*)C!S•-••-I O'•(*7L0<f'(*7
16O
-6-> N \D<I'AIC\I(*7 (*7QI«-I-IAA ®®O•-(¢\J
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
L Q
ru «-•
C ¢\I G)
A
.¤
Chapter 6
6.1 Introduction
Isoparametric elements are among the most frequently used elements due
in those problems. Its use has been extended to other problems as well
“
[63].
'
Two main areas have received attention in fracture mechanics
crack front; second, to compute the stress intensity factor from the
sections deal with the second problem, with emphasis on the use of
the virtual crack extension method of Hellen [72] and the stiffness
205
206
compute the strain energy release rates directly from the displacement
field.
release rate along the crack front, G = G(s), without any two-
composite laminates. These problems exhibit planar growth, that is, the
crack grows in its original plane. However, the shape of the crack may
vary with time. For example, a initially elliptic crack usually grows
1The Saint Venant principle does not apply for reentrant corners
(cracks). In other words, a reentrant corner singularity influences the
displacement field all over the domain.
207
have appeared over the years. The direct methods are those in which the
direct methods require special elements that incorporate the crack tip
singularity [65]. The indirect methods are those in which the stress
method [69], the modified crack closure integral [70,71], and the
virtual crack extension method [72,73] are also used. The indirect
and accurate. However, the VCEM requires two computations for two
or the stiffness derivative method [73] eliminate the second run but
the VCE is too small, and badly distorted elements may result if the VCE
”
is too large [72].
am = ä (6.1)
where U is the strain energy and a is the representative crack length.
(6.1) by the quotient AU/Aa; in the limit Ad + O this gives the desired
value of G.
according to Equation (6.1) exactly. The method does not require the
magnitude of the "virtual" crack extension does not arise. The concept
has been already applied in other fields [104]. The basic idea of the
the geometry and the solutions are approximated with the same
energy functional,
u — ffIIIjaaj6d
Q( aij eij) 9 + 1-ui n + fan tds
i·n, . )
( 62
0 Q
without loss of generality we consider a linear elastic material for
displacements.
The solution of the problem is obtained using the principle of
an
gg = 0 (6.5)
I
Since the approximate potential energy is a function of the nodal
au
BH ” AE + .; . EE (6°6)
EK - aa aa agIa=const
where
3
-.ä. (6°7)
Sa = aaIu=const
Assuming that no body forces are present, no forces are applied to the
surfaces of the crack, and that the fixed—grip end condition holds
I
during the virtual crack extension, we obtain
210
aw _
0 (6.8)
Sg -
and
au _ gg _—
G. (6.9)
E; - ag
The fixed-grip end condition refers to the case where only specified
displacements are applied to the boundary. It has been shown [105] that
the value of the strain energy release rate remains unchanged if the
an _ gg _— g_ T g T
ag ag {9 {fg 2 9 99d¤l9}
or
6 =J
a? {Qe uT[]
“ l BTDBdQ]u}
“ ““ “ (6.10)
0e 2
0a
where is a typical finite element. The indicated integration is
G {Z·
e 0
e
Interchanging the order of integration and differentiation, which is
obtain
Q_ _ Q_ T
[QTQQIJI] — [Q QQIIJI + [Q T QQ] a|J| (6.13)
a? ag ag
where
6 _ BE T
[QT QQ] — {Q] T 66
Q QQ + Q Q[Q]— (6·l‘[)
Q = Q‘1Q (6.15)
and therefore,
6Q 3Q-l
0OT
6Q'1 _1 6Q -1
=Substituting
Equation (6.19) in Equation (6.16), we obtain
aB _ aJ
~ — — -1 _; -1 —_ — -1 Qg Q. (6.20)
S5 Q ag Q Q Q ag
where
. gg
-1 Q]
Q = [Q 5;
(6.23)
solution.
(xi, yi, zi) are the global coordinates of the nodes of the element and
the vector
ax. ay. az.
- ..1. ..1 1.1
is the input vector that indicates the direction and shape of the
as
213
‘
ä *1,:*1 § *1,:*1 * § *1,:21
It is worth noting that the summation in Equation (6.24) extends only
%=0 (am)
same type. In the examples in this chapter, however, both the main
point elements.
direction of growth. we give the direction of the VCE at least for each
use the mid-side nodes of the elements surrounding the crack front.
Beyond that, any number of nodes can be used as long as they surround
the crack front. The Jacobian derivative method uses the elements
Therefore the cost of the solution grows with the number of elements
obtained for the original crack shape. Therefore the virtual crack
extension must be such that it preserves the shape of the crack. If the
shape of the crack were to change, the nature of the singularity would
change significantly and the solution for the original shape would be of
this means that the direction of the VCE is that of the crack itself.
First, the VCE must lie on the plane of the crack. This is a natural
crack cannot grow out of its plane. It just means that we are unable to
compute anything else with just one solution for the original shape.
Second, the VCE must have the shape of the original crack. Once again,
it does not seem right to pretend to change the shape of the crack when
we only have the solution for one shape. However, deviations to this
plane. The second requirement does not mean that the crack cannot grow
with variable aspect ratio. Even more, we may be able to predict the
we are tempted to use it with several probable shapes for the VCE.
similar VCE, we are able to compute the stress energy release rate
6.4 Applications
quarter point elements around the crack tip [61,62,63] and quadratic
‘
6.4.1 Two-Dimensional Problems
The three cases differ only in the boundary conditions. In all three
cases, the load is uniform, applied as equivalent loads at the edge away
from the crack. Symmetry along the crack line is exploited to model
only one half of the specimen. For this example we assume that a plane
stress condition holds. It must be noted that the value of the strain
energy release rate depends linearly on the thickness of the model. The
factor holds when strain energy release rate is computed per unit
thickness.
models.
solutions presented by Paris and Sih [105]. The results are tabulated
k = ko * f(a/b)
Table 6.1 contains the results for a plate with a single edge crack.
The plate has length 2L, width 2b = N and a crack of length a on one
ko = ¤¤(a¤)l/2
Table 6.2 contains the results for a square plate with a crack at the
center. The plate has length 2L, width 2b = 2w and a crack of length
2a. The present finite element solution is compared with the solutions
of Paris and Sih [105] for L/W = ¤ and the finite element results of
Hellen [72] for square plates. The agreement between the two finite
Table 6.3 contains the results for a plate with a double edge
crack. The plate has length 2L, width 2b = 2N and a crack of length a
divides the plate between the two cracks, thus modelling 1/4 of the
‘
specimen. The finite element solution is compared with the solutions of
Paris and Sih [105] for L/N = ¤. Discrepancies between the present
results and those of Paris and Sih [105] required us to use a finer
mesh. The refined model has 50 elements and 147 nodes. Therefore, we
enhance not only the crack—tip-zone modelling but also the imposition of
of the mesh around the crack front is shown in Figure 6.3. Four
a self similar growth of the crack. All the nodes of the elements
surrounding the crack front are used in the VCE. These elements are
those in the inner layer next to the crack front (see Figure 6.3).
Therefore, for this example, the algorithm uses the two layers of
release rate.
contributions to the strain energy release rate of all the elements that
surround one sector (Si) of the crack front at a time (see Figure
6.3). Then, we divide this value by the length of the crack front
whichever is appropriate:
The distribution of K(s) is shown in Figure 6.4 for the plane strain
assumption, along with results from Raju and Newman [107] for a
semielliptical crack with t/Ri = 0.1, a/C = 0.4, a/t = 0.5, and from
K° =
2RiP r——————„.
Rä - R§ 1 +1.464 (6/c)1·65
Kaufman, et al. [108] computed the stress intensity factor using the
plane strain assumption and the method of Reference [66]. Raju and
solution and that of [107] is due to the difference in the shapes of the
factor along the crack front [109,110]. However, if the sides of the
crack are grooved (see Figure 6.5) the stress intensity factor has an
toward the side of the specimen and toward the crack front. 3-0
the JDM. The plane-strain equations are used to transform the strain
along the crack front for compact test specimens with and without
grooved sides are shown in Figure 6.6 for a = 0.6 N, and B = 0.5 N.
Solid lines represent the results of the present study (JDM) and symbol
221
markers are taken from Figure 6.4 of reference [111]. The maximum value
for the smooth specimen differs by less than 0.2% from the value
the finite element mesh and in the Poisson ratio may have more influence
than in the other cases. Although the Poisson ratio was not reported in
The method does not require costly mesh refinements, and it is not mesh
small crack extension, which makes the JDM a more robust algorithm. Its
Appendix 6
u=—}cP2 (A1)
where C is the compliance and P is the applied load. The external work
dw = Pdu (A2)
dE = dw - dU (A3)
but
therefore
° dE=%P2dC (A6)
In the general case where neither the load nor the displacements are
- LE- L 2 LQ (A7)
G_da_2Pda
which shows no dependence on the derivatives of the applied load P or
for the general case, even for the case of fixed—grip end conditions
223
conditions does not alter the value of the strain energy release rate.
Derivative Method since only one solution for the displacement field u,
fixed during the virtual crack extension used to compute the strain
—-‘
a I--
b
! § L
,,_Eéäw /' I
,>\¤\<*
1.5
-
o
U G
1.0 -·P
. ¤
Ä] ‘
2c .
\
·*" 0.5 1-
————-—— <1>
._.. JDM (present study)
¤¤¤¤¤ Koufmonn et oll
¤¤¤¤¤ Roju ond Newmon
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 .6 0.8 1.0
2§> vr
“L
Q) “ /
'0E
I G—•]
E0*
II, Ii
% I'-B——·1 R'
I W I x
L--”1.25 w S
3.0 «
Y
I X
50%
I
2.0
¤ · 25%
‘Ä
:'
-
A
‘
" “""‘ * in m
1.0
smooth specimen/(
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
2x/B
7.1 Introduction
231
232
the energy criteria are the most accepted. The virtual crack extension
the displacements through the thickness. The GLPT can model the
the plate: _
“
" 1 (2) U 1 (my) + jél H 1 (Z) U 1 (my)
U1(my.z) = ¤(my) +j;1¢
° H 1 (z)V 1 (my)
" ¢> 1 (Z) v 1 (my) + jél
¤2(my„z) = v(my) +j;1
D . .
¤3(my„Z) = w(my) +j;l HJ(z) HJ(my) (7·1)
Hj «
where the step functions are computed in terms of the Heaviside step
functions H as:
the number of layers used to model the laminate and D is the number of
interface is given by Uj, vi and wi (see Figure 1). Using the step
Exy
2 ay ax 2 ay ax 2 ay ax '
J
ez — O because az — O (7.3d)
N 5 . 0.
1 w5 (7.3e)
N 5. 0. 5
-1u 1+.J Jä
eyz-2[ay+§az V +2H ay] (7.3f)
where underlined terms are new terms that appear in the linear strains
wi.
The nonlinear portion of the strains are:
0. 5
-l21 (7.4a) .
0. 5
-iM Jä?
ay] (7.4b)
'
0. 0.
-.L2! Jaw 5 au Jä5
(7‘4°)
“xy'2iax+§H axi[ay+§H ayi
235
D D . . 1 j
-Ly?
Hx ' 2 (ax) + L2 (H iaää
H ax ax )
E E
D. 1
aw 1 aw (7.5a)
_-Lä? D D . . 1 j
Hy (ay) + L (H 1J2L@.l.
H ]
2 2 § E ay ay
....l.............
D . 1
+3,;
E! H läl 75b
3, <·>
D D . . 1 j
“-Lä~.LH1 +
L"xy
2 ax ay 2 ; 2 (H H ax ay )
....J................ _
D . j D . 1
+ Lu (H JLLL ) + Lu ia!.)° (7'SC)
2 ax E ay 2 ay ax
.......Ll...._.......................
11xZ=nyz=nz=O, (7.5d)
where the underlined terms are due to the delaminations. The remaining
N . j
wmfV @.2%%+ _]=l
.2 @2%]
N . j
J aöv
+0xy
ay ax ay ax
j=l
+„XZ ._l
BX 32 .
J-
+¤y2 [ä‘!+§£@vj]}dv-{
8y 32
q 6wdA (77)
°
j=l Q
I1
2
(NX, Ny, Nxy) = Ih (ox, dy, oxy) dz
‘
g ä
2 .
(Ox, Oy) = fh (uxz, dyz) dz
. . . 2 .
( NJ, NJdy, NxyJ ] = J
fh (ox ’ oy , oxy] ¢ (z)dz
X
’
n ä
J.
J. Oy) .
ä
.]h(¤Xz„ ¤yz)
5
gt;) (7·8)
(OX, dz dz
' ä
we obtain
237
N . j
6U CL -y{u Mg NJ—JJ“ +
Q x ax j=l x az
aw · J
+NH+Zy
ay
j=1
" y ax xy ay ax
N . j j N . .
(gg- gg-) ggg QJuJ
+ E N2 + + Q + E
jzl y y x x ax jzl x
Integrating over the thickness and using the definitions (8) we obtain,
D . i
a6U i
(Z)D
+ Uxy H1 a6V
. D i . i
H 1 (Z) T'?
a6N
+ Oyz .2 H 1 (Z) asw
ay }dv
1-1 1-1
— E
i
~i 2 i
=
(¤XZ , ¤yZ) H (Z)Z
d ( 7.11 )
‘2
238
E
(M1x’ M1y’ M1 ) 52
xy -
(88x’ 88y’ 8xy )H1(z)dz
h
'2
we can write
D „ „. i . j . j
1 asw i
11111 2 gl!
{ M1, 88 1 Q,1 asw 1 a6U aav
8, 1 M, 8X 1 M,1 8,
+111xy (@+§£}dd
ay ax X y 1 712)
'
1 5 mj mj
D . .
1 (Z) asw i D i
gw gw 1 asw
+ OX H + Oy H (Z)
ax § ax ay ; By
D 1. i D . i
asw 1 asw
+°xyax;H(Z) ay +°xyay ;H(Z) ax
Ä
D
1. Ä
i
Ä
D
1. Ä
i
ay
+ qxy Ä
D .
H 1 Äi + cxy Ä D H 1. (2) Äi }dzdxdy.
ax E ay By gl ax
Defining
h
15 _[1 2 1
(MX ,My15 ,MXy)
15 = = (¤X,¤y,¤Xy)H 1 (z) H 5 (z) dz (7.13)
’ h
2
239
we can write
+a——1; ;*‘D
xy ax ay ax ay
D ..1
TJ ay_1 asw 5
5
*§§2"x (ax 1 1 aaw ay_
ax ax an
2 y ay ay ay ay
‘ ‘
.. ßaswa
15 5
Äaaw 1
+ Mxy (ay Hd!} (7.].4)
ax Ty
Geometric Force
u Nxnx + Nxyny
v Nxynx + Nyny
w Qxnx + Qyny
uj Nänx + Nlynx
vj Näynx + Ngny
uli Minx + Miyny
vj Miynx + Mgny
Nj (7.15)
+ Ölzny.
Ölznx
k —k —k
°x 011 012 —k
016 0 0 Exk
k ·—k
°y 026
012 022 —k 0 0 ayk
k _ —k k
°xy 016 026 Q66 O 0 Yxy (7'lö)
k —k —k k
°xz 0 0 0 066 046 Yxz
—k —k
k
°yz 0 0 0 046 044
k
Yyz
L
Substituting Equatiuns (7.16) into the definitions of the stress
1 Bgg .1
.1 Bgg au 1 /ax .
N B11
+ jäl Bgg Bgg avg/ay g
Bgö au0/ay + av0/ax
11 11 11 1
awi/ax aw 1 /ax
D D E11 Egg Egg
+ gl jgl Egg Egg aw./ay awg/ay (7.17)
Egg aw1/ay aw0/ax
J
241
— — J J “J
Qx ^66 A45 aw/JX N 866 846
= + ·91 Bj vj
0y 0 44 BV16 J J 44
1 1 aw 1 /ax
E55 E45
+ . . (7.18)
1-1 add 6wJ/ay
where
jzk
A q(k)6z·9 (p 9 1 = 1 9 2 9 6 9 4 9 6)
z
„ Z
k-1
. N . Zk
BJ = N
Qpd4 Jd 2 ; (o , 4 = 1,2,6 )
pd käl IZ
k-1
Zk
J. - N k 44.5 , =
. k-1
.. N Zk . Jd
.
BJJ N J
0pd4 4 z ; (p , 4 = 1,2,6 )
pd = IZ
kgl k-1
ZA
BJJ.. = N
IZ N 99-5 99-1 6 2 ; (4 , 4 = 4,5 )
pd kél Qpq dz dz
k-1
Zk
1 = N I k 1 (7-19)
Z 2k_1 0pdH (z)dz; (4,4 = 1,2,6,4,5)
Epq k=l
“ Zk
15
E PQ = Z 1 k H 1 <z)H 5 <z)4z; <p,4 = 1,2,6)
4 Pq
k=l Z
k—1
Note that there are Tinear terms invoiving the deiamination variabies U,
V, N. This Tinear effect suggests that deiaminations may grow even
obtain,
242
ij
D11 Dgg
ij 1j
Dgg aU 1 /ax
N
+ 121 ogg ogg av‘/ay
I
Dgg aU1/ay + aV1/ax
N Zk
LpqJ=
rs'
E I k r (Z)H s (z)¢ j (z)dz; (¤,¤ = 1,2,6)
0pqH (7,21)
k=l Zk_1
and
J J1 J1 8J
OxJ 1 866 B45
J aw/8* N 866 D45
og‘}
. =
6g4
.
aw/ay
+
1
..
ogg v1.
..l
243
L ij L45
ij
aw 1 /ax
+ .. . (7.22)
1 L12 aw]/ay
where L‘~‘= Z
fk
vd l pd dz
’ ’ ’ 0231
°
k=l Zk ' 1
and
^i
Qxz i 1 gw ij ij “j
. ” Ess E45 ax N Ess L45
Ö1 E1 gg_ * lJ L15 V5
yz 44 ay 55
0
15
Ess E45
11 E
ax
°
‘ 7.24 )
* jll __ E11 .. y .
44 ay
Once delaminations and nonlinear effects come into the picture, one new
equation for each delamination is introduced. Along with the new
equations, as follows:
15 1.1 15 au 5 /ax
VN L11 L12 Llö
+ jäl L11 L11 av1/ay (7.25)
Lgg auJ/ay + avJ/ax ·
244
where
zk .
Em. = n Ok HI(Z)HS(Z)H‘(Z)dZ:
E I (¤,¤ = 1,2,6) (7-26)
k-1
next,
Mlj
Elf Elg Elg au/ax + 1/2 (aw/ax)2
Mlf = Elf Egg av/ay + 1/2 (aw/ay)2
M1; Egg (au/ay + av/ax) + aw/ax aw/ay)
L11
ijr
Llg
ijr
Llg
ijr
au r /ax -
N E
+ Q Lg Llff avr/ay
r=1 Lljr aur/a y + av T /ax
gg
Elf”$ Elf’S I
Elg’§_ awr/ax aus/as
D D ..
Elf*$ ..
+
Eggrs awr/ay aus/ay (7.27)
ä E
Eggrs awr/ax aws/ay
where,
245
.. n
2k .
sms ok n.(z)uJ(z)H'°(z)uS(z)az; (6,6 = 1,2,6) (7.28)
Pq = Q [ Pq J
k=1
_ Z
k—l
When ¢J(z) are linear through each layer, the coefficients in the
E1. = k hk N
¤¤ k=§+l °¤¤
where i is the location of the delamination, i + 1 is the first layer
E‘j=
pg Q Qkhkforj>i
pg
k=J+1
Eli": Q Qkhkforr>jzi
pg
k=T+l
Eyrs g Qk hk
= for s > r > j > i
pg
k=S+l
(ps]- = lszsö)
0 otherwise
_ _
j hj _
Qpg j+lhj+1 „ J. > 1. + 1
Qpg
Lij _ Qj+lhj+l ; j = i + 1
=
P9 P9
(P•9 = 4•5)
0 otherwise
and
246
Qj gl Qj+1 bgjg
+ ; j > r 2 s
O otherwise
crack grows in its original plane. However, the shape of the crack may
vary with time. For example, a crack shape initially elliptic usually
grows with variable aspect ratio. Therefore, the crack growth is not
strain energy release rate can be computed from the strain energy U and
“a"
the representative crack length as:
extension Da.
delamination boundary are given for each mode on the boundary. The JDM
is then used at each configuration (or load step) to compute G(s) from
where m is the number of nodes per element. Using Equation (15), the
where
{A}T = {ul,vl,wl,...,um,vm,wm}
A
248
form
—J
- [BNL]{A}9. {Tl··J } '-
{Tl} ' J} + [BNL]{A}•.
-
where the submatrices [k 11 ], kj12 ], [kj21 l, [kji],
22 [kjr],
23 [krj],
32 33
lkrsl
with i,j = 1,...,N and r, s = 1, ..., D are given in Appendix 7.2. The
load vectors {q}, {ql}...{q1} ... {qN}, and {q1},..., {ED} are analogous
equilibrium position.
analysis. Closed form solutions can be developed for simple cases and
they are used for comparison with the more general approach presented
here.
analytical solution for the linear deflection and strain energy release
rigid base laminate [58]. Due to symmetry, one fourth of the square
with the ana1ytica1 so1ution. In Figure 7.3 we show the 1inear and
entire width. Due to symmetry, on1y one ha1f of the Tength of the p1ate
more rigid than the thin de1aminated 1ayer so that it wi11 not buck1e
are shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5 as a function of the applied load,
delamination:
”
¤‘(b„y) = UJ(b„y) = 0 : NX(b.y) = — N
The same material properties are used for the delaminated layer of
of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the boundary of the
253
— gij =
é käl (Cij)k
Due to the transverse incompressibility used in this work, it is more
254
015 ‘ A15/h
where h is the total thickness of the plate and Aij are the components
differences observed with the results of Reference [57] are due to the
plate. The square symbols indicate the total opening (or gap) of the
elements [57] and the present 2-D elements) coincide for the small
_ strain energy release rate G(s), but due to the fact that deflections
Figure 7.8 and 7.9 we plot the distribution of the strain energy release
although not of Modes II and III. The present analysis does not include
under which the thin delaminated layer buckles. Due to the anisotropy
X Y
of the load ratio r, with -1 < r < 1. The distribution of the strain
energy release rate G(s) along the boundary s = a¢ with 0 < ¢ < ¤/2 is
plotted in Figures 7.11 to 7.15 for different values of the load ratio r
with -1 < r < 1, and several values of the applied inplane load, in
effect remains for all the other load ratios considered in Figures 7.13
to 7.15. The fact that both the magnitude and the shape of the
7.16. It can be seen that of all the combinations of loads, all being
predominant loads.
258
Aggendix 7
M M 1(M)2
ay ay 2 ay
“
ay ax * ay ax * axay
uj 0
gä
ay vJ 0
M
BX
MM
BX BX
M
BX
MM
B_YB_Y
1- ay-
M + M.-1-
{E } ” ’ {“ } ‘ MM + MM
ax ax ay ay ax
awi
sr °
awi
B_Y 0
259
wlü
BX BX
wiwi
.. 1 W W
WJ} =2 1 . . .
w. wi 1 ß
BX By
wi
B_Y BX
0
0
‘
° ° ST °
Bd:1 Bü:1
° ar ° ° W
Bw. Bub. _ Bri). Btl:.
[61 = 1} $1% 0 [61 = 1% Eil
(5x3m) (5x2m)
Blbi
Ü Ü Üi Ü
31111
260iguglfé
0Xm
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
with (i = 1,...,m).
2
261
Aggendix 8
Stiffness Matrices in the Finite Eiement Formuiation
[ku} = lBlT[AllBl + IBITIAIIBNLI + ZIBNLITIAIIBI + ZIBNLITIAIIBNLI
D 'Tj
+§ (IB] T [E llBN|_l + 2[BNLl T [E ll NL} + 2 [NLH Ej ll]
B
. . D D . .
+ ZIÜQLIIEJIIBNLI) + 2 [6gL12[6J*1[6‘,§L1.
ÄÄ
. . D .
[@21 = [6121621161 + ZIBNLITIBJIIÜI + 2 [6;L12[[“1[6‘1
Ä
. . D .
[@21 = IÜITIBJIIBI + IFITIBJIIBNLI +Ä [62[6“1[6°;’,L1
[@21 = [612[¤J”1[61.
. . D .
[@1 = IBITIEJIIBI + [BlT[E‘2l[BNLl +Ä (IBITIEÜIIFELI)
. . D .. .
+ ZIBNLITIEJIIBI + ZIBNLITIEJIIBNLI +Ä [2[6„L12[E‘¢'1[6Q,L1>
1
D —r D D —r
-r T jr -5
+ 2Ä (IBM] T [E jr llßl + [BM] [E IIBNLI) + 2Ä ZUB 1 T [E jrs IIBNLI)
r - r S
.. .. D [612[[”‘—‘1[6'°1.
..
[@21 = [‘612[[‘J1[61 + [612[[‘J1[6„L1 +Ä
r
.. .. . .
D lÜTlTlL2T*2l[Ü1-
lkäl = [BlT[L2‘2llY3-1 + 2[6„L12[[‘J1[61 + 2 Är
. . D .
[@21 = lB]T[EJl[Bl + IBITIEJIIBNLI +Ä <[612[sJ’1[6;L11
262
. D .
+ 2}¤„L1T1Ej}}6} + 2}6„L}T}EJ}}ß„L1 + 2 ZY‘ <16„L1T}s*'”}}§,‘§L}>
D . D D .
2 gg (lä§LlTlE‘”JS1[ä';jL1)
Jacobian Matrix:
3 A 3 A
N . D .
w} = wing} gg uggäw} gz xkgiiw}
J J
{gd} g {{@d}{{}
+§J +§ {{22}{{··}
JV JV
r r
lk33l{K‘”}
{Fj} = lk31l{A}
J
+§ lk32l{A”}
,. Jr
+ä„ Jr
263
u2 _
Ü-rs _
wi Ü
U1
I
10.0
__. Lmeor P=10
2.0
Q
\
_
‘— ¢·
O.Ü
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
></0
”
7.2 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G along the boundary
of a square delamination of side 2a peeled off by a aconcentrated
load P.
265
7.0
6.0 wD/02P
5.0
wD / 0 2 P .
4.0 l. Nonlrneor
— ·— Lineor
2
GAVD/P3'O——— ——_———
2.0
1.0
6,..,0/P2
0.0 •
200 400 600 800 1000
~ P
§“
1.0
5
to
C7
3 0.8
\
IZ
E
C 0.6
.9
-•-·
3
äTD
.l. Closed-forrn
S O-2 •¤¤¤¤ Present study
CJ
L
P-
0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Nx/Nxü
2.0 *
°
1.8 ¤
NX 1.6 =
1.4 2
V2 ”
—_ CIosed—form
., ¤¤¤¤¤ Present study
7.5 Strain energy release rate G for a thin film buckled delamination.
268
“ o
¤
0.8 EEEENY
S
6/(Ehe 2 Nx
0.4
0.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
8/ec,
1.6
.—_ 3-D elements
1A nnnnugpämng W N
L2 ---- e ectuon w U
·—•
¤
1.0 B
‘·‘E ¤=3O __
0.8
ä „ .
0.6
Q4 ¤=15
0.2 g '
‘•—————-_____
0.0 ¤=3O
~
-0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
$5 stroin 6,
"·°°·° s/
300.0 Nx
I
I
I
200.0 /1 s„=0.004
G(s) ,' ,
I I
100.0 I / g
I// , - "
=Q_OOß
//
-
_; /» / e„=0.002
0·O
{ ...._ Present study
---.. 3-0 elements
¤=l5
-100.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
s = Gtp [mm] (0<;p<1r/2)
7.8 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of diameter for several values
of the applied inp.lane uniform strain ex.
271
S 6,,:0.006
600.0
·
500.0 1
1
400.0 I' s,.=0.004
/
G(s) ¤¤¤-¤ "*—·»«»"=· ’
I
/
·1
l//
I 8,,=0.003
r’ X ’1
100.0 -4·
::__,..·-- --4
_ _
X ’,’ * s„=0.002 .
- .. - - - 1/
O·O _; Present study
%
mo° O0.0 o=30 - - - - 3-0 elements
10.0 20.0 .30.0 40.0 50.0
s = ocp [mm] (O<;p<rr/2)
7.9 Distribution of the strin energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of diameter 2a = 60 mm for
several values of the applied inplane uniform strain ax.
272
11.0
10.0
..0 [[1]] Y N
Nor
S
8.0
Nx
7.0
6.0
5.0
-1.0 -0.5 -0.0 0.5 1.0
10.0
Ä=5.0
5.0 Ä=4.0
E
\
ä Ä=3.0
,„ · Ä=2.0
JL 0.0 „ ,
O }\=1_5
Ä = N/NC,.
•
-50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
s = oga [mm] (0<¢<·n·/2)
7.11 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r = 1
(c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
274 .
5.0
4.0 Ä=5.0
3.0
F"!
E
\ 2.0
^ %
CD
xx(D
O_O
7 Ä=1.5
-1.0
V = 0.5
Ä = N/NC,
-2 · O
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
s = ogo [mm] (0<q0<1r/2)
7.12 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r =
0.5 (c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
275
20.0 g
Ä=5.0
10.0
l"'I
E
\
Q
@@
\
E 0.0 Ä=1.5
rx
U)
Q
CD
-10.0
r = 0
Ä = N/N
-20.0 °'
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
· s = ocp [mm] (0<<p<·n·/2)
7.13 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r = 0
(c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
276
30.0
25.0 >.=5.0
20.0
[_' 15.0
c
10.0
.0
g ; 5.0
/0; 0.0 ä
>~=l-
\./
<¤ -5.0
- -10.0
-15.0
=-20.0 Ä —
°'
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
s = ogo
[mm]7.14
‘
Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r =
-0.5 (c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
1
277
30.0
25.0
20.0
|__I 15.0
C
Q 10.0
.¤
:. 6.0
Q'; 0.0 ä
¥/
O -5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
‘
s = ogo [mm] (0<;p<n·/2)
7.15 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary s of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in for r = -1
(c.f. Caption 7.10) for several values of the applied load N.
278
[1]]]**1
S
30.0 NX
r'=—1
20.0
10.0 r=1
@(5) ·
0.0 ,— .50.5
-10.0 r=¤
N/N„
__ = 5 =—.5
—” r
20 O
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
s = oga [mm] (O<;p<rr/2)
7.16 Distribution of the strain energy release rate G(s) along the
boundary of a circular delamination of radius a = 5 in (c.f.
Caption 7.10) for several values of the load ratio -1 < r < 1 to
show the influence of the load distribution on the likelihood of
delamination propagation.
Chapter 8
noted that the computational cost of the proposed analysis makes it not
the local regions are modelled using the GLPT and global regions are
theory.
279
obtained results to 3-0 elasticity solutions and to other plate theories
as well (see Chapter 2). The analytical solutions developed are used as
linear case.
compute the derivative of the strain energy with respect to the crack
length in the context of the finite element method. Although the JDM
composite plates.
280
A model for the study of delaminations in composite plates is
new model, along with the JDM, produces accurate predictions of strain
281
REFERENCES
282
283
21. Whitney, J. M., and Sun, C. T., "A Higher Order Theory for
Extensional Motion of Laminated Composites," J. Sound and Vibr.,
Vol. 30, pp. 85-97, 1973. ·
22. Nelson, R. B., and Lorch, D. R., "A Refind Theory of Laminated
Orthotropic Plates," J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 41, pp. 171-183, 1974.
23. Lo, K. H., Christensen, R. M., and Wu, E. M., "A High-Order Theory
of Plate Deformation-Part 2: Laminated Plates," J. Appl. Mech.,
Vol. 44, pp.669-676, 1977.
27. Mau, S. T., "A Refined Laminated Plate Theory," J. Appl. Mech.,
Vol. 40, pp. 606-607, 1973.
29. Sun, C. T., Whitney, J. N., "On Theories for the Dynamic Response
of Laminated Plates," AIAA Paper No. 72-398, 1972.
30. Seide, P., "An Improved Approximate Theory for the Bending of
Laminated Plates," Mechanics Today, Vol. 5, pp.451-466, 1980.
34. Pryor, C. W., Jr., and Barker, R. M., "A Finite Element Analysis
Including Transverse Shear Effects for Applications to Laminated
Plates," AIAA J., Vol. 9, pp. 912-917, 1971.
36. Murakami, H., "Laminated Composite Plate Theory with Improved In-
Plane Responses," J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 53, pp. 661-666, 1986.
37. Toledano, A., and Murakami, H., "A Composite Plate Theory for
Arbitrary Laminate Configurations,“ J. Appl. MEch., Vol. 54, pp.
181-189, 1987.
40. Inoue, I., and Kobatake, Y., "Mechanics of Adhesive Joints, Part
IV: Peeling Test," Applied Scientific Research (A), Vol. 8, p.
321, 1959.
53. Chai, H., Babcock, C. D., and Knauss, W. G., "One Dimensional
Modelling of Failure in Laminated Plates by Delamination
Buckling," Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 17, pp. 1069-1083,
1981.
60. Yin, W-L, Sallam, S. N., and Simitses, G. J., "Ultimate Axial Load
Capacity of a Delaminated Beam-plate," AIAA Journal, Vol. 24, pp.
123-128, 1986.
65. Tong, P., Pian, T. H. H., and Lasry, S. J., "A Hybrid—element
Approach to Crack Problems in Plane Elasticity," Int. Jour. Num.
Meth. Eng., Vol. 7, pp. 297-308, 1973.
66. Chan, S. K., Tuba, I. S., and Wilson, W. K., "0n the Finite
Element Method in Linear Fracture Mechanics," Eng. Fract. Mech.,
Vol. 2, pp. 1-17, 1970.
69. Rice, J. R., "A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate
Analysis of Strain Concentrations by Notches and Cracks," J. of
App. Mech., Vol. 35, pp. 379-386, 1968.
72. Hellen, T. K., "On the Method of Virtual Crack Extensions,“ Int.
Jour. Num. Meth. Eng.., Vol. 9, pp. 187-207, 1975.
73. Parks, D. M., "A Stiffness Derivative Finite Element Technique for
Determination of Elastic Crack Tip Stress Intensity Factors," Int.
Jour. of Fracture, Vol. 10, pp. 487-502, 1974.
83. Way, S., "Uniformly Loaded, Clamped, Rectangular Plates with Large
Deflection," Proc. 5th Int. Cong. Appl. Mech., John Wiley, New
York, PP. 123-138. 1938.
84. Brush, D. and Almroth, B., Buckling of Bar, Plates and Shells,
McGraw Hill, 1975.
88. Love, A. E. H., "0n the Small Free Vibrations and Deformations of
· the Elastic Shells," Phil. Trans. Roy, Soc., (London), Ser. A,
Vol. 17, pp. 491-546, 1988.
95. Hildebrand, F. B., Reissner, E., and Thomas, G. B., "Note on the
Foundations of the Theory of Small Displacements of Orthotropic
Shell," National Advisory Comm. Aero. Tech. Notes, No. 1833, 1949.
106. Paris, P. C. and Sih, G., "Fracture Toughness Testing and Its
Applications," ASTM Special Technical Publication, No. 381, pp.
30-81, 1965.
110. Tseng, A. A., "A Comparison of Finite Element Solutions for the
Compact Specimen," Int. Jour. of Fracture, Vol. 17, pp. 125-129,
1981.