Damage Modeling & Failure Analysis of Filament Wound Composite Pipes Using Continuum Damage Mechanics

ADDIS ABABA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
DAMAGE MODELING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS
OF FILAMENT WOUND COMPOSITE PIPES
USING CONTINUUM DAMAGE MECHANICS
By
TESFAYE TAMIRU BELASO
A Thesis Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements for the Award of the
Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Mechanical Design Stream)
to
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
JULY 2021
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis entitled “Damage modeling and failure analysis of
filament wound composite pipes using continuum damage mechanics ” was prepared
by me, with the guidance of my advisor Dr. Solomon Seid. The work contained herein is
my own except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text, and that this work has not been
submitted, in whole or in part, for any other degree or professional qualification. Parts of
this work have been published.
ii
Approval
This is to certify that the thesis is prepared by Mr. Tesfaye Tamiru entitled “Damage
modeling and failure analysis of filament wound composite pipes using continuum
damage mechanics” and submitted as a partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Mechanical Design Stream) complies with
the regulations of the university and meets the accepted standards with the respect to
originality, content and quality.
Signed by Examining Board:
iii
Abstract
Glass fiber reinforced composite pipes have been widely used for its high strength and high
stiffness to weight ratio. The filament winding method is the manufacturing process used
for glass fiber reinforced composite pipes. This study aims to present damage modeling
and failure analysis of filament wound glass fiber reinforced composite pipes using
continuum damage mechanics. Abaqus (version 6.14-5) commercial software was used to
perform the progressive failure analysis of composite pipe based on continuum damage
mechanics approach with stiffness and strength degradation. The failure analysis employs
Hashin failure criteria to predict damage initiation and fracture energy-based damage
evolution for the composite laminates. The numerical convergence problem is solved by
using a viscous regularization model. Alternatively, the numerical implementation of the
progressive damage model is presented by defining the user-defined material (UMAT)
subroutine in Abaqus/CAE standard. The damage model considers four failure modes such
as fiber tensile, fiber compressive, matrix tensile, and matrix compressive viscous damage
variables. The failure evolutions such as failure initiation, under failure, and ultimate
failure are discussed. The maximum failure pressure of numerical simulation results in
ABAQUS is described. Verification of UMAT subroutine and numerical simulations of
built-in material damage model in ABAQUS are considered. The results showing good
agreement are obtained between them.
Keywords: Composite laminates, Progressive failure analysis, UMAT, Continuum

damage mechanics, ABAQUS.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Solomon Seid (PhD) for
his willingness, guidance, and continuous support throughout the research and his valuable
contribution during the completion of my Master’s program.
I would also like to thank Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, specifically my senior graduate Master’s program lecturers of
Mechanical Design Engineering who gave me wonderful learning experience and
knowledgeable skills in the field of study.
I have a big thanks and respect for all my family for supporting me in all of my endeavors.
They have helped me emotionally and motivated me to achieve my goal.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends who encourage me, for their moral support and
contribution during the completion of this research. I would also like to thank my
classmates of Mechanical Engineering Master’s Program students. Our stay was awesome.
v
Table of Contents
Declaration .......................................................................................................................... ii
Approval ............................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviation, Acronyms and Symbols .................................................................. ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem statements .................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Significance of the study .......................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research objectives .................................................................................................. 6
1.4.1. General objective ............................................................................................... 6
1.4.2. Specific objectives ............................................................................................. 6
1.5. Scope of the Thesis .................................................................................................. 6
1.6. Limitation of the study ............................................................................................. 7
1.7. Thesis outline ........................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 9
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND THEORETICAL

ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.1. Elastic stress analysis ............................................................................................. 15
vi
3.2. Laminate code ........................................................................................................ 18
3.3. Geometry dimensions and mechanical properties of composite pipes .................. 20
3.4. Laminate properties of composite layers ............................................................... 22
3.5. Failure criteria ........................................................................................................ 25
3.6. Continuum Damage Mechanics ............................................................................. 27
3.7. Progressive failure analysis .................................................................................... 28
3.8. Damage initiation of composite laminates ............................................................. 29
3.9. Damage evolution of composite laminates ............................................................ 32
CHAPTER 4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN ABAQUS......................................... 38
4.1. Finite Element Analysis Method Description ........................................................ 38
4.2. Finite Element Model ............................................................................................. 40
4.3. Defining Composite Lay-up In ABAQUS ............................................................. 40
4.4. Boundary conditions .............................................................................................. 42
4.5. Numerical implementation using UMAT subroutine............................................. 43
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................. 46
5.1. Numerical Simulation Results................................................................................ 46
5.2. Verification of UMAT Subroutine ......................................................................... 53
5.3. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 60
6.1. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 60
6.2. Recommendation .................................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 63
APPENDICES A .............................................................................................................. 68
A1. UMAT Subroutine.................................................................................................. 68
vii
A1.1. Subroutine Argument Lists .............................................................................. 68
A1.2. Solution Dependent State Variables ................................................................ 68
A2. UMAT Subroutine Interface .................................................................................. 69
A3. Progressive failure analysis implementation in UMAT ......................................... 74
A3.1. UMAT Subroutine Linkage to Abaqus/CAE .................................................. 74
A3.2. Abaqus Input file ............................................................................................. 77
A3.3. UMAT Subroutine written using FORTRAN ................................................. 82
A4. Create linking Abaqus with compiler in Windows ................................................ 95
A5. Letter of manuscript submission .......................................................................... 100
viii
List of Abbreviation, Acronyms and Symbols
3D Three- Dimensional
Abaqus/CAE Complete Abaqus Environment
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ASTM American Standard of Testing Material
BC Boundary Condition
CDM Continuum Damage Mechanics
CLT Classical Laminate Theory
COMET Computational Mechanics Testbed
CSYS Coordinate System
DAMAGEFT Fiber Tensile Damage
DAMAGEMC Matrix Compressive Damage
DAMAGEMT Matrix Tensile Damage
DEPVAR Dependent Variable for an estimation command
ELEM Element Number
FE Finite Element
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FEM Finite Element Method
FORTRAN Computer Language
FRP Fiber Reinforced Polymer
FWM Filament Winding Method
GRE Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy
GRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyester
GUI Graphical User Interface
MROM Modified Rule of Mixture
MS MPI Microsoft Message Passing Interface
PFA Progressive Failure Analysis
RVE Representative Volume Element
SC8R 8-node quadrilateral in-plane general purpose continuum shell
element type, reduced integration
SDV Solution Dependent State Variable
UMAT User Defined Material
ix
XSYMM X- Symmetry
YSYMM Y- Symmetry
ZSYMM Z- Symmetry
U1 displacement along local coordinate of direction- 1
UR1 rotation along local coordinate of direction- 1
1, 2, 3 material principal direction coordinate system
r, θ, z cylindrical coordinate system of radial, hoop and axial direction
x, y, z local coordinate system
ur radial displacement
uθ hoop displacement
uz axial displacement
Cij on- axis stiffness tensor
C̅ij off- axis stiffness tensor
Qij on- axis compliance tensor
σz off- axis axial stress
σθ off- axis hoop stress
σr off- axis radial stress
τzθ off- axis shear stress
k layer number
γ0 twist per unit length
ε0 axial strain
εr off- axis radial strain
εθ off- axis hoop strain
εz off- axis axial strain
γzθ off- axis shear strain
Ei elasticity modulus (i = 1,2,3)
Gij shear modulus (ij = 1,2,3)
x
vij Poisson’s ratio (ij = 1,2,3)
𝑋𝑇 longitudinal tensile strength
𝑋𝐶 longitudinal compressive strength
𝑌𝑇 transverse tensile strength
𝑌𝐶 transverse compressive strength
𝑆𝑖𝑗 shear strength (𝑖𝑗 = 1,2)
ri inner radius of tube
ro outer radius of tube
𝑡 thickness of tube
𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 thickness per layer
ns number of layer
𝑇 transpose matrix
σij on- axis stress tensor
̅ij
σ off- axis stress tensor
εij on- axis strain tensor
P initial pressure
Fft fiber tensile failure
Ffc fiber compressive failure
t
Fm matrix tensile failure
c
Fm matrix compressive failure
α coefficient of shear stress to the fiber tensile criterion
M damage operator
df fiber damage
dm matrix damage
ds shear damage
dft fiber tensile damage variable
dfc fiber compressive damage variable
dmt matrix tensile damage variable
dmc matrix compressive damage variable
Cd damaged elasticity matrix
GC fracture energy
xi
Gf fracture energy of fiber
Gm fracture energy of matrix
δ0eq initial equivalent displacement
δfeq final equivalent displacement
σ0eq initial equivalent stress
σfeq final equivalent stress
Lc characteristic element length
σft
eq fiber tensile equivalent stress
σfc
eq fiber compressive equivalent stress
σmt
eq matrix tensile equivalent stress
σmc
eq matrix compressive equivalent stress
δft
eq fiber tensile equivalent displacement
δfc
eq fiber compressive equivalent displacement
δmt
eq matrix tensile equivalent displacement
δmc
eq matrix compressive equivalent displacement
εt11 tensile strain limit along longitudinal direction
εc11 compressive strain limit along longitudinal direction
εt 22 tensile strain limit along transverse direction
εc 22 compressive strain limit along transverse direction
εs12 shear strain limit
p failure (damage) mode
GC ft fracture energy in fiber tensile direction
GC fc fracture energy in fiber compressive direction
GC mt fracture energy in matrix tensile direction
GC mc fracture energy in matrix compressive direction
dp damage variable for damage mode
dvp viscous damage variable for damage mode
ηp viscous regularization coefficient for damage mode
to initial time
∆t change in time
xii
v viscous regularized variable
∂dv
p partial derivative of the viscous damage variable
∂dp
∂∆σ Jacobian matrix
∂∆ε
dvft fiber tensile viscous damage variable

dvfc fiber compressive viscous damage variable
dvmt matrix tensile viscous damage variable
dvmc matrix compressive viscous damage variable
dvs shear viscous damage variable
xiii
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Laminate code for angle plies [±45°]4 , [±55°]4 , [±60°]4 and [±75°]4 ....... 18
Table 3-2 Composite tube lay-up and average thickness.................................................. 19
Table 3-3 The lamina radius of composite tube................................................................ 19
Table 3-4 Mechanical properties of the E-glass/epoxy composite pipes .......................... 20
Table 3-5 Geometry dimensions of composite pipes ........................................................ 21
Table 4-1 Composite ply layup of E-glass/epoxy composite pipe [±55°]4 ..................... 41
Table 4-2 State variables related to viscous damage variables ......................................... 44
Table 5-1 Predicted failure pressure of three mesh models for composite pipe [±55°]4 51
Table 5-2 Predicted and Experimental failure pressure for composite pipe ..................... 56
Table A-1 Variables supplied from main Abaqus program to the UMAT subroutine ..... 70
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Reciprocal/discontinuous FW process. ............................................................. 2
Figure 1-2 Continuous filament winding process. .............................................................. 3
Figure 3-1 Schematic diagram of filament wound E-glass/epoxy composite pipe under
cylindrical coordinate system. .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-2 Schematic diagram of the on-axis coordinate (1, 2, 3) and the off-axis
coordinate (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧). .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3-3 The flowchart of progressive failure analysis for E-glass/epoxy composite
pipe.................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-4 Linear damage evolution diagram of equivalent stress versus equivalent
displacement. .................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4-1 Schematic diagram of linking ABAQUS to FORTRAN ................................ 39
Figure 4-2 Finite element model for composite pipe with lay-up configurations of
[±55°]4 ............................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4-3 The ply stack plot for composite pipe [±55°]4 . ............................................. 42
Figure 4-4 Typical boundary condition. ........................................................................... 43
Figure 4-5 Flowchart of UMAT for Abaqus Standard. .................................................... 45
Figure 5-1 Stress- strain curve of viscous damage variable for composite pipe
[±55°]4 . ............................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 5-2 Stress- strain curve of viscous damage variable for composite pipe [±55°]4
(A) and (B). ....................................................................................................................... 47
(C). .................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5-4 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.4955 ......................................... 49
Figure 5-5 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.4955 ................................. 49
xv
Figure 5-6 Maximum value of matrix tension damage variable (A) FE Model ............... 50
Figure 5-7 Maximum value curve of matrix tension damage variable (B) DAMAGEMT
vs Time.............................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 5-8 Three mesh models of composite pipe [±55°]4 ............................................. 52
Figure 5-9 The failure pressure of composite pipe [±55°]4 ............................................. 53
Figure 5-10 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.4955 (A) and (B) .................... 54
Figure 5-11 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.4955 (A) and (B) ........... 55
Figure 5-12 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.5 ............................................. 56
Figure 5-13 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.5..................................... 57
Figure A-1 The UMAT interface used for the development of the subroutine ................ 69
Figure A-2 Abaqus/CAE tab show the features of solution-dependent state variables .... 75
Figure A-3 Abaqus/CAE tab to specify the mechanical constants of User Material........ 76
Figure A-4 Verification of ABAQUS installation (a)....................................................... 97
Figure A-5 Verification of ABAQUS installation (b) ...................................................... 98
Figure A-6 Verification of ABAQUS installation (c)....................................................... 99
xvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
In the last decades, composite pipes such as fiber-reinforced polymeric (FRP) pipes have
been widely used in many industrial applications including storage and transport of
chemical fluids, oil, power plants, municipal piping, irrigation, and potable water
transmissions due to their high strength and stiffness, low weight, good corrosion
resistance, and other extreme characteristics. FRP composites have anisotropic properties
that may be quite different than linear elastic and as constituent elements they can be
defined as a combination of glass fiber (or) carbon and a polymer matrix in which the
reinforcements are provided in one or more directions. Polyester resins and epoxy resins
are the two major classes of thermosetting resins used in FRP [1]. Polyester resins are
commonly used to produce large diameter water and sewage piping; while epoxy resins are
used in the manufacture of smaller diameter piping for conveying water, condensate,
hydrocarbon, caustics, and dilute acids.
One of the classes of fiber-reinforced polymeric pipes is glass fiber reinforced polyester
(GRP) pipes which have been brought into piping systems because of their unique
characteristics [2]. High corrosion resistance, lightweight, and smooth internal surface are
some of the inherent characteristics of glass fiber reinforced polyester (GRP) pipes in a
comparison of traditional steel, asbestos, and concrete pipes. In addition, other unique
characteristics of GRP pipes are improved strength properties, easier transportation,
installation, and maintainability so that it has a wide range of applications in different
services, irrigation, and potable water transmission system, industrial wastewater systems,
water-intake of cooling towers, fire extinguishing systems and process flow lines of
factories [3-5].
The most broadly used fabrication process to produce GRP pipes is the filament winding
method [6]. It is the process by which fibers are layered onto a rotating mandrel,
constructing the pipe wall layer-by-layer. There are different ways that are used to
accomplish this process, including reciprocal and continuous, multiple mandrels, and
oscillating mandrel method [1]. Some of these filament winding methods are discussed as
follows.
1
In the reciprocal method, it is a commercially so-called discontinuous filament winding
process, wetted fibers are applied onto a rotating mandrel through a traveling trolley which
drives back and forth along the mandrel length. The angle of fiber placement relative to the
mandrel axis is controlled by the synchronized translational speed of the bath and the
rotational speed of the mandrel. Schematic representation of reciprocal filament winding
method is shown in Figure 1-1. In the continuous method [1], cylindrically shaped mandrel
of continuous steel band supported by beams. Therefore, the entire mandrel continuously
moves in a spiral path toward the end of the machine. Raw materials of continuous fibers,
chopped fibers, resin, and aggregate fillers are applied to the mandrel from overhead. After
curing, a synchronized saw unit cuts the pipe whenever the desired length is reached. The
continuous filament winding process is represented schematically in Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-1 Reciprocal/discontinuous FW process [6].

From the economical point of view, industrial centers prefer to use winding angles close to
the circumferential direction (90° ) due to lower raw materials consumption in comparison
with helical layers. Another FRP pipes are glass fiber reinforced epoxy (GRE) pipes,
produced by the filament winding method, and are widely used in a number of oil and gas
industries because of good corrosion resistance and high strength to weight ratio. Strength,
2
stiffness, and service life are among the important mechanical properties of the GRE pipes
[7].
Figure 1-2 Continuous filament winding process [8].
1.2. Problem statements
During a hydrostatic pressure test, the functional failures and structural failures are visually
observed failures on composite structures such as composite pipes. The test has examined
according to the ASTM: D3517-11 [1]. Functional or leakage failure occurs due to
weepage phenomenon. The composite pipes having large diameter with a higher number
of layers are more likely subjected to functional failure than pipes having a small diameter
and it indicates that the pipe cannot gives its function due to experienced leakage whereas
from the structural viewpoint it would able to support its loading. The structural failure is
being occurred due to the accumulation of local damage failure when loading increases.
3
Composite structures exhibit non-linear behavior due to their inherent anisotropic
properties which makes them quite different than that of linear elastic material. Sometimes
inhomogeneity characteristics are experienced in the composite structures that are why the
failure of its structures takes place as progressive series of events.
Delamination, fiber breakage, matrix failures are some of the defects occurred during the
manufacturing of composite structure such as composite pipes. Typically, failure starts as
a very small crack between fibers and matrix. The process continues from the multiple
cracks in the lamina and these cracks degrade the matrix stiffness causing fibers or plies to
carry higher stresses [9]. Catastrophic failure rarely occurs at the load corresponding to the
first ply failure. Instead, the ultimate failure of the structure occurs due to the damage
accumulation of local failures when loading increases [10].
Investigating progressive failure analysis of laminated composite structure are strongly
recommended to know its failure mechanisms. The progressive failure analysis for
laminated composite structures is implemented using strength and stiffness degradation
methods. The two well-known proposed material degradation models are heuristic models
based on a ply-discounting material degradation approach and models based on continuum
damage mechanics [11].
In the ply-discounting material degradation approach, one or more of the material
properties of a damage region are set equal to zero or reduced to a fraction of the original
values. By using the ply-discounting degradation approach, it is difficult to get an accurate
evaluation of degradation factors which complicates the implementation of numerical
methods in macroscopic damage modeling because degradation level depends largely
among other factors on crack density and lamination sequence [12]. Degradation factors
are used to define a percentage of the stiffness retained.
However, continuum damage mechanics (CDM) is the most used approach to the nonlinear
behavior of laminates due to damage accumulation. It is used to model damage of
composite laminate by means of conducting stiffness degradation in order to predict the
failure behavior. On the other hand, the progressive failure analysis using CDM has been
proved to be an excellent tool in attaining the damage initiation and accumulation
information of composite laminated structures [13].
4
The present study aims to use the continuum damage mechanics approach in order to
explore the progressive failure analysis of filament wound composite pipes such as E-
glass/epoxy composite pipes. The Hashin failure criteria, stiffness and strength degradation
modes, and failure strength and damage evolution of composite pipes are extensively
studied.
1.3. Significance of the study
Industrial filament wound composite pipes are manufactured in their design constraints of
short-term and long-term requirements in accordance with international rules and
regulations. The soundness of the pipe has been examined by performing a hydrostatic
pressure test wherein the pipe is filled with water and the internal pressure is gradually
increased up to two times the pipe nominal pressure. The pipe should withstand this certain
level of internal pressure without any visually observed leakage, weeping, or structural
failure. The leakage failure or functional failure happen as a consequence of the weepage
phenomenon. Functional failure occurs in the pipes having large diameter with a high
number of layers and indicates that it cannot sustain its mission anymore due to the
experienced leakage and despite the fact that from a structural point of view it would be
able to support the loading, but it is failed from the functional viewpoint.
The filament wound composite pipes are subjected to the high pressure during operation
and their mechanical performance decreases gradually. They are experiencing structural
failure due to the accumulation of local damage failure when loading increases. Therefore,
investigating failure analysis of composite laminate structure is strongly recommended to
know its failure mechanisms in real practical operational conditions. And this work
provides a progressive understanding of the damage initiation and propagation behaviors
of composite laminated structure. Progressive failure analysis using continuum damage
mechanics is a good approach in knowing the failures to the non-linear behavior of
composite pipes.
5
1.4. Research objectives
This master’s degree level research work tries to attain the following objectives.
1.4.1. General objective
The main objective of the present study is to develop damage modeling and failure analysis
of filament wound composite pipes using continuum damage mechanics.
1.4.2. Specific objectives
 To develop damage modeling of composite pipes in Abaqus (version 6.14-5)

commercial software.
 To evaluate failure evolution of composite laminates.
 To predict damage initiation using Hashin failure criteria and damage evolution
based on fracture energy mechanisms.
 To predict failure pressure and failure properties of composite pipes.
 To implement user subroutine (UMAT) in ABAQUS.
1.5. Scope of the Thesis
This research work focuses on the study of progressive failure analysis of filament wound
composite pipes such as glass fiber reinforced epoxy (GRE) composite pipes using
continuum damage mechanics approach. In order to meet this objective, an extensive
literature survey has been made and collecting the relevant materials data which are
necessarily used in the study. Abaqus (version 6.14-5) commercial software has been used
for the finite element analysis and progressive failure analysis of composite pipes. Hashin
failure criteria is adopted to predict the damage initiation and damage evolution is based
on fracture energy mechanisms.
In this study, the flowchart of finite element analysis for E-glass/epoxy composite pipes
has been presented in which the whole progressive failure analysis procedure was executed.
The progressive failure analysis using continuum damage mechanics approach is
implemented with strength and stiffness degradation modes such that each element will fail
in series events. The failure of composite pipe structure is not existed in a catastrophic
manner that is due to its anisotropic material properties so that it is possible for progressive
failure analysis is to be done.
6
The theoretical analysis and mathematical formulation with regard to the finite element
analysis have been discussed. The progressive failure analysis was done with Abaqus
(version 6.14-5) using user-defined material (UMAT) in order to define the constitutive
mechanical behavior of composite pipes. The FORTRAN UMAT subroutine in
conjunction with the modeling simulation has been used in ABAQUS for finite element
analysis of composite pipe.
1.6. Limitation of the study
There are some of the limitation during the investigation of this study. Due to lack of
availability of high performance computer, it was not possible to begin the research work
on time. Another limitation is that the study does not consider the analytical method
because of non-linear characteristics of material and experimental method as well while
performing the numerical simulation.
1.7. Thesis outline
This thesis is organized as follow:
The first chapter deals with the introduction part of the paper. In this section, the
background study about composite pipes of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) pipes such as
glass fiber reinforced epoxy (GRE) pipes, and glass fiber reinforced polyester (GRP) pipes,
and their winding mechanisms were discussed. The objectives, scope of study, and
significance of the study were also described.
In the second chapter, the literature review was discussed. In this section, the literature
survey of various articles related to the study was presented.
The third chapter illustrates the mathematical formulation and theoretical analysis relevant
to the study. In this section, the flowchart of progressive failure analysis of composite pipe
was presented. The flowchart indicates the whole progressive failure process of composite
pipe which was implemented FE simulation in ABAQUS.
And the fourth chapter deals with the finite element analysis in ABAQUS. In this section
damage modeling and progressive failure analysis of composite pipe was implemented
using Abaqus (version 6.14-5) commercial software. Progressive failure analysis of
composite pipe material model was carried out based on CDM approach. The Hashin
7
damage failure criterion was adopted. The damage evolution was based on fracture energy
mechanism. Numerical implementation using UMAT subroutine was presented including
a viscous regularization technique. Verification was carried out for composite pipe FE
model [±55°]4 of UMAT subroutine code with built-in material damage constitutive
model.
The numerical results were reported in the fifth chapter. Discussions were also presented.
In this chapter, the results were shown in graphs and tables. Finally, conclusions and
recommendations were described in chapter six.
8
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Damage and failure analysis are important stages in knowing the fracture mechanism of
composite pipes. In the literature survey, various studies have been carried out on
mechanical performance, failure analysis, and fatigue analysis of composite pipes.
Investigations of stress/strain analysis are the first step in characterizing mechanical
performance by numerical and analytical methods. Followed by the literature on failures
were discussed and highlight some literatures on fatigue analysis.
Investigation of the mechanical properties in multi-layered filament wound pipes under

internal pressure has been presented by Xia et al. [14]. Based on three-dimensional (3D)
anisotropic elasticity to analyze an exact solution for stress and deformations. It has
indicated that the stress variation for thin-walled pipes is much smaller along with the
thickness and has almost linear properties. In another research by Xia [15] bending
behavior of filament wound fiber reinforced sandwich pipes has been studied. By using
classical laminated plate theory an exact solution for those pipes under pure bending has
developed.
Wahab and Jones [16] have investigated experimental and numerically approach to stress
analysis of non-conventional composite pipes. The study on the failure behavior of non-
conventional cross-sectioned (triangular and rectangular) fiber-reinforced composite pipes
filled with glass beads subjected to internal pressure and bending loads have been reported.
Diniz Melo et al. [17] studied the mechanical behavior of GRP pressure pipes with the
addition of quartz sand filler experimentally throughout short-time hydraulic failure
pressure tests and also the values were predicted using FEA and failure criteria for
composites. An experimental study on the long-term behavior of GRP pipes for purpose of
reducing test duration has been carried out by Faria and Guedes [18].
Damage strength optimization of filament wound fiber-reinforced composite pipes using a

reliability-based method was investigated by Richard and Perreux [19]. Baranger et al. [20]
investigated a computational strategy for the analysis of damage in composite pipes. They
developed an efficient numerical tool using the Saint-Venant solution of the elastic
9
problem for the determination of the influence of manufacturing defects on the behavior of
composite pipes.
Various material degradation models have been proposed for laminated composite
structures. The two mainly known material degradation models are heuristic models and
continuum damage mechanics. The heuristic models are based on a ply- discounting
material degradation approach [11].
Sleight [21] used the ply-discount approach to describe a simple strategy of performing the
gradual degradation of the material properties. The damage model was used to predict the
nonlinear response and failure of laminated composite structures. The C1 plate and shell
elements based on CLT (classical lamination theory) to calculate the in-plane stresses are
used. The methodology called COMET (Computational Mechanics Testbed) was used and
implemented into a general-purpose finite element analysis code.
A material degradation model based on the ply-discounting approach in a user subroutine

(UMAT) was also implemented by Knight [22]. The model makes it possible to select the
failure initiation criterion, the material degradation factor, and the type of degradation
either instantaneous or gradual.
Continuum damage mechanics is the most used approach to capture the nonlinear behavior
of laminates due to damage accumulation. Kachanov [23] was first used the continuum
damage mechanics (CDM) approach to study the creep rupture of metals. The researcher
introduced the concept of effective stress in the case of uniaxial tension. Later on, by
Lemaitre [24] this concept was generalized to three- dimensional state of stress.
P F Liu and Zheng [25] studied an energy-based damage model by introducing the
continuum damage mechanics (CDM) to predict the progressive failure properties of
carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates under internal pressure. Three failure modes such
as fiber breakage, matrix cracking, and fiber/matrix interface failure were investigated. The
result showed the failure strengths of composite cylindrical structures are in good
agreement with the experimental results.
In another work, a comprehensive review on the recent developments for damage modeling
and finite element analysis of composite laminates was published by P. F. Liu and Zheng
10
[26]. The methodologies were used to solve numerical convergence problems by using the
Newton Raphson method due to the loss of element stiffness in finite element analysis.
Based on continuum damage mechanics (CDM), the progressive failure analysis of carbon
fiber/epoxy composite cylindrical laminates using explicit finite element method has been
investigated by Liu, Xing, et al. [27]. The continuum damage mechanics approach was
carried out to predict the failure properties and burst strengths of aluminum–carbon
fiber/epoxy composite cylindrical laminate structures in terms of three different composite
pressure vessels with different geometry sizes. With the explicit finite element method, the
effects of calculation time and mesh sizes on the failure properties of composite laminates
are explored. The result showed the explicit finite element analysis using the continuum
damage approach exhibits good calculation efficiency than that of the implicit finite
element analysis.
Experimental and analytical approaches for the first-ply failure of laminated composite
pressure vessels were studied by Chang [28]. The researcher used the acoustic emission
technique to identify the first ply failure of laminated composite pressure vessels subjected
to uniform internal pressure loads. The obtained results showed a good agreement with
failure criteria such as Hoffman, Hill, and Tsai-Wu. In particular, the Hill criterion could
predict the first ply failure pressure load closer to the experimental result with an error of
around 1 %.
Liu, Chu, et al. [29] investigated the failure mechanisms and damage evolution of carbon
fiber/epoxy composite laminates using acoustic emission with different lay-up patterns and
central hole size arrangements. Based on acoustic emission technique the influence of
complex lay-up patterns and sizes on the damage and failure properties of composites is
studied and splitting matrix cracking, fiber/matrix interface debonding, fiber pull-out,
breakage and delamination are also identified by creating the true mapping. Luiz A.L.
Martins et al. [11] were carried out a numerical and experimental studies to investigate the
failure pressure of filament wound composite tubes for small diameter tubes approximately
100 mm with closed-end loading conditions and subjected to internal pressure. An adequate
pressurizing system was used to perform the hydrostatic tests in an experiment. They
implemented an alternative damage model using the user subroutine (UMAT) in ABAQUS
11
commercial software to perform the progressive failure analysis. In another work by the
same authors, L A L Martins et al. [30] studied the effect of hoop/axial stress ratio on
fracture morphology of filament wound composite pipes and performed a comparative
study between two boundary conditions of closed-end and restrained ends both
experimentally and numerically. The result suggested that the stress ratio of 2H: 1A is good
enough for commodity pipes under real operational conditions in service despite its
conservative nature.
Using stiffness and degradation rules, Rafiee [6] proposed an advanced modeling
procedure on the basis of progressive damage modeling for laminated composite pipes with
quartz sand core layer to obtain the apparent hoop tensile strength of GRP pipes. The
researcher has carried out an experimental study by developing sequential failure modeling
to compare with existed simple netting analysis which was used to predict longitudinal and
apparent hoop tensile strengths during the structural design procedure. The result proved
that using a developed advanced modeling procedure is efficient to predict the strengths of
pipes with a high level of accuracy.
Investigation of the functional failure of GRP pipes subjected to hydrostatic internal

pressure has been studied by Rafiee et al. [31]. The researchers have performed stochastic
modeling accounting for uncertainties in the discontinuous filament winding process.
Mahdavi et al. [32] investigated the failure analysis of (±55°)9 filament-wound GRE pipes
using the explicit finite element method. The progressive failure analysis was performed
on the rings cut from the pipe to determine its ultimate hoop strength. Based on the Hashin
failure criteria along with the sudden material property degradation modes and then
numerically obtained results of ultimate hoop strength is of good agreement with the
experimental method.
In another research by Rafiee [2] implemented apparent hoop tensile strength prediction of
glass fiber reinforced polyester pipes. The researcher developed sequential failure
modeling and conducted the experimental study under short-term hydraulic failure pressure
to predict apparent hoop tensile strength modeling integrating classical lamination theory
and progressive damage modeling. The result obtained showed that a good agreement was
observed between experimental measured apparent hoop tensile strength.
12
Rafiee and Amini [4] developed progressive damage modeling to predict internal pressure.
First ply failure and functional failure pressure were determined and compared with the
effect of fiber volume fractions. The result showed a very good agreement with theoretical
and experimental data by using the modified rule of mixture (MROM) and Chamis
formulations for transverse Young's modulus and in-plane shear modulus in combination
with Hashin failure criteria. Three-dimensional stresses along with fracture analysis of the
bonded composite pipe joints subjected to internal pressure and axial loading were carried
out using finite element method-based modeling and simulation by Das and Baishya [33].
Uniaxial fatigue behavior of filament wound glass/fiber epoxy tubes has been studied by
Kaynak and Mat [34]. They determined the fatigue lives (±55°)3 wound specimens for
stress levels of 60%, 70%, and 80% of the tensile strength and applied three different
frequencies at each stress level with constant amplitude sinusoidal loading and a stress ratio
of R = 0.1. Experimental investigation of fatigue failure behavior of glass/epoxy ±55
filament wound pipes under internal pressure has been done by Tarakçioǧlu et al. [35].
The tests were performed at different ultimate strength load levels from 30% to 70%. The
obtained fatigue results were presented on S-N curves for different failure stages of
whitening, leakage, and final failure.
Experimental fatigue analysis of filament wound GRE pipes with a winding angle of
(±55°)3 and a surface crack has been conducted by Tarakcioglu et al. [36]. The tests were
conducted in open-ended conditions in accordance with ASTM D2992. The obtained
fatigue life cycle curves and delamination damage zone area of the cycle have been
reported. Uyaner et al. [37] have been studied the fatigue behavior of filament E-
glass/epoxy composite tubes damaged by low-velocity impact. They have built a fatigue
life of damaged GRP specimens subjected to the impact loading. Both burst pressure and
fatigue lifetime of impacted specimens decreased while the impact energy increased have
reported. Recently, stochastic fatigue analysis of glass fiber reinforced polymer pipes was
investigated by Rafiee [38]. Based on stiffness degradation for monitoring damage
progress, the fatigue lifetime of composite pipe subjected to cyclic internal hydrostatic
pressure with variable amplitude has been implemented.
13
Various literature on laminated composite structures such as composite pipes have been
presented, the authors have studied and investigated different areas such as mechanical
behavior, performance characteristics, stress analysis, progressive damage analysis, failure
analysis, and fatigue behavior of filament wound composite pipes. They have been carried
out using the analytical method, numerical method, and experimental method and finite
element method.
Some of the previous literature were used the ply-discounting material degradation
approach to implement the failure analysis of laminated composite structures, though it
depicts difficulty to get an accurate evaluation of degradation factor which complicate the
implementation of numerical methods in macroscopic damage model. However, the other
most used material degradation approaches for the nonlinear behavior of laminated
composite structures due to damage accumulation is the continuum damage mechanics.
This approach has been proved to be an excellent tool in attaining the damage initiation
and accumulation information of laminated composite structures.
Therefore, in this study the progressive failure analysis of glass fiber reinforced (GRE)
composite pipes has been implemented by using continuum damage mechanics approach.
Because GRE composite pipe structures exhibit non-linear material behavior so
progressive failure analysis with continuum damage mechanics is a good approach to
experience the failure predictions. An alternative damage model is implemented using
UMAT subroutine in Abaqus (version 6.14-5) for non-linear finite element analysis.
14
CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND THEORETICAL
ANALYSIS
In this section, the mathematical formulations and theoretical analysis have been discussed.
The described general mathematical equations are part of finite element analysis. Symbols
are stated in the nomenclature section.
3.1. Elastic stress analysis
This section illustrates the elastic stress analysis of composite pipe subjected to internal
pressure in which the tube has been presented in the cylindrical coordinate system. The
filament wound E-glass/epoxy composite pipe under the cylindrical coordinate system is
shown in Figure 3-1. A cylindrical coordinate system is defined and denoted by r the radial,
θ the circumferential, and z the axial directions, respectively. The principal direction (1, 2,
3) of E-glass/epoxy composite laminates under the cylindrical coordinate (r, θ, z) is shown
in Figure 3-2 which is the representative volume element (RVE) taken from the Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 Schematic diagram of filament wound E-glass/epoxy composite pipe under
cylindrical coordinate system.
When composite pipes are subjected to axisymmetric loading, the stresses and strains are
𝜕
independent of θ (i.e., = 0). And also, the radial and axial displacements depend only
𝜕𝜃
on the radial and axial coordinate, respectively.
With the above assumption, the displacement field can be expressed as
15
𝑈𝑟 = 𝑈𝑟 (𝑟), 𝑈𝜃 = 𝑈𝜃 (𝑟, 𝑧), 𝑈𝑧 = 𝑈𝑧 (𝑧) (3-1)
where 𝑈𝑟 , 𝑈𝜃 and 𝑈𝑧 are radial, hoop and axial displacements, respectively.
Figure 3-2 Schematic diagram of the on-axis coordinate (1, 2, 3) and the off-axis
coordinate (𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧).
The equilibrium equation [14] for the kth layer in the absence of body forces under the
cylindrical coordinate is given by:
1 𝜕(𝑟𝜎𝑟 (𝑘) ) 𝜎𝜃 (𝑘)

− =0 (3-2)
𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑟
For anisotropic materials [25], the off-axis stress-strain relationships of the kth ( k = 1,
2,3,..., 1 + 𝑛𝑠 ) layer under the defined cylindrical coordinate system are expressed as
(𝑘)
𝜎𝑧 (𝑘) 𝐶11̅ 𝐶12 ̅ 𝐶13 ̅ 𝐶16 ̅ 𝜀𝑧 (𝑘)
𝜎𝜃 ̅
𝐶21 𝐶22 ̅ ̅
𝐶23 ̅
𝐶26 𝜀𝜃
[𝜎 ] = [𝜀 ] (3-3)
𝑟 𝐶13 ̅ ̅
𝐶23 𝐶33̅ 𝐶36̅ 𝑟
𝜏𝑧𝜃 [𝐶16 ̅ 𝐶26̅ 𝐶36 ̅ 𝐶66 ̅ ] 𝛾𝑧𝜃
̅ (𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, 6) are
where 𝑛𝑠 is the number of E- glass/fiber epoxy composite layers. 𝐶𝑖𝑗
the off-axis elastic constants of materials. The symbols 𝜎𝑧 , 𝜎𝜃 , 𝜎𝑟 and 𝜏𝑧𝜃 are the off-axis
16
axial, hoop, radial and shear stresses, respectively. The symbols 𝜀𝑧 , 𝜀𝜃 , 𝜀𝑟 and 𝛾𝑧𝜃 are the
corresponding off-axis axial, hoop, radial and shear strains, respectively.
In terms of small deformation, the strain-displacement are related as
(𝑘)
𝑑𝑢𝑟 (𝑘)
𝜀𝑟 =
𝑑𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (𝑘)
𝜀𝜃 (𝑘) =
𝑟
(3-4)
(𝑘)
𝑑𝑢𝑧
𝜀𝑧 (𝑘) = = 𝜀0
𝑑𝑧
𝑑𝑢𝜃 (𝑘)
𝛾𝑧𝜃 (𝑘) = = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑑𝑧
where 𝛾0 is the twist per unit length. 𝜀0 is the axial strains of all layers which is equal
constant value.
From Eqs. (3-1) – Eqs. (3-4), the radial displacement of the kth layer can be obtained.
(𝑘) (𝑘)
𝑢𝑟 (𝑘) = 𝐴(𝑘) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(𝑘) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (𝑘) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (𝑘) 𝛾0 𝑟 2 (3-5)
and
̅ (𝑘) /𝐶33
𝛽 (𝑘) = √𝐶22 ̅ (𝑘) (3-6)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
̅
𝐶12 ̅
− 𝐶13
𝛼1 (𝑘) = (𝑘) (𝑘)
(3-7)
̅
𝐶33 ̅
− 𝐶22
(𝑘)
̅
𝐶26 ̅ (𝑘)
− 2𝐶36
(𝑘) (3-8)
𝛼2 = (𝑘)
̅
4𝐶33 ̅ (𝑘)
− 𝐶22
where 𝐴(𝑘) and 𝐵 (𝑘) are unknown integration constants, and have to be determined from
the boundary conditions.
̅ (𝑘)
𝐶22 ̅ (𝑘)
𝐶22
For anisotropic materials, (𝑘) > 0 and ≠ 1 has been approved.
̅
𝐶33 ̅ (𝑘)
𝐶33
17
Eqs. (3-1) through Eqs. (3-5) show the radial, hoop and shear strains of each layer that
can be obtained, respectively.
3.2. Laminate code
A laminate is made from a group of single layers bonded to each other. Each layer can be
found as its location in the laminate, its material, and its angle of orientation. Each lamina
is represented by the angle of ply. In the case of present study, each composite tube has
lay-up configuration of eight number of plies and the notation of laminate code for angle
plies with [±45°]4 , [±55°]4 , [±60°]4 and [±75°]4 is shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Laminate code for angle plies [±45°]4 , [±55°]4 , [±60°]4 and [±75°]4 .
The radial displacement of the eight layers can be find as:

(1) (1)
𝑢𝑟 (1) = 𝐴(1) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(1) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (1) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (1) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(2) (2)
𝑢𝑟 (2) = 𝐴(2) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(2) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (2) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (2) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(3) (3)
𝑢𝑟 (3) = 𝐴(3) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(3) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (3) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (3) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(4) (4)
𝑢𝑟 (4) = 𝐴(4) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(4) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (4) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (4) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(5) (5) (3-9)
𝑢𝑟 (5) = 𝐴(5) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(5) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (5) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (5) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(6) (6)
𝑢𝑟 (6) = 𝐴(6) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(6) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (6) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (6) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(7) (7)
𝑢𝑟 (7) = 𝐴(7) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(7) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (7) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (7) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
(8) (8)
𝑢𝑟 (8) = 𝐴(8) 𝑟 𝛽 + 𝐵(8) 𝑟 −𝛽 + 𝛼1 (8) 𝜀0 𝑟 + 𝛼2 (8) 𝛾0 𝑟 2
The off-axis axial, hoop, radial and shear strains of the kth layer for each composite tube
can be obtained as:
18
𝑢𝑟 (1) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (1)
𝜀𝑧 (1) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (1) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (1) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (1) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (2) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (2)
𝜀𝑧 (2) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (2) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (2) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (2) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (3) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (3)
𝜀𝑧 (3) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (3) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (3) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (3) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (4) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (4)
𝜀𝑧 (4) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (4) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (4) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (4) = 𝛾0 𝑟
(3-10)
𝑢𝑟 (5) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (5)
𝜀𝑧 (5) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (5) = , 𝜀𝑟 (5) = , 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (5) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑟 𝑑𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (6) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (6)
𝜀𝑧 (6) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (6) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (6) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (6) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (7) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (7)
𝜀𝑧 (7) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (7) = 𝑟
, 𝜀𝑟 (7) = 𝑑𝑟
, 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (7) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑢𝑟 (8) 𝑑𝑢𝑟 (8)
𝜀𝑧 (8) = 𝜀0 , 𝜀𝜃 (8) = , 𝜀𝑟 (8) = , 𝛾𝑧𝜃 (8) = 𝛾0 𝑟
𝑟 𝑑𝑟
Each lay-up configurations of composite tube which is shown in Table 3-2 are identified
as being tube [±45°]4 is 3.09 mm thick; [±55°]4 is 2.75 mm thick; [±60°]4 is 2.54 mm
thick and [±75°]4 is 2.5 mm thick.
Table 3-2 Composite tube lay-up and average thickness [11].
For each composite pipe, [±45°]4 , [±55°]4 , [±60°]4 and [±75°]4 the angle lay-up
configuration is represented with the corresponding radius of each ply as shown in Table
3-3.
Table 3-3 The lamina radius of composite tube [11].
19
3.3. Geometry dimensions and mechanical properties of composite pipes
This section depicts the data of geometric dimensions and mechanical properties of
composite laminates used for composite tube is obtained according to literature [11]. The
geometrical dimensions that are used in the models built for simulation in Abaqus/CAE as
shown in Table 3-5. There are four tubes of [±45°]4 , [±55°]4 , [±60°]4 , and [±75°]4 and
each has eight lay-up configurations with different winding angles. Table 3-4 shows the
mechanical properties of E-glass/epoxy composite tubes that are used as an input to the
Abaqus/CAE program.
Table 3-4 Mechanical properties of the E-glass/epoxy composite pipes [11].
The mechanical properties of composite laminates are defined as follows; E1 and E2 are
modulus of elasticity along longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. G12 and G23
20
are shear modulus along longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. 𝑣12 and 𝑣23
are Poisson’s ratio along longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. XT and XC are
longitudinal tensile strength and longitudinal compressive strength, respectively. YT and YC
are transverse tensile strength and transverse compressive strength, respectively. S12 is
shear strength along both longitudinal and transverse direction.
The relations between mathematical and engineering constants shown in Table 3-4 can be
written as in the case of transverse isotropic material with the (2-3) plane as the plane of
isotropy as follow
E2 = E3
G12 = G13 (3-11)
𝑣12 = 𝑣13
From the symmetry of the compliance matrix [𝑄𝑖𝑗 ] in Eqs. (3-19) show
𝐸2
𝑣21 = ( ) ∗ 𝑣12
𝐸1
𝐸3
𝑣31 = ( ) ∗ 𝑣13 (3-12)
𝐸1
𝐸3
𝑣32 = ( ) ∗ 𝑣23
𝐸2
In general
𝑣𝑖𝑗 𝑣𝑗𝑖 𝑣𝑖𝑗 𝐸𝑖

= or = (𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3) (3-13)
𝐸𝑖 𝐸𝑗 𝑣𝑗𝑖 𝐸𝑗
Table 3-5 Geometry dimensions of composite pipes [11].
21
where ri and ro are inner and outer radii of tube, t is thickness of tube, t layer is thickness
per layer.
The winding angle of 55° is widely used in industry for the composite pipes production,
Netting analysis is a first attempt to optimize composite tubular structures [39].
3.4. Laminate properties of composite layers
Consider the E-glass/epoxy layer shows transverse isotropy with the same elastic properties
on the plane (2-3), the on-axis stiffness matrix 𝐶 (𝑘) of the kth layer with the undamaged
coefficients 𝐶𝑖𝑗 [40] is given by
(𝑘)
𝐶11 𝐶12 𝐶13 0 0 0
𝐶12 𝐶22 𝐶23 0 0 0
𝐶 𝐶23 𝐶33 0 0 0
𝐶 (𝑘) = 13 (3-14)
0 0 0 𝐶44 0 0
0 0 0 0 𝐶55 0
[ 0 0 0 0 0 𝐶66 ]
The stiffness coefficients 𝐶𝑖𝑗 in the matrix form is defined in terms of elastic constants as
E1 (1−𝑣 2 23 ) E2 (1−𝑣12 𝑣13 ) E3 (1−𝑣13 𝑣12 )

C11 = ∆
; C22 = ∆
; C33 = ∆
;
E2 (𝑣12 +𝑣12 𝑣13 ) E3 (𝑣13 +𝑣13 𝑣23 ) E3 (𝑣23 +𝑣13 𝑣12 )
C12 = ; C13 = ; C23 = ; (3-15)
∆ ∆ ∆
C44 = G23 ; C55 = G13 ; C66 = G12
where
∆= 1 − 2𝑣12 𝑣13 − 𝑣 2 23 − 2𝑣12 𝑣13 𝑣23 (3-16)
In another form, the on-axis stiffiness is also expressed in terms of on-axis compliance
matrix and is defined as
𝐶 (𝑘) = [𝑄 (𝑘) ]−1 (3-17)
22
(𝑘)
𝑄11 𝑄12 𝑄13 0 0 0
𝑄12 𝑄22 𝑄23 0 0 0
𝑄 𝑄23 𝑄33 0 0 0
𝑄 (𝑘) = 13 (3-18)
0 0 0 𝑄44 0 0
0 0 0 0 𝑄55 0
[ 0 0 0 0 0 𝑄66 ]
where the symbols 𝑄 and 𝐶 are the on-axis compliance and stiffness tensors, respectively.
The matrix component values are determined from the engineering constants, defined by
𝑄11 = 1/𝐸1
𝑄22 = 1/𝐸2
𝑄33 = 1/𝐸3
𝑄12 = −𝑣12 /𝐸1
𝑄13 = −𝑣13 /𝐸1 (3-19)
𝑄23 = −𝑣23 /𝐸2
𝑄44 = 1/𝐺23
𝑄55 = 1/𝐺13
𝑄66 = 1/𝐺12
The engineering constants; 𝑣 is the Poisson’s ratio, 𝐸 and 𝐺 are the elastic modulus and
shear modulus, respectively.
Based on the equivalent elastic properties along the plane (2-3);
𝐸2
𝐺23 = (3-20)
2(1 + 𝑣23 )
Thus;
𝑄12 = 𝑄13 , 𝑄22 = 𝑄33, 𝑄55 = 𝑄66 (3-21)
The stiffness transformation matrix from on-axis principal coordinate system to off-axis
cylindrical coordinate system, shown in Figure 3-2, are expressed as
𝐶̅ = [𝑇𝑆 (𝜃)][𝐶][𝑇𝑆 𝑇 (𝜃)] (3-22)
23
𝑚2 𝑛2 0 0 0 𝑚𝑛
2
𝑛 𝑚2 0 0 0 −𝑚𝑛
𝑇𝑒 (𝜃) = 0 0 1 0 0 0 (3-23)
0 0 0 𝑚 −𝑛 0
0 0 0 𝑛 𝑚 0
[ −2𝑚𝑛 2𝑚𝑛 0 0 0 𝑚2 − 𝑛2 ]
𝑇𝑆 (𝜃) = [(𝑇𝑒 (𝜃))−1 ]𝑇 (3-24)
where the superscript ‘𝑇’ in Eqs. (3-22) and Eqs. (3-24) denote the transpose matrix. The
expression 𝑚 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 and 𝑛 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 are defined.
The off-axis stiffness tensor, 𝐶̅ (𝑘) of the kth layer can be expressed as
(𝑘)
̅
𝐶11 𝐶12̅ 𝐶13 ̅ 0 0 0
𝐶12̅ ̅
𝐶22 ̅
𝐶23 0 0 0
̅ ̅ 𝐶33̅ 0 0 0
𝐶̅ (𝑘) = 𝐶13 𝐶23 (3-25)
0 0 0 ̅
𝐶44 0 0
0 0 0 0 ̅
𝐶55 0
[ 0 0 0 0 0 ̅ ]
𝐶66
Thus, the on-axis stress [41] is obtained by
𝜎 = (𝑇𝑠 (𝜃))−1 ∗ 𝜎̅ (3-26)
where the symbols 𝜎 and 𝜎̅are the on-axis and off-axis stress tensors, respectively.
The general governing equation of on-axis stress strain relation based on stiffness for
transverse isotropy material is written as
24
𝜎11 𝐶11 𝐶12 𝐶13 0 0 0 𝜀11
𝜎22 𝐶12 𝐶22 𝐶23 0 0 0 𝜀22
𝜎33 𝐶13 𝐶23 𝐶33 0 0 0 𝜀33
𝜎23 = 0 0 0 𝐶44 0 0 𝜀23
(3-27)
𝜎13 𝐶55 0 𝜀13
0 0 0 0
[𝜎12 ] [ 0 𝐶66 ] [𝜀12 ]
0 0 0 0
Note that the order of the stress and strain terms are the convention used by ABAQUS.
3.5. Failure criteria
The failure criteria are considered to be conditions for the prediction of the material damage
occurrence. The term failure criterion refers to as the mathematical equations that predict
the stress state and strain at the onset stage of damage. Mostly in conventional design, the
structure is advised safe to be designed when the maximum stress or strain is less than its
corresponding limit, known as stress-based failure criteria.
In this section, various failure theories have been proposed for composite laminates by
accounting for the anisotropy in stiffness and strength. In fact, the failure in composite
laminates will occur under increasing either mechanical or thermal loads. The laminate
failure, however, in the composite may not be catastrophic this is due to its non-linear
material behavior.
Two approaches are usually applied for laminate failure analysis [42]. The first one referred
to as “first ply failure”, shows that the whole laminate fails when a single layer does. This
approach does not consider alternative load paths for the other laminate layers and, usually,
provides very conservative results. And also, the first ply failure approach only needs a
failure criterion. While the second one, defined as “last ply failure” is more complex
because it considers that the laminate fails only when its last layer does. This approach
requires a failure criterion and a degradation law to be applied for the material elastic
properties. In this approach, the failed ply loads are redistributed to the other laminate plies.
Maximum stress/strain failure criteria, Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu failure criteria, Hashin-
Rotem theories and Puck theories are some of the failure criteria [43-50]. Among these
failure criteria, Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu cannot identify detailed failure modes.
In general, under stress-based criteria, there are three categories of failure theories in
composite laminate [49]. The first failure theory is non-interactive theories like maximum
25
stress and maximum strain failure criteria. In this failure criteria, there is no interaction
among different stress components on failure is considered and the specific failure modes
are predicted by comparing individual lamina stresses or strains with corresponding
strengths or ultimate strains. The second one is an interactive theory like Tsai-Hill and
Tsai-Wu failure criteria are considered. Under these failure theories, all stress components
are included in one expression. Overall failure is predicted without reference to particular
failure modes. The third failure theory is partially interactive theories such as Hashin-
Rotem theories and Puck theories: where separate criteria are given for fiber and inter-fiber
(matrix or interface) failures. Generally speaking, the failure prediction of the first type of
failure criteria is the poorest while the last type of failure criteria is the best. This indicates
that the interaction between stress components is important in delamination.
According to Tsai-Wu failure theory [48], is based on the first attempts to develop a
generalized failure theory for anisotropic materials that can predict failure under a general
stress state. The Tsai-Wu failure criterion identifies an element failure, but it cannot
identify the modes of failure.
It is assumed that the failure surface in stress space can be represented by a tensor
polynomial function in the following scalar form.
𝑓𝑖 𝜎𝑖 + 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝜎𝑖 𝜎𝑗 = 1; for 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1,2, … 6 (3-28)
where 𝑓𝑖 is second-order tensor and 𝑓𝑖𝑗 is fourth-order tensor, respectively, that represent
the biaxial and uniaxial strengths.
According to Hashin-Rotem theories [50,51] if a laminate that is symmetric with respect

to its middle plane is subjected to membrane forces and to no bending moments the
laminate is in a state of plane stress except at the edges where inter-laminar shear and
normal stresses occur. The most basic problem is, therefore, that of a uniaxial lamina in-
plane stress.
The form of the criterion has been suggested by two distinct experimentally observed
failure modes: the fiber failure mode in which fiber fail progressively and the matrix failure
mode in which a crack runs through the matrix, parallel to the fibers which can extend in
four sub failure criteria such as fiber tensile failure, fiber compressive failure, matrix tensile
26
failure, and matrix compressive failure. In most composites reinforced with strong and stiff
fibers, there is a clear distinction between fiber and inter-fiber (matrix, interface) failure
modes.
In the present study, the Hashin failure theory is used during the analysis of damage
initiation of composite laminates. For damage of fiber-reinforced composite Abaqus offers
only Hashin damage, this is because the Hashin failure criteria show the detailed failure
modes for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates [52].
3.6. Continuum Damage Mechanics
Various material degradation models have been proposed for composite laminate. These
models may be generally classified into two model groups. These are heuristic models
based on a ply-discounting material degradation approach and models based on continuum
damage mechanics [11].
In the ply-discount material degradation approach, one or more of the material properties
(or constitutive components) of a damage region are set equal to zero or reduced to a
fraction of the original values. Degradation factors are used to define a percentage of the
stiffness retained. Because degradation level depends among other factors on crack density
and lamination sequence, it is difficult to get an accurate evaluation of degradation factors
which complicates the implementation of numerical methods in macroscopic damage
modeling. However, continuum damage mechanics (CDM) is the most used approach to
the nonlinear behavior of laminates due to damage accumulation. It is used to model
damage of composite laminate by means of conducting stiffness degradation in order to
predict the failure behavior.
According to Jean Lemaitre 1992 [13], the damage is the creation and growth of micro
voids and micro-cracks (surface discontinuities). The degradation of material properties,
when loaded, can be simulated with internal variables to describe the damage process. This
process is accomplished by using the damage parameters in which in order to characterize
the extent/density of damage in the material. Damage of materials is the progressive
physical process by which they break. The effect of the damage on the performance of the
material is shown by its influence on the reduction of material properties.
27
In the case of the present study, for the damage model of E-glass/epoxy composite pipe,
the concept of continuum damage mechanics has been developed by introducing the
phenomenon of internal state variables (damage) associated with different damage modes
such as the fiber breakage, matrix cracking, and shear failure.
3.7. Progressive failure analysis
Progressive failure analysis is implemented based on continuum damage mechanics in

order to conduct the failure analysis of composite laminates (pipes). Progressive failure
analysis (PFA) is the framework in which the failure criteria and modeling approaches
were discussed.
Figure 3-3 The flowchart of progressive failure analysis for E-glass/epoxy composite
pipe.
The finite element method is performed on Abaqus (version 6.14-5) in order to implement
the progressive failure analysis of the E-glass/epoxy composite pipe. Figure 3-3 shows the
flowchart of progressive failure analysis for E-glass/epoxy composite pipe. The failure
28
information provides the possible setup to a new finite element configuration with
appropriate stiffness changes, and then the analysis can be continued and proceed to
identify the new failures until the structure will fail at last.
According to Figure 3-3, the solution algorithm from the flowchart can be explained as
follows. At first for each load, the finite element model is prepared on ABAQUS and the
on-axis stresses are obtained in each element, next based on the selected failure criterion
initial failure in each layer will calculate, in this case, the failure criteria are used based on
Hashin failure criterion and identify an appropriate failure criterion corresponding to the
damage initiation and also fracture energy-based damage evolution law are used to decide
whether some elements have failed.
If no failure is detected, the applied pressure is increased and the analysis continues. If
some elements fail, the stiffness constants are degraded according to the stiffness
degradation model based on the continuum damage mechanics (CDM) theory. At this time,
as the initial nonlinear solution no longer corresponds to an equilibrium state, the
equilibrium of the composite structure requires to be re-established using the modified
mechanical properties for the failed elements while maintaining the current load level. This
adjustment accounts for the material nonlinearity due to local stiffness degradation.
The calculations are performed repeatedly under the same internal pressure, P until there
is no further failed element anymore. This iterative process repeats to obtain nonlinear
equilibrium solutions after each load step until the appearance of a sudden catastrophic
failure, indicating the advent of strain-softening stage.
3.8. Damage initiation of composite laminates
Damage initiation refers to the onset of degradation at a material point. In ABAQUS the
damage initiation criteria for fiber-reinforced composites are based on Hashin failure
theory (Hashin, 1980). These criteria consider four different damage initiation mechanism.
These are fiber tension and fiber compression, respectively, and matrix tension and matrix
compression, respectively.
The capability of material damage initiation for fiber-reinforced composite materials

requires that the behavior of undamaged materials is linearly elastic. It can be used in
29
combination with the damage evolution law [52]. The initiation criteria have the following
general forms:
Fiber tension (𝜎11 ≥ 0):
𝜎11 2 𝜎12 2
𝐹𝑓𝑡 = ( ) + 𝛼 ( ) (3-29)
𝑋𝑇 𝑆12
Fiber compression (𝜎11 < 0):
𝜎11 2
𝐹𝑓𝑐 = ( ) (3-30)
𝑋𝐶
Matrix tension (𝜎22 ≥ 0):
𝜎22 2 𝜎12 2
𝐹𝑚𝑡 = ( ) + ( ) (3-31)
𝑌𝑇 𝑆12
Matrix compression (𝜎22 < 0):
𝜎22 2 𝑌𝐶 2 𝜎22 𝜎12 2

𝐹𝑚𝑐 = ( ) + {( ) − 1} +( ) (3-32)
2𝑆12 2𝑆12 𝑌𝐶 𝑆12
where
Fft denotes the fiber tensile failure;
Ftc denotes the fiber compressive failure;

t
Fm denotes the matrix tensile failure;
c
Fm denotes the matrix compressive failure
XT denotes the longitudinal tensile strength;
XC denotes the longitudinal compressive strength;
YT denotes the transverse tensile strength;
YC denotes the transverse compressive strength;
S12 denotes both the longitudinal and transverse shear strength;
30
α is a coefficient that determines the contribution of the shear stress
to the fiber tensile criterion; and
σ11 , σ22 , σ12 are components of on-axis (effective) stress, σij , that is used to
evaluate the initiation criteria and which is computed from
𝜎 = 𝑀𝜎̅ (3-33)
where 𝜎̅ is the true (global) stress and 𝑀 is the damage operator, which has the diagonal
form
1
0 0
(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )
1
𝑀= 0 0 (3-34)
(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )
1
0 0
[ (1 − 𝑑𝑠 )]
where 𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑚 , 𝑑𝑠 are internal (damage) variables that characterize fiber, matrix, and shear
damage, which are derived from damage variables 𝑑𝑓𝑡 , 𝑑𝑓𝑐 , 𝑑𝑚𝑡 and 𝑑𝑚𝑐 , corresponding
to the four modes previously discussed, as follows:
𝑑𝑓𝑡 𝑖𝑓 𝜎11 ≥ 0 ,
𝑑𝑓 = {
𝑑𝑓𝑐 𝑖𝑓 𝜎11 < 0 ,
𝑑 𝑖𝑓 𝜎22 ≥ 0 , (3-35)
𝑑𝑚 = { 𝑚𝑡
𝑑𝑚𝑐 𝑖𝑓 𝜎22 < 0 ,
𝑑𝑠 = 1 − (1 − 𝑑𝑓𝑡 )(1 − 𝑑𝑓𝑐 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚𝑡 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚𝑐 ) ∗ 𝑣12 𝑣21
and the corresponding stiffness matrix is obtained from
(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶11 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶12 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶13 𝐶16

(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶21 (1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶22 𝐶23 𝐶26
𝐶𝑑 = (3-36)
(1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶13 𝐶23 𝐶33 𝐶36
[ 𝐶16 𝐶26 𝐶36 (1 − 𝑑𝑠 )𝑑𝑠 𝐶66 ]
where 𝑑𝑠 = (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝑣12 𝑣21 , 𝑑𝑓 reflects the current state of fiber damage, 𝑑𝑚
reflects the current state of matrix damage, 𝑑𝑠 reflects the current state of shear damage,
and 𝑣12 and 𝑣21 are Poisson’s ratios.
31
To obtain the model proposed in Hashin and Rotem (1973), 𝛼 is set to be zero and 𝑆12 =
𝑌𝐶 /2 or the model proposed Hashin (1980) by setting 𝛼 is one. In the case of present study,
𝛼 is set to be one. The damage initiation criteria are satisfied when the degradation of
material stiffness is controlled by damage variables that have values lie between 0
(undamaged state) and 1 (fully damaged state) for the mode corresponding to this damage
variable.
3.9. Damage evolution of composite laminates
In this section the post-damage initiation behavior for cases of composite laminate in which
a damage evolution model has been modified. Prior to damage initiation the material is
linearly elastic, with the stiffness matrix of a plane stress orthotropic material. The response
of the material is computed from
𝜎 = 𝐶𝑑 𝜀 (3-37)
where 𝜀 is the strain, 𝐶𝑑 is the damaged elasticity matrix
The corresponding damage constitutive relationship for 3D composite laminates [27] is

obtained from
(𝑘)
𝜎1 (𝑘) (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶11 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶12 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶13 𝐶16 𝜀1 (𝑘)
𝜎2 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶21 (1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝐶22 𝐶23 𝐶26 𝜀2
[𝜎 ] = [𝜀 ] (3-38)
3 (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )𝐶13 𝐶23 𝐶33 𝐶36 3
𝜎6 [ 𝐶16 𝐶26 𝐶36 (1 − 𝑑𝑠 )𝑑𝑠 𝐶66 ] 𝜀6
where 𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑚 and 𝑑𝑠 are damage variables within 0 and 1, representing the fiber breakage,
matrix cracking and shear failure respectively according to the concept of CDM. The
equations for those damage variables 𝑑𝑓 , 𝑑𝑚 and 𝑑𝑠 are derived from variables 𝑑𝑓𝑡 , 𝑑𝑓𝑐 ,
𝑑𝑚𝑡 and 𝑑𝑚𝑐 corresponding to the four failure modes as previously discussed.
𝑑𝑓 = 1 − (1 − 𝑑𝑓𝑡 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑑𝑓𝑐 ) (3-39)
𝑑𝑚 = 1 − (1 − 𝑑𝑚𝑡 ) ∗ (1 − 𝑑𝑚𝑐 ) (3-40)
𝑑𝑠 = 1 − (1 − 𝑑𝑓 )(1 − 𝑑𝑚 )𝑣12 𝑣21 (3-41)
32
The evolution law is based on the energy that is dissipated as a result of damage process,
also called the fracture energy. ABAQUS offers a built-in progressive damage model
enabling user the onset of damage and to model damage evolution for elastic-brittle
materials with anisotropic materials behavior. The model is primarily intended to be used
with fiber-reinforced composite materials [52].
To alleviate the mesh dependency during material softening, ABAQUS introduces a

characteristic length into the formulation, so that the constitutive law is expressed as a
stress-displacement relation [52]. The damage variable will evolve such that the stress-
displacement behaves as shown in Figure 3-4 in each of the four failure modes. The positive
slope of the stress-displacement curve prior to damage initiation corresponding to linear
elastic material behavior; the negative slope after damage initiation is achieved by
evolution of the respective damage variables according to the equation shown below.
Figure 3-4 Linear damage evolution diagram of equivalent stress versus equivalent
displacement.
The equivalent displacement and stress for each of the four damage modes are defined as
follows:
Fiber tension (𝜎11 ≥ 0):
𝑓𝑡
𝛿𝑒𝑞 = 𝐿𝑐 √〈𝜀11 〉2 + 𝛼𝜀 212 , (3-42)
33
𝑓𝑡 𝐿𝑐 (〈𝜎11 〉〈𝜀11 〉 + 𝛼𝜎12 𝜀12 )
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝑓𝑡
,
𝛿𝑒𝑞
Fiber compression (𝜎11 < 0):
𝑓𝑐
𝛿𝑒𝑞 = 𝐿𝑐 〈−𝜀11 〉 ,
𝐿𝑐 〈−𝜎11 〉〈−𝜀11 〉 (3-43)

𝑓𝑐
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝑓𝑐
,
𝛿𝑒𝑞
Matrix tension (𝜎22 ≥ 0):
𝑚𝑡
𝛿𝑒𝑞 = 𝐿𝑐 √〈𝜀22 〉2 + 𝜀12 2 ,
𝐿𝑐 (〈𝜎22 〉〈𝜀22 〉 + 𝜎12 𝜀12 ) (3-44)

𝑚𝑡
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝑚𝑡 ,
𝛿𝑒𝑞
Matrix compression (𝜎22 < 0):
𝑚𝑐
𝛿𝑒𝑞 = 𝐿𝑐 √〈−𝜀22 〉2 + 𝜀12 2 ,
(3-45)
𝑚𝑐
𝐿𝑐 (〈−𝜎22 〉〈−𝜀22 〉 + 𝜎12 𝜀12 )
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 𝑚𝑐 ,
𝛿𝑒𝑞
where 𝐿𝑐 is a characteristic length of the element that is based on the element geometry
and formulation: it is a typical length of a line across an element for a first-order element;
it is half of the same typical length for a second-order element. For membranes and shells,
it is a characteristic length in the reference surface, computed as the square root of the area.
The equivalent displacement for a failure mode is expressed in terms of the components
corresponding to the effective stress components used in the initiation criterion for this
0
failure mode. After damage initiation (i.e., 𝛿𝑒𝑞 ≥ 𝛿𝑒𝑞 ) for the behavior shown in Figure
3-4, the damage variable for each failure mode 𝑝 is given by the following relation:
𝑓 0
𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 (𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 − 𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 )
𝑑𝑝 = 𝑓
; 𝑝 ∈ {𝑓𝑡, 𝑓𝑐, 𝑚𝑡, 𝑚𝑐};
0
𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 (𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 − 𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 ) (3-46)
𝑑𝑝 ∈ [0,1]
34
0
where 𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 is the initial equivalent displacement at which the initiation criterion is
𝑓
satisfied, and 𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent displacement at which the material is completely
damaged in this failure mode (i.e., 𝑑𝑝 = 1). It can be seen that if the damage variable is
computed from Eqs. (3-46), the softening response of the material is linear for uniaxial
𝑓
deformations by using Eqs. (3-36). The 𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 in Eqs. (3-46) is computed from the
following relation:
𝑓 2𝐺 𝑐
𝛿𝑝,𝑒𝑞 = 0 (3-47)
𝜎𝑝,𝑒𝑞
where 𝐺 𝑐 is the energy dissipated due to failure for each failure mode and which is
0
corresponding to the area of the triangle OAC shown in Figure 3-4. 𝜎𝑝,𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent
0
stress at which an initiation for that mode is met. However, the value of 𝛿𝑒𝑞 for the various
modes depend on the elastic stiffness and the strength parameters specified as part of the
damage initiation.
Alternatively, according to Ibitoye [53] the damage evolution law can be expressed in other
form. Once damage initiation using Hashin failure criterion is set the propagation has to be
controlled by damage evolution model.
Fiber tension (𝐹𝑓𝑡 > 0):
𝜀 𝑡 11 (𝐹𝑓𝑡 −𝜀𝑡 11 )
1 (−𝐶11 ∗
𝐺 𝑐 𝑓𝑡
)
(3-48)
𝑑𝑓𝑡 = 1 − ( 𝑡) ∗ 𝑒
𝐹𝑓
Fiber compression (𝐹𝑓𝑐 > 0):
𝜀 𝑐 11 (𝐹𝑓𝑐 −𝜀 𝑐 11 )
1 (−𝐶11 ∗
𝐺 𝑐 𝑓𝑐
)
(3-49)
𝑑𝑓𝑐 = 1 − ( 𝑐) ∗ 𝑒
𝐹𝑓
35
Matrix tension (𝐹𝑚𝑡 > 0):
𝜀 𝑡 𝑡 𝑡
1 22 (𝐹𝑚 −𝜀 22 )
(−𝐶 ∗ )
𝑑𝑚𝑡 = 1 − ( 𝑡 ) ∗ 𝑒 22 𝐺 𝑐 𝑚𝑡 (3-50)
𝐹𝑚
Matrix compression (𝐹𝑚𝑐 > 0):
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
1 (−𝐶22 ∗
𝜀 22 (𝐹𝑚 −𝜀 22 ))
𝑑𝑚𝑐 = 1 − ( 𝑐) ∗ 𝑒 𝐺 𝑐 𝑚𝑐 (3-51)
𝐹𝑚
where the strain limits for Hashin form is written as follow:
𝜀 𝑡 11 = X T /𝐶11
𝜀 𝑐 11 = X 𝐶 /𝐶11
𝜀 𝑡 22 = 𝑌T /𝐶22 (3-52)
𝜀 𝑐 22 = Y𝐶 /𝐶22
𝜀 𝑠 12 = S12 /𝐶66
In this analysis, the fracture energies of fiber and matrix is 𝐺𝑓 = 12.5 N/mm and 𝐺𝑚 =
10 N/mm is used for E-glass/epoxy composite pipe [54].
In addition, material models exhibiting softening behavior and stiffness degradation often
lead to severe convergence difficulties. Overcome some of these convergence difficulties
by using the viscous regularization scheme, which causes the tangent stiffness matrix of
the softening material to be positive for sufficiency small time increments.
In the regularization scheme a viscous damage variable is defined by the following

evolution equation [55].
1
𝑑𝑝𝑣̇ = (𝑑 − 𝑑𝑝𝑣 ) (3-53)
𝜂𝑝 𝑝
In this equation, the superscript 𝑣 denotes viscous regularized variable, 𝑝 shows each
damage mode, 𝜂 denotes a viscosity coefficient representing relaxation time of the viscous
system and 𝑑 is the damage variable.
36
Viscous regularization can be used as an optional solution for alleviating convergence
problem. The damage model with viscous regularization causes the tangent stiffness to be
positive for sufficiently small increment time during softening part of the constitutive law.
However, it is only active in the case of softening in damage and is done by means of the
rate equation. A viscosity parameter 𝜂 controls the rate at which the regularized damage
variables approach the true damage variables.
The partial derivative term for tangent stiffness in the Eqs. (3-56) can be calculated easily.
However, Eqs. (3-53) only shows the viscous regularized regime. The equation is
modified to a computational form according to Eqs. (3-54). The computational form of
the viscous regularized damage variable at time 𝑡𝑜 + ∆𝑡, has a relation as follows
∆𝑡 𝜂𝑝
𝑑𝑝𝑣 ⎹𝑡𝑜 +∆𝑡 = 𝑑𝑝 ⎹𝑡𝑜 +∆𝑡 + 𝑑𝑣 ⎹ (3-54)
𝜂𝑝 + ∆𝑡 𝜂𝑝 + ∆𝑡 𝑝 𝑡𝑜
where 𝑑𝑝 and 𝑑𝑝𝑣 are the damage variables concerning damage mode 𝑝 in the non-viscous
and the viscous regularization, respectively. The parameter 𝜂𝑝 indicate the viscosity
coefficients associated with the damage mode 𝑝.
Consequently, the partial derivative of the viscous damage variable with respect to the
damage variable can be calculated by Eqs. (3-55).
𝜕𝑑𝑝𝑣 ∆𝑡
= (3-55)
𝜕𝑑𝑝 𝜂𝑝 + ∆𝑡
Analytical derivation of the tangent stiffness or Jacobian matrix can be further formulated
as follows
𝜕∆𝜎 𝜕𝐶(𝑑𝑝𝑣 ) 𝜕𝑑𝑝𝑣 𝜕𝑑𝑝

= 𝐶𝑑 (𝑑𝑝 ) + 𝜀: ∑ (3-56)
𝜕∆𝜀 𝜕𝑑𝑝𝑣 𝜕𝑑𝑝 𝜕𝜀
𝑝
The tangent stiffness consists of damaged constitutive tensor and viscous damage
variables.
The updated damaged response of the viscous material is given as
37
𝜎 = 𝐶𝑑 𝜀 (3-57)
where the damaged elasticity matrix, 𝐶𝑑 , is computed from viscous values of damage
variables for each failure mode. Viscous regularization slows down the rate of increase of
damage and leads to increased fracture energy with increasing deformation rates, which
can be exploited as an effective method of modeling rate-dependent material behavior.
Using viscous regularization with a small value of the viscosity parameter (small compared
to the characteristic time increment) usually helps improve the convergence rate of the
model in the softening regime.
Care should be taken and choosing an appropriate value of viscosity coefficient since a
large value of viscosity may lead to a noticeable delay in the degradation of the stiffness.
In this study viscosity value of 0.005 is used. Low viscosity values improve a reduction in
the material strength, inducing its sudden failure. The test with the gradual increase of
viscosity is necessary till reach a satisfactory value.
CHAPTER 4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN ABAQUS
4.1. Finite Element Analysis Method Description
In this research, the simulation is undertaken in the framework of the ABAQUS workbench
commercial FEM package. The finite element solver Abaqus (version 6.14-5) is used to
perform the modeling simulation and failure analysis. Since the Finite Element Method
(FEM) is a primary tool for such a constitutive damage model, the progressive damage
38
modeling and failure analysis can be done extensively on this software, Abaqus/CAE
Standard.
Abaqus/CAE, or “Complete Abaqus environment” is an engineering tool that is used to

solve various engineering problems ranging from linear to non-linear engineering problems
that are complex. Abaqus/CAE allows user to define the composite layups for three-
element types such as conventional shells, continuum shells, and solids. It is used for both
damage modeling and failure analysis of composite pipe and assemblies (pre-processing)
and visualizing the finite element analysis results.
Abaqus/CAE Standard is selected in this thesis, as it offers a significant degree of user

subroutine UMAT within available material models. UMAT is a user material subroutine
(FORTRAN code) that is to defines the constitutive material behavior and which is
achieved by linking the three software together; FORTRAN compiler linking in ABAQUS
in order to implement user subroutines in Abaqus (version 6.14-5).
These compilations have been performed by combining the following software (Microsoft
Community Visual Studio 2012 + Intel Parallel Studio XE 2015 + Abaqus version 6.14-
5). Figure 4-1 shows the linking of ABAQUS with FORTRAN. The compilations may
work with other versions but it needs checking of Intel Parallel Studio that can be integrated
to Microsoft Community Visual Studio and Intel Parallel Studio in which it does not
override MS MPI version coming with Abaqus installation. The linking procedure of
ABAQUS with compiler is shown in detail in Appendix Section A4. Create linking Abaqus
with compiler in Windows.
Figure 4-1 Schematic diagram of linking ABAQUS to FORTRAN.
39
4.2. Finite Element Model
The filament wound E-glass/epoxy composite pipes with the specified model geometry are
used for numerical studying. A finite element model is developed by using Abaqus (version
6.14-5) commercial software workbench to simulate with winding angles. The finite
element model for E-glass/epoxy composite pipe is shown in Figure 4-2, in which a (𝑥, 𝑦,
𝑧) local coordinate system is established. The model is created with three dimensional,
deformable type solid model extrusion base feature. The geometry dimensions of
composite pipes are listed in Table 3-5.
The tube has lay-up configurations of [±55°]4 and it has composed of eight number of
layers. The corresponding tube length is 700 mm. The mechanical properties for E-
glass/epoxy composite pipes with respect to geometry coordinate are listed in Table 3-4.
Which is provided as input into the ABAQUS program.
Figure 4-2 Finite element model for composite pipe with lay-up configurations of
[±55°]4 .
4.3. Defining Composite Lay-up In ABAQUS
The composite layup module in ABAQUS is used to assign the fiber orientation, thickness,
and material properties of each composite layer. Abaqus offers a GUI that is used to define
the properties of a layered composite structure. The composite layup editor provides a table
in which the user can define the plies in the layup [52]. This ply table provides various
options that users can easily create a layered composite containing many plies. These
options include the ability to move or copy selected plies up or down in the table, suppress
or delete plies, create patterns within a group of selected plies, and read ply data from or
write data to an ASCII file.
40
In the present study for E-glass/epoxy composite pipe, the composite ply layup is created
to assign the individual layer thickness, region assignments, and fiber angle orientation.
Table 4-1 shows the composite ply layup of E-glass/epoxy composite pipe [±55°]4 . In this
table, eight plies are defined corresponding to the ply layup configurations that represent
E-glass/epoxy composite pipe. The first ply; ply-1 is considered as an upper layer and the
last ply; ply-8 is taken as a lower layer of the composite pipe.
Table 4-1 Composite ply layup of E-glass/epoxy composite pipe [±55°]4 .
The ply stack plot for composite pipe [±55°]4 is shown Figure 4-3. The E-glass/epoxy
composites are considered to be transversely isotropic and linear-elastic. The material
name, thickness, the number of integration points through each layer, and orientation
associated with each layer are specified as part of composite layup section definition. The
Simpson thickness integration rule and 3 integration points are used in this study.
41
Figure 4-3 The ply stack plot for composite pipe [±55°]4 .
4.4. Boundary conditions
During the simulation, the boundary condition (BC) and load applied must be defined,
activated, and integrated. In ABAQUS, the term load is generally referred to as anything
that makes a change in the response of a structure from its initial state. Considering the
geometry of the structure and loading conditions to apply the boundary conditions and
assumed that no slips in the interface.
In this simulation, the models built for simulation is used under closed-end condition. For
closed-end condition, the displacement (U1=U2=0), is considered as zero. Where U1, U2,
U3 denote the displacements along the local coordinate system and UR1, UR2, UR3,
denote the corresponding rotations along the local coordinate system. The BC will be
applied along X-, Y-, and Z- symmetry, respectively. The typical boundary conditions used
in the analyses of the composite pipes are illustrated in Figure 4-4.
The load is applied to the composite pipe is internal pressure, P which is concentrated into
the inner surface, Surf-1. The E-glass/epoxy composite pipes are formed with an eight-
node quadrilateral in-plane general-purpose continuum shell type (SC8R) that is suitable
for nonlinear geometric analysis. The active degrees of freedom for this element type are
42
three displacement components at each node. Enhanced hourglass control available for
SC8R elements was used.
Figure 4-4 Typical boundary condition.
4.5. Numerical implementation using UMAT subroutine
A user-defined material model (UMAT) is implemented to use in finite element solver

commercial software Abaqus/CAE Standard. The user-subroutine UMAT has been written
in FORTRAN code. A flowchart of the UMAT subroutine is shown in Figure 4-5. The
UMAT subroutine contains a description of the respective stiffness matrix, failure initiation
criteria, damage evolution and stiffness degradation, and tangent stiffness.
Nine state variables are defined in the UMAT: Four values for failure criterion calculation;
fiber tensile failure initiation, fiber compressive failure initiation, matrix tensile failure
initiation, and matrix compressive failure initiation and five state variables of viscous
damage variables; fiber tensile viscous damage variable, fiber compressive viscous damage
variable, matrix tensile viscous damage variable, matrix compressive viscous damage
variable, and shear viscous damage variable. Table 4-2 shows the state variables of viscous
damage variables.
43
Once damage initiation using the Hashin failure criterion is set the propagation has to be
controlled by the damage evolution model.
The damage variables are applied in the UMAT subroutine is to find the damage
propagation level at any particular instant during analysis. The damage state variables are
work as follows: before damage initiation the damage state variables are all effectively
zero. Then the damage starts and they increase steadily or exponentially until they get to
one. The damage state variable depends on the fracture energy. i.e., (fiber and matrix), the
ultimate limit of strain, Hashin initiation values, and ultimate strength of materials.
Table 4-2 State variables related to viscous damage variables.
The defined stiffness matrix is used to find the stresses for each element at the integration
points, which intern is used to checking for failure initiation.
The first part of the UMAT subroutine is failure initiation criteria. Once a failure criterion
is satisfied, the damage variables are calculated and the material stiffness is degraded. State
variables are used to store information about the failure and damaged state of the material.
In the end, UMAT requires the tangent stiffness and stress which are updated to obtain the
progressive damage propagation.
44
Figure 4-5 Flowchart of UMAT for Abaqus Standard.
45
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Numerical Simulation Results
This section describes the finite element analysis results of composite pipes. The glass-
fiber reinforced (GRE) composite pipes are formed with an eight-node quadrilateral in-
plane general-purpose continuum shell type (SC8R) that is suitable for nonlinear geometric
analysis. The active degrees of freedom for this element type are three displacement
components at each node. Enhanced hourglass control available for SC8R elements was
used.
Figure 5-1 shows the stress-strain curve of the viscous damage variable for the composite
pipe [±55°]4 . It depicts the failure evolution of fiber tensile damage failure, DAMAGEFT.
The failure information is recorded from the stress-strain curve. The failure initiates
represented in Figure 5-2 (A). Under failure is shown in Figure 5-2 (B) and ultimate failure
in Figure 5-3 (C).
DAMAGEFT value of 0.04163 indicates that the failure is initiated. The ultimate failure
value for DAMAGEFT is 1.
Figure 5-1 Stress- strain curve of viscous damage variable for composite pipe [±55°]4 .
46
(A) and (B).
47
From the stress- strain curve of viscous damage variable the typical point (B) shows that
the failure distribution is continuous. The result obtained for damage variable of fiber
tensile is one and it can be said that the material may not sustain its functionality from this
region. Ultimate failure as shown in Figure 5-3 (C) indicate the complete damage of
composite pipe.
(C).
The matrix tension and compression damage variables, DAMAGEMT and DAMAGEMC
respectively at time t = 0.4955 were shown in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5. From the
simulation results the obtained value of DAMAGEMT is 0.9327 and the value of
DAMAGEMC is 0.9912, respectively.
48
Figure 5-4 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.4955.
Figure 5-5 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.4955.
49
Figure 5-6 Maximum value of matrix tension damage variable (A) FE Model.
Figure 5-6 shows the maximum value of the matrix tension damage variable
DAMAGEMT. The result was obtained from numerical simulation of a built-in damage
model in ABAQUS. The maximum value of DAMAGEMT is 0.9327. The maximum
value curve of matrix tension damage variable DAMAGEMT w.r.t time is represented in
Figure 5-7. The graph indicates that the matrix tension damage variable DAMAGEMT
reaches the maximum at element number of 12982 and node of 22381 with a time of
0.4955.
50
Figure 5-7 Maximum value curve of matrix tension damage variable (B) DAMAGEMT
vs Time.
A mesh convergence study is conducted in order to build an accurate finite element model
in ABAQUS that is the most cost-effective in terms of computer space and time. The point
of doing mesh convergence study is that by varying the size and the number of mesh
elements increase in the model to predict the more accurate results. When the number of
mesh elements increases, the failure pressure may also increase. However, the
computational time will increase and the results may also unpredicted. Adding mesh
elements will not increase the accuracy of results so that the appropriate number of mesh
elements prior to give good results must be used and reduces computational time.
Table 5-1 Predicted failure pressure of mesh models for composite pipe [±55°]4 .
51
Figure 5-8 Three mesh models of composite pipe [±55°]4 .
In this study, a convergence analysis is performed on the FE model built for composite
pipe with meshes of different densities. Different meshes are used, varying the size and
number of elements. The last three consecutive mesh models of the composite pipe
[±55°]4 is shown in Figure 5-8. Table 5-1 shows six different mesh models with its failure
pressure of composite pipe [±55°]4 . As can be seen, as the refinement of the mesh
increases, so does the predicted failure pressure. The graphical representation of the
predicted failure pressure for mesh models of composite pipe is shown in Figure 5-9. From
the result obtained, the predicted maximum failure pressure is 13.38 MPa. Comparing the
meshes and their respective failure pressure, it is shown that the FE mesh models from
mesh model- 4 on are very similar results and no significant variation occurred between
52
them. Thus, mesh model- 4 is used as a starting point for developing the damage model of
composite pipe for the sake of verification of the UMAT subroutine.
Figure 5-9 The failure pressure of composite pipe [±55°]4.
5.2. Verification of UMAT Subroutine
User subroutine UMAT implemented in ABAQUS was presented in the previous section.
GRE composite pipe [±55°]4 FE model was used for the sake of verification. List of
twenty mechanical material properties is shown in Figure A-3 and nine of SDVs in Figure
A-2 were used in material section in ABAQUS. An 8- node quadrilateral in- plane general
purpose continuum shell type (SC8R), reduced integration with hourglassing control was
used in UMAT. Simpson thickness integration rule and three integration points were used.
The closed-end boundary condition was applied.
The fiber tension and fiber compression damage variable, DAMAGEFT and DAMAGEFC
were not shown in this section. UMAT was calculated at the integration point.
53
Figure 5-10 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.4955 (A) and (B).
54
Figure 5-11 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.4955 (A) and (B).
The state variables SDV7 and SDV8 that represent matrix tension and matrix compression
damage variables, respectively at time t = 0.4955 were shown in Figure 5-10 and Figure
5-11. The progressive failure analysis results of UMAT subroutine have similar results
55
with numerical simulations of built-in material damage model. From the simulation results
of damage model, the matrix tensile damage DAMAGEMT has value of 0.9327 which
approaches with UMAT result of matrix tensile damage variable SDV7 value of 0.9998.
Another simulation result of matrix compressive damage DAMAGEMC has value of
0.9912 which is almost similar with UMAT result of matrix compressive damage variable
SDV8 value of 0.9998.
Table 5-2 Predicted and Experimental failure pressure for composite pipe.
Table 5-2 shows the predicted failure pressure and experimental result for composite pipe.
Comparing the numerical simulation result of FEA for composite pipe [±55°]4 with the
experimental finding. It can be seen that good agreement is achieved between them.
Figure 5-12 Matrix tension damage contour at time t = 0.5.
56
Figure 5-13 Matrix compression damage contour at time t = 0.5.
The upper limit of damage variable has a value of 1. Figure 5-12 shows the matrix tension
damage (SDV7) contour at time t = 0.5. The result is obtained from the damage model of
UMAT. The SDV7 has value of one. The matrix compression damage (SDV8) contour is
shown in Figure 5-13. The SDV8 has also a value of one. From the progressive failure of
damage model in UMAT results, it can be said that the composite pipe is under complete
damaged state.
57
5.3. Discussions
As discussed earlier the damage initiation criteria are satisfied when the degradation of
material stiffness which is controlled by damage variables values lie between 0 and 1. The
damage variable is zero when there is undamaged state and one is when it is complete
damaged state of material stiffness.
In the study, the result of damage variables are obtained from the two portions. One is the
numerical simulation of built-in material damage model and the other is from the result of
UMAT subroutine. The damage variables result of built-in material damage model are
represented three failure modes such as fiber tensile damage variable DAMAGEFT, matrix
tensile damage variable DAMAGEMT and matrix compression damage variable
DAMAGEMC. The damage variables (state variables) result of UMAT subroutine are
show two failure modes such as matrix tension damage variable SDV7 and matrix
compression damage variable SDV8.
In order to explore the convergence analysis, six different finite element mesh models for
composite pipe [±55°] 4 are established by varying the sizes and number of elements. As
can be seen from Figure 5-9, the mesh model-4 is selected for the sake of verification to
develop the damage model of composite pipe. The predicted maximum failure pressure is
13.38 MPa.
The failure modes such as fiber tension damage variable, DAMAGEFT and matrix tension
damage variable, DAMAGEMT and matrix compression damage variable, DAMAGEMC
are described. The matrix tension damage variable, DAMAGEMT has value of 0.9327 and
the matrix compression damage variable, DAMAGEMC has value of 0.9912 which are
approaching one. On the other hand, the state variables SDV7 and SDV8 of matrix tension
and matrix compression damage variables are also discussed. SDV7 and SDV8 have value
of 0.9998 and which are also approaching one. It has been seen that the numerical
simulation results of built-in damage model and UMAT subroutine state variables results
are approaching one.
The stress-strain curve of the viscous damage variable which shows the damage and failure
evolution properties for composite pipe under internal pressure is discussed. The three
failure evolution such as the failure initiation, under failure, and ultimate failure are
58
represented on the stress-strain curve of viscous damage variable as shown in Figure 5-1.
The failure information of numerical simulation result for fiber tensile viscous damage
variable DAMAGEFT for each failure evolution are recorded. DAMAGEFT value for
failure initiate is 0.04163, DAMAGEFT value for under failure and ultimate failure are 1.
The DAMAGEFT value for failure initiate is obtained when the damage initiation of
composite laminates satisfy the Hashin failure criteria.
From the stress-strain curve, point (A) shows the composite layers start to fail or failure
initiate, and the failed elements increased with increasing pressure. The failure of
composite layers leads to the stress distributions and severe stress concentration on
neighboring composite elements or plies. After the composite elements fail, stiffness
degradation is carried out and continuous failure may appear. At typical point (B), the
under failure of the composite elements has occurred. After this region several composite
elements start to ultimately fail and show that the weakest ability to resist deformation,
indicating the appearance of complete damage of the composite structure. At point (C), the
ultimate failure is occurred and this region shows the complete damage of composite pipe.
Therefore, the progressive failure analysis of the damage model with the continuum
damage mechanics approach has shown good failure prediction.
59
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Conclusion
This thesis mainly focuses on damage model and failure analysis of composite structures
such as glass fiber reinforced epoxy (GRE) composite pipe. By its nature, composite
structures exhibit non-linear behavior, and sometimes inhomogeneity characteristics of
material may appear to the composite structure due to this failure does not occur in a
catastrophic manner. The failure of composite structure is occurred gradually and this is
due to damage accumulation.
In the study, the progressive failure analysis of glass fiber reinforced epoxy composite pipe
is performed on Abaqus (version 6.14-5) commercial software package by using the
continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach. It was implemented based on continuum
damage mechanics with stiffness and strength degradation.
The finite element model of composite pipe [±55°]4 was prepared. Hashin failure criteria
was used to predict the damage initiation (failure initiate) and damage evolution law based
on fracture energy mechanism. A viscous regularization model was adopted to avoid
convergence difficulties. This model considered four different damage modes such as fiber
tension, fiber compression, matrix tension, and matrix compression failure modes. Shear
damage depends on these four damage modes.
Alternatively, the numerical implementation was performed using UMAT (user-defined

material model) subroutine in Abaqus/CAE standard. This is used to define the constitutive
material behavior of the damage model. Four viscous damage variables such as fiber
tensile, fiber compressive, matrix tensile, and matrix compressive viscous damage
variables are described. Once the failure initiates and identifies the failure modes then
conduct stiffness degradation and the damage propagation has to be controlled by damage
evolution law.
The verification of UMAT subroutine of material damage model in ABAQUS and the
numerical simulation of built-in material damage model has been done. The result shows
the good agreement is obtained between them.
60
The stress-strain curve of viscous damage variable for the composite pipe shows the failure
evolution such as failure initiation, failure ongoing and ultimate failure of fiber tensile
damage, DAMAGEFT. The failure initiation of composite pipe means that the material
damage onset. It does not mean that the pipe cannot operate its function. It can be said that
the pipe can give its intended function. After damage onset, the pipe is under failure. In
this region, the failure distribution is continuous. The complete failure of composite pipe
is when the ultimate failure has occurred, it has represented with the damage variable value
of one. The numerical simulation result of predicted maximum failure pressure of
composite pipe is obtained in ABAQUS is compared with the experimental finding from
the literature as shown in Table 5-2. It can be seen that good agreement is achieved between
them.
61
6.2. Recommendation
This study primarily focused on the progressive failure analysis of composite pipe instead
of conservative to the first ply failure and it has seen a good failure predictions to the glass
fiber reinforced composite pipe. But further studies on failure analysis of composite pipe
are identified in particular to the design structure of composite materials. The effect of
uncertainty during manufacturing process required investigations and improvement has to
be made on the design of composite structures. The progressive failure analysis with
probabilistic methods is require to improve better design results and considered the
uncertainty in structure failure.
At the end, one of the appendices shows the step-by-step guide how to link ABAQUS with
FORTRAN in Windows. This was a major limitation during the beginning of the
investigation of this thesis. The use of this procedures is strongly recommended to
successfully compile the subroutine into ABAQUS.
62
REFERENCES
[1] A. Water and W. Association, “Fiberglass Pipe Design, ” no. C. 2014.
[2] R. Rafiee, “Apparent hoop tensile strength prediction of glass fiber-reinforced

polyester pipes,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 1377–1386, 2013.
[3] M. Mohamadi and M. Heshmati, “Failure analysis of glass-reinforced polyester

mortar pipes with different cores subjected to combined loading,” J. Sandw. Struct.
Mater., pp. 1–38, 2017.
[4] R. Rafiee and A. Amini, “Modeling and experimental evaluation of functional

failure pressures in glass fiber reinforced polyester pipes,” Comput. Mater. Sci.,
2014.
[5] P. Ramachandran, “Experimental and numerical modeling of stresses in non-

conventional cross-sectioned composite pipes,” 2009.
[6] R. Rafiee, “Composites : Part B Experimental and theoretical investigations on the

failure of filament wound GRP pipes,” Compos. Part B, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 257–
267, 2013.
[7] M. Martens and F. Ellyin, “Biaxial monotonic behavior of a multidirectional glass

fiber epoxy pipe,” Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1001–
1014, 2000.
[8] F. Technology and M. Revision, “FLOWTITE PIPE,” 2017.
[9] A. Puck, “Analysis of Failure in Fiber Polymer Laminates. ” 2008.
[10] F. Report, “Comparative Evaluation of Failure Analysis Methods for Composite

Laminates,” no. May, 1996.
[11] L. A. L. Martins, F. L. Bastian, and T. A. Netto, “Structural and functional failure

pressure of filament wound composite tubes,” Mater. Des., vol. 36, pp. 779–787,
2012.
[12] Y. Kim, J. F. Davalos, and E. J. Barbero, “Progressive failure analysis of

laminated composite beams,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 536–560,
1996.
63
[13] J. Lemaitre, “A Course on Damage Mechanics,” 1992.
[14] M. Xia, H. Takayanagi, and K. Kemmochi, “Analysis of multi-layered filament-

wound composite pipes under internal pressure,” Compos. Struct., vol. 53, no. 4,
pp. 483–491, 2001.
[15] M. Xia, “Bending behavior of filament-wound fiber-reinforced sandwich pipes,”

vol. 56, pp. 201–210, 2002.
[16] M. A. Wahab and R. A. Jones, “Stress Analysis of non- conventional composite

pipes--An experimental and numerical approach,” pp. 1–9, 2014.
[17] J. D. Diniz Melo, F. Levy Neto, G. De Araujo Barros, and F. N. De Almeida

Mesquita, “Mechanical behavior of GRP pressure pipes with addition of quartz
sand filler,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 717–726, 2011.
[18] H. Faria and R. M. Guedes, “Long-term behaviour of GFRP pipes : Reducing the
prediction test duration,” Polym. Test., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 337–345, 2010.
[19] F. Richard and D. Perreux, “Reliability method for optimization of [+φ, -φ] n fiber
reinforced composite pipes,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 53–59,
2000.
[20] E. Baranger, O. Allix, and L. Blanchard, “A computational strategy for the

analysis of damage in composite pipes,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 69, no. 1, pp.
88–92, 2009.
[21] D. W. Sleight, “Progressive Failure Analysis Methodology for Laminated

Composite Structures,” no. March, 1999.
[22] N. F. Knight, “User-Defined Material Model for Progressive Failure Analysis,” no.
December, 2006.
[23] L. M. Kachanov, “On the time to failure under creep condition,” Izv Akad, Nauk
USSR Otd Tech Nauk [In Russian]., no. 8, pp. 26–31, 1958.
[24] J. Lemaitre, “Evaluation of dissipation and damage in metals subjected to dynamic

loading,” 1971.
[25] P. F. Liu and J. Y. Zheng, “Progressive failure analysis of carbon fiber / epoxy
64
composite laminates using continuum damage mechanics,” vol. 485, pp. 711–717,
2008.
[26] P. F. Liu and J. Y. Zheng, “Recent developments on damage modeling and finite
element analysis for composite laminates: A review,” Mater. Des., vol. 31, no. 8,
pp. 3825–3834, 2010.
[27] P. F. Liu, L. J. Xing, and J. Y. Zheng, “Composites : Part B Failure analysis of

carbon fiber / epoxy composite cylindrical laminates using explicit finite element
method,” Compos. Part B, vol. 56, pp. 54–61, 2014.
[28] R. R. Chang, “Experimental and theoretical analyses of ® rst-ply failure of

laminated composite pressure vessels,” vol. 49, pp. 237–243, 2000.
[29] P. F. Liu, J. K. Chu, Y. L. Liu, and J. Y. Zheng, “A study on the failure

mechanisms of carbon fiber / epoxy composite laminates using acoustic emission,”
Mater. Des., vol. 37, pp. 228–235, 2012.
[30] L. A. L. Martins, F. L. Bastian, and T. A. Netto, “Reviewing some design issues

for filament wound composite tubes,” J. Mater., vol. 55, pp. 242–249, 2014.
[31] R. Rafiee, F. Reshadi, and S. Eidi, “Stochastic analysis of functional failure

pressures in glass fiber reinforced polyester pipes,” Mater. Des., vol. 67, pp. 422–
427, 2015.
[32] H. Mahdavi, G. H. Rahimi, and A. Farrokhabadi, “Failure Analysis of (± 55°)9

Filament-Wound GRE Pipes Using Explicit Finite Element Method: A
Comparison with the Experimental Method,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 18, no. 6,
pp. 1526–1533, 2018.
[33] R. R. Das and N. Baishya, “Failure Analysis of Bonded Composite Pipe Joints
Subjected to Internal Pressure and Axial Loading,” Procedia Eng., vol. 144, pp.
1047–1054, 2016.
[34] C. Kaynak and O. Mat, “Uniaxial fatigue behavior of filament-wound glass-fiber /

epoxy composite tubes,” vol. 61, pp. 1833–1840, 2001.
[35] N. Tarakçioǧlu, L. Gemi, and A. Yapici, “Fatigue failure behavior of glass/epoxy
65
±55 filament wound pipes under internal pressure,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 65,
no. 3–4, pp. 703–708, 2005.
[36] N. Tarakcioglu, A. Samanci, H. Arikan, and A. Akdemir, “The fatigue behavior of

( ± 55 ° ) 3 filament wound GRP pipes with a surface crack under internal
pressure,” vol. 80, pp. 207–211, 2007.
[37] M. Uyaner, M. Kara, and S. Aykut, “Composites : Part B Fatigue behavior of

filament wound E-glass / epoxy composite tubes damaged by low velocity
impact,” 2013.
[38] R. Rafiee, “Stochastic fatigue analysis of glass fiber reinforced polymer pipes,”
Compos. Struct., vol. 167, pp. 96–102, 2017.
[39] D. K. Roylance, “Netting analysis for filament winding pressure vessel.pdf,” 1976.
[40] A. K. Kaw and F. Group, “Mechanics of Composite Materials. ” 2006.
[41] J. Y. Zheng and P. F. Liu, “Elasto-plastic stress analysis and burst strength
evaluation of Al-carbon fiber / epoxy composite cylindrical laminates,” vol. 42,
pp. 453–461, 2008.
[42] M. L. Ribeiro, “Damage and progressive failure analysis for aeronautic composite
structures with curvature. ” 2013.
[43] F. Tensor, “Weighing Failure Tensor Polynomial Criteria for Composites National
Academy of Athens,” vol. I, no. January, pp. 4–46, 1992.
[44] R. Narayanaswami and H. M. Adelman, “Evaluation of the Tensor Polynomial and

Hoffman Strength Theories for Composite Materials,” pp. 366–377, 1977.
[45] M. J. Hinton and P. D. Soden, “PREDICTING FAILURE IN COMPOSITE

LAMINATES : THE BACKGROUND TO THE EXERCISE,” vol. 58, 1998.
[46] W. C. Cui, M. R. Wlsnom, and M. Jones, “A comparison of failure criteria to

predict delamination of unidirectional glass / epoxy specimens waisted through the
thickness,” vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 158–166, 1992.
[47] P. D. Soden, M. J. Hinton, and A. S. Kaddour, “A COMPARISON OF THE

PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES OF CURRENT FAILURE THEORIES FOR
66
COMPOSITE LAMINATES,” vol. 58, 1998.
[48] S. W. Tsai and E. M. Wu, “Theory of Strength for Anisotropic Materials,” vol. 5,
no. January 1971.
[49] A. Rotem and Z. Hashin, “Failure Modes of Angle Ply Laminates,” 1975.
[50] Z. Hashin, “Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites,” vol. 47, no.
June, pp. 329–334, 1980.
[51] A. Rotem, “Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforced Materials *,” pp. 448–464,
1973.
[52] A. Software, “Abaqus Softaware, Analysis User’s Manual, Analysis Procedures,

Solution, Version 6.14,” vol. III, 2014.
[53] O. A. Ibitoye, “EXPERIMENTATION AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

REPAIRS ON COMPOSITE LAMINATES AND SANDWICH BEAM
STRUCTURES,” no. January, 2018.
[54] Simulia, “Abaqus 6.11 - Example Problems Manual,” vol. I, p. 881, 2011.
[55] J. L. L. Georges Duvaut, “Inequalities in Mechanics and Physics.” 1976.
[56] A. Software, “Abaqus 6 . 14 User Subroutine Reference Guide :,” pp. 1–53, 2014.
[57] R. J. Boulbes, “Troubleshooting Modeling with Abaqus.” 2020.
67
APPENDICES A
A1. UMAT Subroutine
The user defined subroutine, UMAT, can be used to define the mechanical constitutive
behavior of material. It will be called at all material calculation points of elements for which
the material definition includes a user-defined material behavior. It also generates solution
dependent state variables (SDVs) which are eventually supplied to the main Abaqus solver.
Multiple user materials can be implemented in a single UMAT [56]. UMAT allows the
user to define any complex, constitutive models for materials that cannot be modeled with
the available ABAQUS material models.
A1.1. Subroutine Argument Lists
The variables that are passed into a user subroutine via the argument list are classified as
either variables to be defined, or variables that can be defined, or variables passed in for
information [57]. The user must not alter the values of the “variables passed in for
information” doing so will have unpredictable results.
A1.2. Solution Dependent State Variables
Solution-dependent state variables (SDVs) are values that can be defined to evolve with
the solution of an analysis. There are several user subroutines allow the user to define
SDVs. Within these user subroutines the SDVs can be defined as functions of any variables
passed into the user subroutine. It is up to the user’s responsibility to calculate the evolution
of the SDVs within the subroutine; ABAQUS just stores the variables for the user
subroutine. Space must be allocated to store each of the solution-dependent state variables
defined in a user subroutine. For most subroutines the number of such variables required
at the integration points or nodes is entered as the only value on the data line of the
*DEPVAR option.
There are two methods that are available for defining the initial values of solution-
dependent variables. First, the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE= SOLUTION option can
be used to define the variable field in a tabular format. And secondly, for complicated cases
user subroutine SDIVINI can be used to define the values of the SDVs. This subroutine
68
can be invoked by adding the USER parameter to the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=
SOLUTION option.
A2. UMAT Subroutine Interface
The UMAT subroutine was developed using the basic computer language FORTRAN
interface which is provided within Abaqus documentation. Figure A-1 shows the interface
in which the UMAT subroutine may be developed. Several variables are imported by the
UMAT subroutine from the Abaqus main program. Table A-1 gives the description of these
variables.
Figure A-1 The UMAT interface used for the development of the subroutine.
69
Table A-1 Variables supplied from main Abaqus program to the UMAT subroutine [56].
Variables Description
STRESS Stress tensor
STATEV An array containing the solution-dependent state variables
DDSDDE Jacobian matrix of the constitutive model
SSE Specific elastic strain energy
SPD Plastic dissipation
SCD Creep dissipation
RPL Volumetric heat generation per unit time
DDSDDT Variation of the stress increments with respect to the temperature
DRPLDE Variation of RPL with respect to the strain increments
DRPLDT Variation of RPL with respect to the temperature
STRAN An array containing the total strains
DSTRAN Array of strain increments
TIME Value of step time at the specified increment
DTIME Time increment
TEMP Temperature at the start of the increment
DTEMP Increment of temperature
PREDEF Array of interpolated values of predefined field variables
DPRED Array of increments of predefined field variables
CMNAME User-defined material name
NDI Number of direct stress components
NSHR Number of engineering shear stress components
70
NTENS Size of the stress or strain component array
NSTATV Number of solution-dependent state variables
PROPS User-specified array of material constants
NPROPS User-defined number of material constants
COORDS An array containing the coordinates
DROT Rotation increment matrix
PNEWDT Ratio of suggested new time increment to the time increment being used
CELENT Characteristic element length
DFGRD0 Array containing the deformation gradient at the beginning of the increment
DFGRD1 Array containing the deformation gradient at the end of the increment
NOEL Element number
NPT Integration point number
LAYER Layer number
KSPT Section point number
JSTEP Step number
KINC Increment number
Detail discussions of these variables are illustrated below:
DDSDDE (NTENS, NTENS)
Jacobian matrix of the constitutive model, 𝜕∆𝜎/ 𝜕∆𝜀, where, 𝜕∆𝜎 are the stress increments
and 𝜕∆𝜀 are the strain increments. DDSDDE (𝐼, 𝐽) defines the change in the 𝐼th stress
71
component at the end of the time increment caused by an infinitesimal perturbation of the
𝐽th component of the strain increment array. Unless invoke the unsymmetric equation
solution capability for the user-defined material, Abaqus/Standard will use only the
symmetric part of DDSDDE. The symmetric part of the matrix is calculated by taking one
half the sum of matrix and its transpose.
STRESS (NTENS)
This array is passed in as the stress tensor at the beginning of the increment and must be
updated in this routine to be the stress tensor at the end of the increment. The size of this
array depends on the value of NTENS. The measure of stress used is “true” (Cauchy) stress.
PNEWDT
Ratio of suggested new time increment to the time increment being used. This variable
allows to provide input to the automatic time incrementation algorithms in
Abaqus/Standard (if automatic time incrementation is chosen). PNEWDT is set to a large
value before each call to UMAT. If PNEWDT is redefined to be less than 1.0,
Abaqus/Standard must abandon the time increment and attempt it again with a smaller time
increment. The suggested new increment provided to the automatic time integration
algorithms is PNEWDT × DTIME, where the PNEWDT used is the minimum value for
all calls to user subroutines that allow redefinition of PNEWDT for this iteration. If
automatic time incrementation is not selected in the analysis procedure, values of
PNEWDT that are greater than 1.0 will be ignored and values of PNEWDT that are less
than 1.0 will cause the job to terminate.
STRAN (NTENS)
An array containing the total strains at the beginning of the increment. If thermal expansion
is included in the same material definition, the strains passed into UMAT are the
mechanical strains only (i.e., the thermal strains computed based upon the thermal
expansion coefficient have been subtracted from the total strains). These strains are
available for output as the “elastic” strains.
DSTRAN (NTENS)
72
Array of strain increments. If thermal expansion is included in the same material definition,
these are the mechanical strain increments (the total strain increments minus the thermal
strain increments).
COORDS
An array containing the coordinates of the point. These are the current coordinates if
geometric nonlinearity is accounted for during the step; otherwise, the array contains the
original coordinates of the point.
DROT (3, 3)
Rotation increment matrix. This matrix represents the increment of rigid body rotation of
the basis system in which the components of stress (STRESS) and strain (STRAN) are
stored. It is provided so that vector-or tensor-valued state variables can be rotated
appropriately in this subroutine: stress and strain components are already rotated by this
amount before UMAT is called. This matrix is passed in as a unit matrix for small
displacement analysis and for large-displacement analysis if the basis system for the
material point rotates with the material (as in a shell element or when a local orientation is
used).
CELENT
Characteristic element length, which is a typical length of a line across an element for a
first-order element; it is half of the same typical length for a second-order element.
DFGRD0 (3, 3)
Array contacting the deformation gradient at the beginning of the increment. If a local
orientation is defined at the material point, the deformation gradient components are
expressed in the local coordinate system defined by the orientation at the beginning of the
increment.
DFGRD1 (3, 3)
Array contacting the deformation gradient at the end of the increment. If a local orientation
is defined at the material point, the deformation gradient components are expressed in the
73
local coordinate system defined by the orientation. This array is set the identity matrix if
nonlinear geometric effects are not included in the step definition associated with this
increment.
A3. Progressive failure analysis implementation in UMAT
In this section, the progressive failure analysis implementation in UMAT is presented. A

sample Abaqus input file and the UMAT subroutine developed are given in sections A3.2.
Abaqus Input file and A3.3. UMAT Subroutine written using FORTRAN. Section A4.
Create linking Abaqus with compiler in Windows shows to create linking Abaqus with
FORTRAN compiler in Windows.
A3.1. UMAT Subroutine Linkage to Abaqus/CAE
In order to perform the finite element analysis in Abaqus in association with the UMAT
subroutine, necessarily specify the number of solution-dependent state variables as part of
the Depvar. The two features in Abaqus/CAE material manager are required to be activated
while running the analysis in conjunction with the UMAT subroutine, Depvar and User-
Material Mechanical Constants. The feature regarding the solution-dependent state
variables (SDVs) may be introduce by activating a feature called Depvar in the material
manager of the Abaqus/CAE. The Abaqus/CAE material manager method for specifying
the feature for solution-dependent state variables is shown in Figure A-2. The number of
solution-dependent state variables (SDVs) for studying the progressive failure analysis
using Hashin failure criteria should be specified as nine in number.
74
Figure A-2 Abaqus/CAE tab show the features of solution-dependent state variables.
In order to specify that the analysis requires using the UMAT subroutine, a feature called
User Material contains the mechanical constants which must be activated in the Abaqus
material manager. This user material consists of various mechanical constants such as
material properties, shear strength, and fracture energy. Figure A-3 shows an image of
mechanical constants in conjunction with Depvar in the Abaqus material manager.
75
Figure A-3 Abaqus/CAE tab to specify the mechanical constants of User Material.
76
A3.2. Abaqus Input file
The following Abaqus input file is a sample used in conjuction with FOR file in Window
during the analysis.
*Heading
** Job name: Job-8umat Model name: Model-1-UMAT 1
** Generated by: Abaqus/CAE 6.14-5
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=Tube_2bc
*Node
1, -29.3478451, 41.5262146, 0.
2, -43.0052681, 27.134285, 0.
3, -50.7182732, 3.65776086, 0.
4, -48.2573395, -16.0297127, 0.
5, -35.0028191, -36.8852959, 0.
6, -18.2229958, -47.4725685, 0.
7, 6.3071661, -50.4573288, 0.
8, 29.3478451, -41.5262146, 0.
9, 43.0052681, -27.134285, 0.
10, 50.7182732, -3.65776086, 0.
*Elset, elset=_Surf-2_S2, internal, instance=Tube_2bc-1, generate
90, 13017, 93
77
*Elset, elset=_Surf-2_S6, internal, instance=Tube_2bc-1, generate
91, 13018, 93
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name=Surf-2
_Surf-2_S1, S1
_Surf-2_S2, S2
_Surf-2_S6, S6
*End Assembly
*Distribution Table, name=Ori-3-DiscOrient_Table
coord3D, coord3D
**
** ELEMENT CONTROLS
**
*Section Controls, name=EC-1, ELEMENT DELETION=YES, hourglass=ENHANCED
1., 1., 1.
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=Material-1
*Depvar
9,
*User Material, constants=20
27880., 6472., 6472., 5739., 5739., 2650., 0.304, 0.304
0.22, 505., 492., 25., 145., 71., 71., 12.5
12.5, 10., 10., 0.005
78
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: BC-1 Type: Symmetry/Antisymmetry/Encastre
*Boundary
Set-1, ZSYMM
*Boundary
Set-2, XSYMM
*Boundary
Set-3, YSYMM
** Name: BC-4 Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
Set-4, 1, 1
Set-4, 2, 2
** ----------------------------------------------------------------
**
** STEP: Step-1
**
*Step, name=Step-1, nlgeom=NO, inc=200
*Static
0.001, 0.5, 5e-15, 0.01
**
79
** LOADS
**
** Name: Load-1 Type: Pressure
*Dsload
Surf-1, P, 150.
**
** CONTROLS
**
*Controls, reset
*Controls, parameters=time incrementation
, , , , , , , 30, , ,
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
**
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field, number interval=200, time marks=NO
*Element Output, elset=Tube_2bc-1.CompositeLayup-1-1, directions=YES
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
E, S, SDV
*Element Output, elset=Tube_2bc-1.CompositeLayup-1-1, directions=YES
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
80
E, S, SDV
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history, number interval=200, time marks=NO
*Element Output, elset=Tube_2bc-1.CompositeLayup-1-1, variable=PRESELECT
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
*Element Output, elset=Tube_2bc-1.CompositeLayup-1-1, variable=PRESELECT
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
*Energy Output, elset=Tube_2bc-1.CompositeLayup-1-1, variable=PRESELECT
*End Step
81
A3.3. UMAT Subroutine written using FORTRAN
C--------------------------------------------------------------------------------C
C DAMAGE MODELING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE PIPES C
C USING CONTINUUM DAMAGE MECHANICS C
C C
C DAMAGE INITIATION USING HASHIN FAILURE CRITERIA AND C
C CONTINUUM MECHANICS APPROACH FOR PROGRESSIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS OF PIPES C
C C
C UMAT SUBROUINE IS DEVELOPED FOR PROGRESSIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE C
C C
C SUBROUINE IS EVALUATED AT EACH INTEGRATION POINT OF EACH PLY OF THE LAMINATE C
C C
C STARTS HERE C
C PROPS(1) --- E1 !Modulus of Elasticity along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(2) --- E2 !Modulus of Elasticity along Transverse Direction C
C PROPS(3) --- E3 !Modulus of Elasticity along Transverse Direction C
C PROPS(4) --- G12 !Shear Modulus along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(5) --- G13 !Shear Modulus along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(6) --- G23 !Shear Modulus along Transverse Direction C
C PROPS(7) --- NU12 !Poisson's ratio along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(8) --- NU13 !Poisson's ratio along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(9) --- NU23 !Poisson's ratio along Transverse Direction C
C PROPS(10) --- XT !Longitudinal Tensile Strength C
C PROPS(11) --- XC !Longitudinal Compressive Strength C
C PROPS(12) --- YT !Transverse Tensile Strength C
C PROPS(13) --- YC !Transverse Compressive Strength C
C PROPS(14) --- S12 !Shear Strength along Longitudinal Direction C
C PROPS(15) --- S13 !Shear Strength along Transverse Direction C
82
C PROPS(16) --- GCft !Fracture Energy in Fiber Tensile Direction C
C PROPS(17) --- GCfc !Fracture Energy in Fiber Compressive Direction C
C PROPS(18) --- GCmt !Fracture Energy in Matrix Tensile Direction C
C PROPS(19) --- GCmc !Fracture Energy in Matrix Compressive Direction C
C PROPS(20) --- ETA !Viscosity for Regularization C
C E3=E2 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate C
C G13=G12 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate C
C NU13=NU12 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate C
C S13=S12 !The Same Shear Strength C
C ! C
C Q --- Undamaged Stiffness Matrix ! C
C QD --- Damaged Stiffness Matrix ! C
C ! C
C -----Number of state variables defined:- !9 C
C STATE(1)--- Fiber Tensile Failure Initiation - !Ft C
C STATE(2)--- Fiber Compressive Failure Initiation - !Fc C
C STATE(3) --- Matrix Tensile Failure Initiation - !Mt C
C STATE(4) --- Matrix Compressive Failure Initiation - !Mc C
C STATE(5) --- Fiber Tensile Damage Viscous Variable - !DFTV C
C STATE(6) --- Fiber Compressive Damage Viscous Variable - !DFCV C
C STATE(7) --- Matrix Tensile Damage Viscous Variable - !DMTV C
C STATE(8) --- Matrix Compressive Damage Viscous Variable - !DMCV C
C STATE(9) --- Shear Damage Viscous Variable - !DSV C
C--------------------------------------------------------------------------------C
SUBROUTINE UMAT(STRESS,STATEV,DDSDDE,SSE,SPD,SCD,
1 RPL,DDSDDT,DRPLDE,DRPLDT,
2 STRAN,DSTRAN,TIME,DTIME,TEMP,DTEMP,PREDEF,DPRED,CMNAME,
3 NDI,NSHR,NTENS,NSTATV,PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,DROT,PNEWDT,
4 CELENT,DFGRD0,DFGRD1,NOEL,NPT,LAYER,KSPT,JSTEP,KINC)
83
C
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
CHARACTER*80 CMNAME
DIMENSION STRESS(NTENS),STATEV(NSTATV),
1 DDSDDE(NTENS,NTENS),DDSDDT(NTENS),DRPLDE(NTENS),
2 STRAN(NTENS),DSTRAN(NTENS),TIME(2),PREDEF(1),DPRED(1),
3 PROPS(NPROPS),COORDS(3),DROT(3,3),DFGRD0(3,3),DFGRD1(3,3)
DOUBLE PRECISION:: E1,E2,E3,G12,G13,G23,NU12,NU21,NU13,NU23,XT
DOUBLE PRECISION:: XC,YT,YC,S12,S13,GCft,GCfc,GCmt,GCmc,ETA
DOUBLE PRECISION:: STRUSE,OLD_STRESS,STRESS,Q,QD,DELTA,ULTSTR
DOUBLE PRECISION:: FtOLD,FcOLD,MtOLD,McOLD,DFVOLD,DMVOLD,DFTV,DFCV
DOUBLE PRECISION:: DMTV,DMCV,DSV,TERFT1,TERFT2,TERFT,ALPHA,TERFC1,TERFC
DOUBLE PRECISION:: TERMT1,TERMT2,TERMT,TERMC1,TERMC2,TERMC
DOUBLE PRECISION:: DFT,DFDFT,DF1DE,DF2DE,DDG1DE,DDG2DE,DFC
DOUBLE PRECISION:: DFDFC,DFTOLD,DFCOLD,DMT,DMDMT,DF3DE,DF4DE
DOUBLE PRECISION:: DDG3DE,DDG4DE,DMTOLD,DMC,DMCOLD,DF,DM,DS,DCDDF
DOUBLE PRECISION:: DCDDM,ATEMP1,ATEMP2,Ft,Fc,Mt,Mc
DIMENSION STRUSE(3),ULTSTR(5),Q(6,6)
DIMENSION DCDDM(6,6),DCDDF(6,6),QD(6,6)
DIMENSION DF1DE(1),DF2DE(1),DF3DE(3)
DIMENSION DDG2DE(6),DDG3DE(6),DDG4DE(6)
DIMENSION ATEMP1(6),ATEMP2(6),DF4DE(5)
DIMENSION OLD_STRESS(6),DDG1DE(6)
PARAMETER (ZERO=0.D0,ONE=1.D0,TWO=2.D0,FOUR=4.D0)
PARAMETER (ALPHA=1.D0)
C !GET THE MATERIAL PROPERTIES
84
E1=PROPS(1)
E2=PROPS(2)
E3=PROPS(3)
G12=PROPS(4)
G13=PROPS(5)
G23=PROPS(6)
NU12=PROPS(7)
NU13=PROPS(8)
NU23=PROPS(9)
XT=PROPS(10)
XC=PROPS(11)
YT=PROPS(12)
YC=PROPS(13)
S12=PROPS(14)
S13=PROPS(15)
GCft=PROPS(16)
GCfc=PROPS(17)
GCmt=PROPS(18)
GCmc=PROPS(19)
ETA=PROPS(20)
E3=E2 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate
G13=G12 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate
NU13=NU12 !Transverse Isotropy Laminate
S13=S12 !The Same Shear Strength
NU21=(E2/E1)*NU12
85
C CALCULATE THE STRAIN AT THE !END OF THE INCREMENT
DO I = 1, NTENS
STRUSE(I) = STRAN(I) + DSTRAN(I)
END DO
C SAVE THE OLD STRESS TO OLD_STRESS
DO I = 1, NTENS
OLD_STRESS(I) = STRESS(I)
END DO
C CALCULATE THE STIFFNESS MATRIX
DO I = 1, NTENS
DO J = 1, NTENS
Q(I,J)=ZERO
END DO
END DO
DELTA=(ONE-(TWO*NU13*NU12)-(NU23*NU23)-(TWO*NU12*NU13*NU23))
Q(1,1)=(E1*(ONE-NU23*NU23)/(DELTA))
Q(4,4)=G23
Q(5,5)=G13
Q(6,6)=G12
Q(1,2)=(E2*(NU12+NU12*NU13)/(DELTA))
Q(1,3)=(E3*(NU13+NU13*NU23)/(DELTA))
Q(2,1)=Q(1,2)
Q(2,3)=(E3*(NU23+NU13*NU12)/(DELTA))
Q(3,1)=Q(1,3)
Q(3,2)=Q(2,3)
C CALCULATE THE STRESS STATE
DO I = 1, NTENS
86
STRESS(I)=ZERO
DO J = 1, NTENS
STRESS(I) = OLD_STRESS(I) + Q(I,J) * STRUSE(J)
END DO
END DO
C SAVE THE OLD STATE VARIABLES
FtOLD = STATEV(1)
FcOLD = STATEV(2)
MtOLD = STATEV(3)
McOLD = STATEV(4)
DFTVOLD = STATEV(5)
DFCVOLD = STATEV(6)
DMTVOLD = STATEV(7)
DMCVOLD = STATEV(8)
DSVOLD = STATEV(9)
C CHECK THE FAILURE INITIATION
C --Fiber Tensile Failure and Fiber Compressive Failure
IF (STRESS(1).GE.ZERO) THEN
TERFT1=(STRESS(1)/XT)**TWO
TERFT2=ALPHA*((STRESS(4)/S12)**TWO)
END IF
TERFT=TERFT1+TERFT2
IF(TERFT.GT.ZERO) THEN
Ft=TERFT
ELSE IF (STRESS(1).LE.ZERO) THEN
TERFC1=(STRESS(1)/XC)**TWO
END IF
TERFC=TERFC1
IF (TERFC.GT.ZERO) THEN
87
Fc=TERFC
END IF
C --Matrix Tensile Failure and Matrix Compressive Failure
IF (STRESS(2).GE.ZERO) THEN
TERMT1=(STRESS(2)/YT)**TWO
TERMT2=((STRESS(4)/S12)**TWO)
END IF
TERMT=TERMT1+TERMT2
IF (TERMT.GT.ZERO) THEN
Mt=TERMT
ELSE IF (STRESS(2).LE.ZERO) THEN
TERMC1=(STRESS(2)/TWO*S12)**TWO
TERMC2=((YC/TWO*S12)**TWO)-ONE
TERMC3=STRESS(2)/YC
TERMC4=(STRESS(4)/S12)**TWO
END IF
TERMC=TERMC1+TERMC2*TERMC3+TERMC4
IF (TERMC.GT.ZERO) THEN
Mc=TERMC
END IF
C ! Strain limits for Hashin form
ULTSTR(1)=XT/Q(1,1)
ULTSTR(2)=XC/Q(1,1) ! Longitudinal Compressive
ULTSTR(3)=YT/Q(2,2)
ULTSTR(4)=YC/Q(2,2) ! Transverse Compressive
ULTSTR(5)=S12/Q(6,6)
C DAMAGE EVOLUTION - !DAMAGE VARIABLE FIBRE TENSILE FAILURE
DFT=ZERO
DFDFT=ZERO
88
DO I=1,NTENS
DF1DE(I)=ZERO
DDG1DE(I)=ZERO
END DO
IF (Ft.GE.ONE) THEN
DFT=(ONE-(ONE/Ft)*(EXP(-Q(1,1)*ULTSTR(1)*(Ft-ULTSTR(1))/GCft)))
DFDFT=((ONE/Ft**TWO)+((Q(1,1)*ULTSTR(1))/(Ft*GCft)))*(EXP(-Q(1,1)*
C ULTSTR(1)*(Ft-ULTSTR(1))/GCft))
IF (DFT.GT.DFTOLD) THEN
DF1DE(1)=TWO*(STRUSE(1)/(ULTSTR(1)**TWO))
DO I=1,NTENS
DDG1DE(I)=DF1DE(I)*DFDFT
END DO
END IF
END IF
DFT = MAX (DFTOLD, DFT)
C DAMAGE EVOLUTION - !DAMAGE VARIABLE FIBRE COMPRESSIVE FAILURE
DFC=ZERO
DFDFC=ZERO
DO I=1,NTENS
DF2DE(I)=ZERO
DDG2DE(I)=ZERO
END DO
IF (Fc.GE.ONE) THEN
DFC=(ONE-(ONE/Fc)*(EXP(-Q(1,1)*ULTSTR(1)*(Fc-ULTSTR(1))/GCfc)))
DFDFC=((ONE/Fc**TWO)+((Q(1,1)*ULTSTR(1))/(Fc*GCfc)))*(EXP(-Q(1,1)*
C ULTSTR(1)*(Fc-ULTSTR(1))/GCfc))
89
IF (DFC.GT.DFCOLD) THEN
DO I=1,NTENS
DDG2DE(I)=DF2DE(I)+DFDFC
END DO
END IF
END IF
DFC= MAX (DFCOLD, DFC)
C DAMAGE EVOLUTION - !DAMAGE VARIABLE MATRIX TENSILE FAILURE
DMT=ZERO
DMDMT=ZERO
DO I=1,NTENS
DF3DE(I)=ZERO
DDG3DE(I)=ZERO
END DO
IF (Mt.GE.ONE) THEN
DMT=(ONE-(ONE/Mt)*(EXP(-Q(2,2)*ULTSTR(3)*(Mt-ULTSTR(3))/GCmt)))
DMDMT=((ONE/Mt**TWO)+((Q(2,2)*ULTSTR(3))/(Mt*GCmt)))*(EXP(-Q(2,2)*
C ULTSTR(3)*(Mt-ULTSTR(3))/GCmt))
IF (DMT.GT.DMTOLD) THEN
DF3DE(2)=((TWO/ULTSTR(4))*(STRUSE(2)))-(ONE/(ULTSTR(5)**TWO))*
C (STRUSE(2))
DF3DE(3)=(TWO/(ULTSTR(5)**TWO))*STRUSE(3)
DO I=1,NTENS
DDG3DE(I)=DF3DE(I)+DMDMT
END DO
END IF
END IF
90
DMT=MAX(DMTOLD,DMT)
C DAMAGE EVOLUTION - !DAMAGE VARIABLE MATRIX COMPRESSIVE FAILURE
DMC=ZERO
DMDMC=ZERO
DO I=1,NTENS
DF4DE(I)=ZERO
DDG4DE(I)=ZERO
END DO
IF (Mc.GE.ONE) THEN
DMC=(ONE-(ONE/Mc)*(EXP(-Q(2,2)*ULTSTR(3)*(Mc-ULTSTR(3))/GCmc)))
DMDMC=((ONE/Mc**TWO)+((Q(2,2)*ULTSTR(3))/(Mc*GCmc)))*(EXP(-Q(2,2)*
C ULTSTR(3)*(Mc-ULTSTR(3))/GCmc))
IF (DMC.GT.DMCOLD) THEN
DF4DE(2)=((TWO*STRUSE(2))/(FOUR*ULTSTR(5)**TWO))-(STRUSE(2)/
C (ULTSTR(5)**TWO))
DO I=1,NTENS
DDG4DE(I)=DF4DE(I)+DMDMC
END DO
END IF
END IF
DMC=MAX(DMCOLD,DMC)
C GLOBAL DAMAGE VARIABLE
DF = ONE - (ONE-DFT)*(ONE-DFC)
DM = ONE - (ONE-DMT)*(ONE-DMC)
DS = ONE - (ONE-DF)*(ONE-DM)*NU12*NU21
C VISCOUS REGULARIZATION OF DAMAGE VARIABLE
DFTV=ETA/(ETA+DTIME)*DFTVOLD+DTIME/(ETA+DTIME)*DF
91
DFCV=ETA/(ETA+DTIME)*DFCVOLD+DTIME/(ETA+DTIME)*DF
DMTV=ETA/(ETA+DTIME)*DMTVOLD+DTIME/(ETA+DTIME)*DM
DMCV=ETA/(ETA+DTIME)*DMCVOLD+DTIME/(ETA+DTIME)*DM
DSV=ETA/(ETA+DTIME)*DSVOLD+DTIME/(ETA+DTIME)*DS
C CALCULATE THE STIFFNESS MATRIX DEPENDENT ON THE DAMAGE VARIABLE
DO I=1,NTENS
DO J=1,NTENS
QD(I,J)=Q(I,J)
END DO
END DO
IF (DFTV.NE.ZERO) THEN
QD(1,1)=(ONE-DFTV)*Q(1,1)
QD(2,2)=(ONE-DMTV)*Q(2,2)
QD(6,6)=(ONE-DSV)*DSV*Q(6,6)
QD(1,2)=(ONE-DFCV)*(ONE-DMCV)*Q(1,2)
QD(1,3)=(ONE-DFCV)*Q(1,3)
QD(2,1)=QD(1,2)
QD(3,1)=QD(1,3)
END IF
C CALCULATE THE DERIVATIVE OF FIBER AND MATRIX, DC/DDF AND DC/DDM
C OF THE DAMAGED MATRIX
DO I=1,NTENS
DO J=1,NTENS
DCDDF(I,J)=ZERO
END DO
END DO
DCDDF(1,1)=-Q(1,1)
DCDDF(1,2)=(ONE-DMTV)*-Q(1,2)
DCDDF(1,3)=-Q(1,3)
92
DCDDF(2,1)=DCDDF(1,2)
DCDDF(2,2)=(ONE-DMTV)*-Q(2,2)
DCDDF(3,1)=DCDDF(1,3)
DCDDF(6,6)=ONE-(ONE-DMTV)*NU12*NU21*-Q(6,6)*(ONE-DMTV)*NU12*NU21
DO I=1,NTENS
DO J=1,NTENS
DCDDM(I,J)=ZERO
END DO
END DO
DCDDM(1,2)=(ONE-DFTV)*-Q(1,2)
DCDDM(2,1)=DCDDM(1,2)
DCDDM(2,2)=-Q(2,2)
DCDDM(6,6)=ONE-(ONE-DFTV)*NU12*NU21*-Q(6,6)*(ONE-DFTV)*NU12*NU21
C UPDATE THE JACOBIAN
DO I=1,NTENS
ATEMP1(I)=ZERO
DO J=1,NTENS
ATEMP1(I)=ATEMP1(I)+DCDDF(I,J)*STRUSE(J)
END DO
END DO
DO I=1,NTENS
ATEMP2(I)=ZERO
DO J=1,NTENS
ATEMP2(I)=ATEMP2(I)+DCDDM(I,J)*STRUSE(J)
END DO
END DO
93
DO I=1,NTENS
DO J=1,NTENS
DDSDDE(I,J)=QD(I,J)+((ATEMP1(I)*DDG1DE(J)+ATEMP1(I)*DDG2DE(J))+(ATEMP2(I)*
C DDG3DE(J)+ATEMP2(I)*DDG4DE(J)))*DTIME/(DTIME+ETA)
END DO
END DO
C UPDATE THE STRESS
DO I=1,NTENS
STRESS(I)=ZERO
DO J=1,NTENS
STRESS(I)=STRESS(I)+DDSDDE(I,J)*STRUSE(J)
END DO
END DO
C UPDATE THE STATE VARIABLES
STATEV(1)=Ft
STATEV(2)=Fc
STATEV(3)=Mt
STATEV(4)=Mc
STATEV(5)=DFTV
STATEV(6)=DFCVS
STATEV(7)=DMTV
STATEV(8)=DMCV
STATEV(9)=DSV
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE
C END SUBROUTINE HERE
94
A4. Create linking Abaqus with compiler in Windows
The compilation procedure which works very well presented here applies to
 Microsoft Visual Studio Ultimate 2012

 Intel Parallel Studio XE 2015 Cluster Edition
 Abaqus 6.14-5
Step-1:
First, go to Control Panel  System  Advanced System Settings  Advanced tab

Environment Variables through Windows search. In system variable section, find “path”
and add these two addresses to that
Avoid deleting existing addresses.
 C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0\VC\bin\amd64

 C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Composer XE 2015\bin
Both addresses should be added in the same blank, but separate them with semicolon. If no
change is done to the default installation directories, there is no problem in this section.
Otherwise, find “ifortvars.bat” in Intel Parallel Studio XE and “vcvars64.bat” in Microsoft
Visual Studio installation path.
Step-2:
Then go to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Abaqus 6.14-5,

which is the default directory section of ABAQUS software shortcuts. At this time, it is
possible to call FORTRAN to run prior to ABAQUS.
1. In this Abaqus shortcut section, first, right click on “Abaqus CAE” and hit on
properties. Then in target section, substitute this address with the original one
(quotation marks are important).
 "C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Composer XE 2015\bin\ifortvars.bat" intel64
&& C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands\abq6145.bat cae || pause
Original address is:
 C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands\abq6145.bat cae || pause
95
2. Secondly, right click on “Abaqus Command” and in target section, replace this
address to prior one:
&& C:\Windows\SysWOW64\cmd.exe /k
 C:\Windows\SysWOW64\cmd.exe /k
3. And thirdly, right click on “Abaqus Verification” and change the existing target to:
&& C:\Windows\SysWOW64\cmd.exe /k
 C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands\abq6145.bat -verify -all -log && notepad.exe

verify.log || notepad.exe verify.log
4. Finally, right click on “Abaqus viewer” and change existing target to:
&& C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands\abq6145.bat viewer || pause
 C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands\abq6145.bat viewer || pause
Step-3:
Now, go to C:\simulia\Abaqus\Commands and edit “abq6145” Windows Batch File with

notepad. Add these two line before @echo off and save the file.
@echo off
 call "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat"

x64
 call "C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Composer XE 2015\bin\ipsxe-comp-
vars.bat" intel64 vs2012
"C:\SIMULIA\Abaqus\6.14-5\code\bin\abq6145.exe" %*
96
Step-4:
Check the verification of ABAQUS installation and its collaboration softwares. For this
check start the ABAQUS verification window and type,
 Abaqus verify_all
The ABAQUS command window should give the following verification information.
Figure A-4 Verification of ABAQUS installation (a).
97
Figure A-5 Verification of ABAQUS installation (b).
98
Figure A-6 Verification of ABAQUS installation (c).
99
A5. Letter of manuscript submission
100

Damage Modeling & Failure Analysis of Filament Wound Composite Pipes Using Continuum Damage Mechanics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damage Modeling & Failure Analysis of Filament Wound Composite Pipes Using Continuum Damage Mechanics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

DAMAGE MODELING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS

OF FILAMENT WOUND COMPOSITE PIPES

USING CONTINUUM DAMAGE MECHANICS

TESFAYE TAMIRU BELASO

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Signed by Examining Board:

Keywords: Composite laminates, Progressive failure analysis, UMAT, Continuum

Approval ............................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi

List of Abbreviation, Acronyms and Symbols .................................................................. ix

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Problem statements .................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Significance of the study .......................................................................................... 5

1.4. Research objectives .................................................................................................. 6

1.4.1. General objective ............................................................................................... 6

1.4.2. Specific objectives ............................................................................................. 6

1.5. Scope of the Thesis .................................................................................................. 6

1.6. Limitation of the study ............................................................................................. 7

1.7. Thesis outline ........................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 9

2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION AND THEORETICAL

3.1. Elastic stress analysis ............................................................................................. 15

3.3. Geometry dimensions and mechanical properties of composite pipes .................. 20

3.4. Laminate properties of composite layers ............................................................... 22

3.5. Failure criteria ........................................................................................................ 25

3.6. Continuum Damage Mechanics ............................................................................. 27

3.7. Progressive failure analysis .................................................................................... 28

3.8. Damage initiation of composite laminates ............................................................. 29

3.9. Damage evolution of composite laminates ............................................................ 32

CHAPTER 4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN ABAQUS......................................... 38

4.1. Finite Element Analysis Method Description ........................................................ 38

4.2. Finite Element Model ............................................................................................. 40

4.3. Defining Composite Lay-up In ABAQUS ............................................................. 40

4.4. Boundary conditions .............................................................................................. 42

4.5. Numerical implementation using UMAT subroutine............................................. 43

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................. 46

5.1. Numerical Simulation Results................................................................................ 46

5.2. Verification of UMAT Subroutine ......................................................................... 53

5.3. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 60

6.2. Recommendation .................................................................................................... 62

A1. UMAT Subroutine.................................................................................................. 68

A1.2. Solution Dependent State Variables ................................................................ 68

A2. UMAT Subroutine Interface .................................................................................. 69

A3. Progressive failure analysis implementation in UMAT ......................................... 74

A3.1. UMAT Subroutine Linkage to Abaqus/CAE .................................................. 74

A3.2. Abaqus Input file ............................................................................................. 77

A3.3. UMAT Subroutine written using FORTRAN ................................................. 82

A4. Create linking Abaqus with compiler in Windows ................................................ 95

A5. Letter of manuscript submission .......................................................................... 100

dvft fiber tensile viscous damage variable

Table 3-2 Composite tube lay-up and average thickness.................................................. 19

Table 3-3 The lamina radius of composite tube................................................................ 19

Table 3-4 Mechanical properties of the E-glass/epoxy composite pipes .......................... 20

Table 3-5 Geometry dimensions of composite pipes ........................................................ 21

Table 4-2 State variables related to viscous damage variables ......................................... 44

Figure 1-1 Reciprocal/discontinuous FW process. ............................................................. 2