Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

A new integrated modeling method for predicting low-velocity impact

behavior and residual tensile failure of Z-pinned T-joints
Jianwu Zhou a, Zhibin Zhao b, Liyong Jia c, **, Chao Zhang a, d, e, *
a
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710072, China
b
Xi’an Research Institute of High-tech, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710025, China
c
First Aircraft Institute of Aviation Industry Corporation, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710089, China
d
School of Civil Aviation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710072, China
e
Joint International Research Laboratory of Impact Dynamics and Its Engineering Application, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710072, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Composite T-joints are highly susceptible to low-velocity impact, which can significantly affect their residual
A. Adhesive joints performance due to the primary working condition of bearing out-of-plane tensile loads. Currently, most
B. Impact behavior methods that employ multiple models or analytical steps to sequentially assess the mechanical properties of
C. Residual stress
composites generally exhibit certain limitations, leaving room for improvement. This study has developed a finite
Bridging effect
element (FE) model to simulate the low-velocity impact and post-impact tensile behaviors of carbon fiber
reinforced polymers (CFRP) T-joints using an integrated analysis method. The model is based on stress failure
criteria and continuous stiffness degradation theory and incorporates corrections to the damage variables. Both
the low-velocity impact and quasi-static tensile portions of the model are implemented using an explicit solver
with the VUMAT subroutine for calculations in Abaqus. The element damage states are transferred between the
two models via a Python script, mitigating the inefficiencies and uncontrollable errors associated with the
traditional method of transferring element information between multiple models or analytical steps. Finally, the
numerical results of mechanical response and damage states are compared with experimental findings from
various perspectives, and the bridging mechanism of Z-pins is thoroughly investigated. The results show that the
model exhibits a maximum error of 10.41 % in the main key parameters during low-velocity impact and a
maximum error of 10.30 % in the ultimate load during post-impact tension. The model’s delamination damage
state and final tensile failure mode closely align with the experimental results. Furthermore, a comprehensive
analysis of the FE model indicates that the pull-out force of the Z-pin is unrelated to its implantation position or
pull-out rate, and the reinforcing effect of the Z-pin becomes significantly apparent only after the CFRP T-joint
reaches a certain degree of initial damage.

1. Introduction
The integrated design and manufacturing of composite material
structures is a crucial trend in advancing the lightweight development of
future aircraft. Composite T-joints, being a quintessential form of inte­
grated structure in aircraft, offer notable advantages including the
reduction of fastener count, decreased structural weight, and lowered
assembly costs [1–3]. Nevertheless, during actual service operations,
T-joints inevitably suffer from external low-velocity impact, such as
tools accidently falling during aircraft maintenance, generating impact
energies typically ranging from several joules to tens of joules.
Considering that T-joints commonly operate under tensile loading con­
ditions [4,5], conducting a study on the response to low-velocity impacts
and the ensuing residual tensile performance holds significant engi­
neering value.
At present, research on the structural performance of composite T-
joints predominantly centers around aspects like tension, bending, and
fatigue, etc. [6–8]. In these investigations, T-joint failures often stem
from delamination damage. As a result, various reinforcement tech­
niques have been employed to address the interlaminar toughening
challenge in composites, including Z-pin, tufting, 3D weaving, and more
[9]. Among these methods, Z-pin reinforcement has garnered

* Corresponding author. School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710072, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: taishanbuzuo@163.com (L. Jia), chaozhang@nwpu.edu.cn (C. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110316
Received 16 July 2023; Received in revised form 11 October 2023; Accepted 21 October 2023
Available online 29 October 2023
0266-3538/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhou et al.
considerable attention due to its cost-effectiveness, ease of imple­
mentation, and other advantages, and it has demonstrated substantial
improvements in damage tolerance [10–12]. Nevertheless, some studies
have also revealed instances where the damage tolerance of Z-pin
reinforced composite structures not only failed to achieve the antici­
pated enhancements, but experienced some degree of deterioration. For
instance, Francesconi et al. [13] examined the impact of Z-pin on the
residual performance of composite laminates following low-energy im­
pacts (below 5 J), using a comprehensive array of mechanical tests and
non-destructive testing methods. They observed that the Z-pin rein­
forced laminates exhibited lower residual compressive strength
compared to regular laminates under such conditions. Zhang et al. [14]
analyzed the effect of Z-pin implantation angles on the post-impact
compression performance of composite laminates. Their findings indi­
cated that laminates with Z-pins implanted at a 60◦ angle displayed
weaker compressive strength after high-energy impacts (40–60 J) than
ordinary laminates. Koh et al. [15] discovered that more Z-pin implan­
tations did not necessarily yield better results. Excessive Z-pin implan­
tation in certain regions led to earlier T-joint failures during quasi-static
tension tests. Additionally, Hoffmann et al. [16] delved into the adverse
effects of Z-pin usage on the tensile strength and fatigue life of laminates
in quasi-static tensile and dynamic fatigue tests. It is evident that the
application of Z-pin reinforcement technology in aerospace composite
structures continues to encounter challenges, especially in the context of
composite T-joints.
Over the past few decades, researchers have made concerted efforts
to address the challenge of damage tolerance in composites by inte­
grating experimental and simulation methods. However, due to the
intricate and dispersed nature of composite damage, simulating their
dynamic mechanical behavior and predicting overall structural perfor­
mance remains an arduous task, when it comes to forecasting the re­
sidual performance of composites after impact—an issue of paramount
importance that has garnered substantial attention [17]. Currently, the
numerical analysis methods commonly employed to predict the per­
formance of composites after low-velocity impact can be categorized
into two primary types: the equivalent damage method and restart
analysis method. The former method operates on a relatively straight­
forward principle. It predominantly relies on non-destructive testing
results to ascertain the internal damage state of composites post-impact.
By simplifying the damage region or equivalently weakening material
parameters, it seeks to establish an equivalent substitution between the
initial state of the residual performance analysis model and the final
state of the low-velocity impact model. Rozylo et al. [18] and Baluch
et al. [19] have utilized this approach to predict post-impact residual
strength by simplifying the impact damage characteristics of composites
and mapping the damage region onto a compression FE model dis­
cretized with continuous shell elements. Ouyang et al. [20] based on the
measured impact damage dimensions, simplified the damage region into
concentric circles with varying stiffness and strength. They employed
the virtual crack closure technique to swiftly predict the residual
compressive strength of CFRP laminates following impact. Zou et al.
[21] used non-destructive detection technology, partitioned damage in
CFRP laminates post-impact into distinct regions. They then simplified
these regions based on size and shape, subsequently constructing a
phenomenological equivalent impact damage finite element (FE) model,
thus enabling simulation of the initiation, propagation, and failure
behavior of compressive damage post-impact. However, due to the
excessive idealization of equivalent damage, particularly in the presence
of highly complex composite failure mechanisms, it may underestimate
or even neglect the influence of critical damage modes, resulting in
significant deviations in prediction results. As a result, the restart
analysis method has garnered increased attention from scholars in
recent years.
The restart analysis method entails incorporating setting multiple
analysis steps within a single model, where low-velocity impact simu­
lation and post-impact simulation are positioned in successive analysis
2
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
steps. Post-impact simulation is achieved by resetting boundary condi­
tions and conducting software restart calculations. By this means, Liu
et al. [22], Tuo et al. [23,24], and Jia et al. [25] successfully simulated
the evolution of impact damage in composite laminates and forecasted
their residual compressive strength after impact. Similarly, using the
same method, Cheng et al. [26–28] have gone a step further, achieving
progressive damage simulation in composite laminates and even heli­
copter tail structures across various load scenarios, including tension,
compression, and fatigue following an impact. They have achieved high
levels of prediction accuracy for performance metrics. However, the
restart analysis method has also exposed persistent challenges in the
research process. Owing to the intricate failure behavior of composites,
certain elements may experience substantial mesh distortion during
impact without meeting the deletion threshold in the impact model. This
poses significant hurdles for mesh convergence in subsequent
quasi-static simulations, often necessitating manual searches and de­
letions prior to implementing subsequent simulations. These laborious
manual operations further impede the computational efficiency of the
model. In summary, the primary issue with the aforementioned two
methods lies in the ineffective transfer of element information, espe­
cially element damage states, between adjacent models or analytical
steps. Furthermore, the existing research mainly focuses on predicting
the residual performance of simple composite structures, especially the
plate. The structural complexity of composite T-joints and the influence
of Z-pin reinforcement on these structures further heighten the chal­
lenges associated with analyzing their damage tolerance. If these two
methods were applied to analyze the low-velocity impact and residual
performance of CFRP T-joints, it would inevitably escalate modeling
complexities and compromise calculation accuracy. Therefore, it is
imperative to develop an efficient FE integrated analysis method
capable of facilitating seamless and minimal loss transfer of element
information, particularly element damage states, between multiple
models.
Building upon prior experimental research [29], this study pre­
dominantly relies on numerical methods in tandem with the VUMAT
subroutine to simulate the mechanical behavior and damage states in
CFRP T-joints subjected to low-velocity impact condition (model 1) and
subsequent post-impact quasi-static tension (model 2). Furthermore, a
Python script serves as a conduit between these two models, facilitating
the extraction of final element damage state information from the pre­
ceding model and its direct or indirect incorporation into corresponding
elements of the subsequent model. This efficient and low loss trans­
mission of damage states between models during continuous analysis
avoids issues commonly encountered in the restart analysis method,
such as reduced calculation efficiency or failures due to mesh distortion
in the preceding model. Additionally, it eliminates the need for an
equivalent processing of actual damage caused by low-velocity impact,
thereby circumventing discrepancies arising from different approaches.
Finally, through comparisons with corresponding experimental results
from various angles, this method and model’s validity is confirmed.
Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of the failure mechanism of
CFRP T-joints and the reinforcement mechanism of Z-pins is undertaken.
This study introduces an integrated modeling method that paves the way
for addressing multi-model continuous analysis challenges.
2. The damage model
Generally speaking, composite damage can be roughly categorized
into two main types: (a) intralaminar damage, which occurs within a
single ply and includes damage to both the fibers and the matrix; and (b)
interlaminar damage, which occurs between neighboring plies and in­
volves delamination damage. Both of these damage process can be
effectively simulated using progressive damage models, which consist of
failure initiation criteria and damage evolution model. To enhance
simulation accuracy, the damage state of materials is modified to avoid
the delay of damage initiation and the advance of ultimate failure.
J. Zhou et al.
2.1. Intralaminar and interlaminar damage
Hashin’s failure criterion [30] is a widely recognized and frequently
employed method for predicting damage initiation in single layer of
composite laminates, both in academic and engineering fields. In this
study, the three-dimensional Hashin criterion is implemented, which
incorporates the through-thickness normal stress component in matrix
failure. The details of the four distinct failure modes can be found in
Appendix A.
Then the intralaminar damage evolution employs the mainstream
energy-based linear continuous degradation model, as shown in Fig. 1
(a). Specifically, prior to any damage occurring within the element, its
stress-strain relationship is represented by σ = C0 ε. Once damage oc­
curs, the stress-strain relationship changes to σ = Cd ε. C0 represents the
stiffness matrix of the undamaged material, while Cd represents the
stiffness matrix of the damaged material, and the specific expression is
shown in Appendix B. It should be noted that in the compression mode,
the material still has some residual strength (marked as σres
i ) after
complete failure, Faggiani and Falzon et al. [31] has shown that σres i was
equivalent to the transverse ultimate strength (marked as Yc ) of the
material itself, so σ res
i = Yc is taken.
Since the failure strain of the element is influenced by itself, it is not
appropriate to treat the failure strain of the material as a fixed material
parameter. Based on Hillerborg’s theory of material fracture energy
[32], the characteristic length of the element is incorporated into the
stiffness degradation criterion of the material to mitigate the influence
of the element size on the failure behavior of the material, and the
fracture toughness is considered as a fixed material parameter and uses
it to solve for failure strains under different modes, as expressed in Eqs.
(C1) of Appendix C. However, the characteristic length of the element
may become excessively large in tensile or compressive, resulting in
negative damage variables. To address this issue, while refining the
mesh of the core region, its characteristic length is constrained by using
Eqs. (C2) of Appendix C. In other region, a coarser mesh is utilized.
On the other hand, the built-in cohesive element in Abaqus based on
a bilinear traction-separation relationship is adopted to simulate
delamination at the interface. The quadratic stress criterion is chosen as
the initial criterion for delamination damage, which is expressed as Eq.
(D1) of Appendix D. Then the damage evolution of interlaminar mate­
rials adopts the Benzeggagh-Kenane failure criterion [33,34], which is
expressed as Eq. (D3) of Appendix D, and its damage variable under
mixed-mode is expressed in Eq. (D2) of Appendix D.
2.2. Correction of damage variables
As stated in Section 2.1 and Appendix B, the accuracy of calculating
Cd depends on obtaining precise values for the equivalent damage initial
strain (ε0 ) and equivalent failure strain (εf ) of the element. Theoreti­
cally, ε0 represents the equivalent strain when the failure factor (f)
equals to 1. εf represents the equivalent strain when the material
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of energy-based linear continuous degradation model and (b) schematic diagram of the principle of damage initiation and failure
strain correction.
3
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
undergoes complete stiffness degradation. In other words, when
ε0 ≤ ε ≤ εf , the material is in the stage of stiffness degradation. How­
ever, in actual numerical calculations, it is unlikely for f = 1 even at the
onset of stiffness degradation. When f > 1 and the equivalent initial
damage strain at this time is marked as ε′0 , then ε′0 > ε0 , meaning it is
overestimated. Since the fracture toughness (Gc ) of the material is
constant and the element size remains unchanged, the corresponding
equivalent failure strain (ε′f ) will be underestimated, viz., ε′f < εf , as
shown in Fig. 1(b).
Based on the aforementioned rules, when the VUMAT subroutine is
executed, the stiffness degradation stage of the material may be mis­
judged as ε′0 ≤ ε ≤ ε′f . As a result, when ε0 ≤ ε ≤ ε′0 occurs, the program
is unable to reduce the stiffness of the material even though it has
already undergone stiffness degradation. Conversely, when ε′f ≤ ε ≤ εf
occurs, the program completely reduces the stiffness of the material
even though it has not completely failed. In this case, the damage var­
iable does not match the actual situation, as expressed in Eq. (1), leading
to premature or delayed damage.
ε′f ( ε′ ) εf ( ε0 )
1− 0 ∕ (1)
d= = 1−
ε′
f − ε′
0
ε εf − ε0 ε
To tackle this problem, this study incorporates f into the calculation
of damage variables to correct the values of ε0 and εf for the material.
The correction principle is to record the equivalent strain, equivalent
stress, and corresponding failure factor of the material at each moment
during the entire loading process. When f exceeds 1 for the first time, the
equivalent strain is scaled to the ideal state where f = 1 (viz., ε0 =
√̅̅̅
ε′0 / f ), thus obtaining the corrected value for ε0 . Simultaneously, the
equivalent stress is also scaled to the ideal state where f = 1 (viz., σ0 =
√̅̅̅
σ′0 / f ) and used as the equivalent strength of the material under the
current stress state. Then εf is calculated through Gc (viz., εf = 2Gc /σ 0 l).
Since this study adopts the three-dimensional Hashin’s failure criterion,
this method is used to correct the equivalent initial damage strain and
strength under different failure modes. The results are shown in Ap­
pendix E.
3. Integrated modeling method
Sequential analysis between two or more FE models can be accom­
plished through two common methods: the restart method and the
equivalent damage method. The restart method utilizes the computation
results from the previous model as initial conditions for the subsequent
model by defining a predefined field. This approach is logically sound
and avoids the introduction of new errors during the transfer of damage
state information between models. However, its implementation can be
challenging when the previous model exhibits severe damage, such as
significant material stiffness degradation or element deletion. On the
other hand, the equivalent damage method assigns initial damage, such
J. Zhou et al.
as pre-existing holes or cracks, to approximate the final mechanical
performance of the previous model with the initial mechanical perfor­
mance of the subsequent model. While this method has broad applica­
bility, it can be operationally complex and may introduce significant
errors, thus hindering an accurate representation of the true damage
state of the previous model. To address these challenges, this paper
successfully transfers element damage state information between two
models in a continuous analysis using Python scripts.
As shown in Fig. 2, this is the complete technical flowchart for FE
simulation of low-velocity impact and post-impact tensile testing of a
composite T-joint. It can be roughly divided into four modules: pre-
processing module, impact module, tensile module, and data connec­
tion module.
In the pre-processing module, the T-joint and impactor are created,
and they are assigned appropriate material properties (including intra­
laminar and interlaminar properties), contact properties (including
surface and internal contact), and boundary conditions (only those
required for low-velocity impact) to ensure the model faithfully repre­
sents the experimental setup. Both the impact and tensile modules are
similar in that they employ Abaqus’ explicit solver, in conjunction with a
VUMAT subroutine, to carry out calculations. The key distinction is that
the latter includes an additional function that writes element informa­
tion from a specified “.dat” file into the corresponding elements. During
the model solving, loads are incrementally applied to obtain material
stiffness matrices, strains, stresses, and damage variables for each
analysis increment. These results are subsequently compared against
Fig. 2. Overall flowchart of the coordination of various modules.
4
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
with preset conditions to guide the calculation progression.
The data connection module forms the heart of the entire process. It
utilizes a Python script to parse the “.odb” file generated from the final
impact module calculation results and extracts intralaminar and inter­
laminar element information (including element numbers) into two
separate “.dat” files. For intralaminar elements, impact damage is
transferred directly following this principle: using the VUMAT subrou­
tine to map the damage state variables obtained from the impact model
to the corresponding intralaminar elements in the tensile model. For
interlaminar elements, Cohesive elements provided by Abaqus are
employed since it’s not feasible to directly map the damage state vari­
ables using VUMAT. Instead, impact damage is transferred indirectly
following this principle: based on the damage state variables of different
elements in the impact model, a degraded material model is established
for each element (in this study, the damage state variables are divided
into 100 segments, and the material parameters of the intralaminar el­
ements are adjusted accordingly). These degraded models are then
assigned to the corresponding interlaminar elements in the tensile model
in batches. This allows for low loss transmission of all element state
information between two adjacent calculation models, as shown in
Fig. 3. Subsequently, by defining new boundary conditions for the ten­
sile test, the calculations can be seamlessly continued.
4. Experiments and FE models
To validate the effectiveness of the integrated model, a comparative
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

Fig. 3. Low loss transmission of intralaminar element damage states (taking the matrix tensile as an example) and interlaminar element damage states (taking the
bonding interface as an example) between two models.

study on the low-velocity impact behavior and residual tensile proper­
ties of CFRP T-joints was conducted based on our previous experimental
work [29]. As shown in Fig. 4(a), two types of T-joint specimens with a 5
mm fillet radius were manufactured. The key difference between them
lies in the utilization of Z-pins for local interlaminar reinforcement.
An IM7/M91 (carbon/epoxy) unidirectional prepreg with a nominal
cured ply thickness of 0.175 mm was used to manufacture the skin and
L-pieces with corresponding stacking sequences of [45/0/-45/90]3S and
[45/0/-45/90]S, respectively. Additionally, the deltoid (highlighted in
Fig. 4(a)) was filled with the same material oriented along the 90o
direction to prevent the formation of a weak resin-rich zone.
The Z-pins were crafted from S35/YH69 (PL/epoxy) prepreg fiber
bundles with a diameter of 0.3 mm. They were inserted into the bonding
region between the skin and flanges at 4 × 4 mm intervals. A total of 39
Z-pins were incorporated on each side of the specimen. The specimen
with or without Z-pins is referred to as the “Z-pinned T-joint” and
“Unpinned T-joint” in this study, respectively.
As depicted in Fig. 4(b), the T-joint specimen was fixed upside down
using a specialized fixture. The Instron Dynatup 9340 impact testing
machine with a 10 mm hemispherical impactor and a 5.421 kg

Fig. 4. (a) Two types of T-joint specimens, test platforms of (b) low-velocity impact and (c) quasi-static tension, (d) 3D FE model of Z-pinned T-joint.

5
J. Zhou et al.
impacting part was used to strike at the center of the skin. The anti-
rebound device was activated to catch the impacting part and prevent
a second impact. Subsequently, post-impact interlaminar damage was
meticulously documented for each individual specimen with the aid of
ultrasonic C-scan equipment. Following the impact evaluations, quasi-
static tensile tests were conducted on both intact specimens and those
that had incurred damaged during impact. These tests persisted until
complete failure was observed, all while maintaining a controlled tensile
rate of 0.5 mm/min, facilitated by a CRIMS DDL100 tensile testing
machine, as shown in Fig. 4(c). The specific test arrangements are shown
in Appendix F.
As per the experimental findings, it is evident that damage occur­
rences are infrequent in both the terminal sections of the skin and the
upper portion of the L-pieces in the T-joint during both low-velocity
impact and quasi-static tensile tests. Consequently, to enhance compu­
tational efficiency, the progressive damage and failure behavior of the
core region is considered, while only elastic behaviors are considered for
other regions. The 3D FE models, exemplified by the Z-pinned T-joint, is
based on the aforementioned experiments, as shown in Fig. 4(d). In
these models, C3D8R elements are used for the skin, L-pieces and Z-pin,
while the C3D6 elements are used for the deltoid region. Zero-thickness
COH3D8 elements are employed to simulate interface delamination in
the core zone. It is important to note that, to ensure the smooth pro­
gression of the calculations, an element-based cohesive model is
implemented between layers, while a surface-based cohesive model is
utilized in the Z-pin regions. Additionally, one element is designated for
each layer in the thickness direction. To mitigate the occurrence of zero-
energy modes during Abaqus/Explicit simulations, the relaxed stiffness
hourglass control method was adopted.
To validate the mesh sensitivity of the FE models, a comparison is
made among coarse, middle, and fine mesh models for the unpinned T-
joint. These models feature element sizes of 1.2 × 2.0 mm, 0.6 × 1.0
mm, and 0.4 × 0.8 mm, respectively, at the central region, as illustrated
in Fig. 5(a). The coarse mesh model exhibits a more substantial devia­
tion from the experimental curve than the other two models under an 8 J
low-velocity impact, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The maximum ration of the
artificial strain energy to the total impact energy for coarse mesh model,
middle mesh model and fine mesh model is 13.14 %, 6.62 % and 5.31 %,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 5(c).
In consideration of computational efficiency, accuracy, and the
geometric characteristics of the model, the element size within the core
region is primarily set at 0.6 × 1.0 mm, complemented by 1.0 × 1.0 mm
and 1.0 × 1.4 mm. Coarser meshing is applied to other regions. The
Fig. 5. Mesh convergence analysis for unpinned T-joint: (a) coarse mesh, middle mesh and fine mesh models at central region, (b) the impact force-time and (c) the
artificial strain energy-time responses using three models.
6
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
mesh refinement for the deltoid and Z-pin regions is automatically
determined based on the aforementioned settings. Consequently, the T-
joint mesh comprises 338,304 C3D8R elements, 10,000 C3D6 elements,
and 252,904 COH3D8 elements. The impactor is modeled as an
analytical rigid body, with its initial velocity calculated based on the
impactor mass and impact energy, which is then applied through a
predetermined field. A dynamic penalty function is employed to address
the contact problem within the current model, with a friction coefficient
set to 0.3.
In alignment with the clamping conditions during the experiment,
for the low-velocity impact simulation, a 30 mm section of the skin at
both ends is immobilized (including both upper and lower sides), while
the other regions remain unconstrained, as shown in Fig. 4(b). For the
quasi-static tensile simulation, in addition to the same constraints at
both ends of the skin as in the low-velocity impact simulation, a 30 mm
segment of the L-pieces end is controlled using point-to-surface kine­
matic coupling (including both left and right sides), with other regions
remaining free, as shown in Fig. 4(c).
Global and local coordinate systems are defined to account for ply
orientations and material behaviors. The detailed material parameters
of the IM7/M91 and S35/YH69 unidirectional laminate used in this
study are listed in Appendix G.
5. Results and discussion
The numerical results of low-velocity impact responses and residual
tensile properties for the two types of CFRP T-joints are compared
against the experimental data in Ref. [29]. This comparison serves the
dual purpose of validating the efficacy of the method for transferring
element damage states between two sequential FE models and assessing
their accuracy. It is worth emphasizing that all the detailed repeated test
results can be found in the appendix of our previous work [29]. In line
with the experimental findings, the impact simulation process involves
recording impact force-time, transferred energy-time, and impact
force-central displacement response curves. Additionally, the regions
exhibiting delamination damage are delineated. The residual tensile
load-displacement response curves are collected and the final failure
modes of T-joint and Z-pin are laid out. Furthermore, the bridging effect
of Z-pin is investigated thoroughly.
5.1. Low-velocity impact response prediction of T-joints
Previous studies have indicated that Z-pin reinforcement in the non-
J. Zhou et al.
impact region had a limited influence on the impact-related mechanical
responses of the T-joint [29], and more test results are shown in Fig. 6. In
simpler terms, the mechanical responses of both types of T-joints under
low-velocity impact conditions exhibit remarkable similarity. To facili­
tate concise presentation, typical curves were selected for a comparative
analysis of mechanical responses. It is essential to highlight that the
impact force underwent a smoothing process through low-pass fast
Fourier transform, with a cut-off frequency of 15 Hz. This specific fre­
quency was chosen to effectively filter out force oscillations introduced
by the natural frequency inherent in the experimental apparatus setup.
When examining the mechanical response to low-velocity impact, a
commonly employed research approach involves a quantitative analysis
of key parameters, as these parameters offer effective insights into the
specimen’s impact resistance from various perspectives. Specifically, the
Hertzian failure load is often considered the pivotal threshold value for
the initiation of extensive delamination damage within the laminate
[35]. The maximum load typically exhibits a positive correlation with
impact energy [36], the time duration captures the entire contact pro­
cess between the impactor and the specimen, the peak energy moment
provides a direct reflection of the structural stiffness of the specimen
[29], the final energy accounts for the total energy dissipated by the
specimen [37], the maximum displacement offers insights into the
elastic characteristics of the structure, and the final displacement char­
acterizes the extent of damage incurred by the specimen [38]. In addi­
tion, fluctuations in load serve as indicators of the intensity of internal
damage evolution within the specimen. Fig. 7(a)~(c), (d)~(f), (g)~(i)
present typical experimental data alongside corresponding numerical
results for impact force-time response curves, transfer energy-time
response curves, and impact force-central displacement response
curves for T-joints subjected to low-velocity impact at energy levels of 8
J, 15 J, and 25 J, respectively. Both sets of data show high degree of
consistency in overall fluctuation patterns and key parameters. The
differences between the average experimental results and corresponding
numerical results for Hertzian failure load (Fh), maximum load (Fmax),
time duration (dur), peak energy moment (PEM), final energy (Efin),
maximum displacement (Dmax) and final displacement (Dfin) are as
follow: 47.28 % (Fh), 4.19 % (Fmax), 3.70 % (dur), 0.50 % (PEM), 5.18 %
(Efin), 1.69 % (Dmax), and 10.41 % (Dfin). Notably, the majority of these
differences fall within a reasonable range, with the exception of a pro­
nounced difference in Hertzian failure load, which can be attributed to
its relatively small value.
Conversely, the bonding interface stands out as the weakest segment
within the entirety of the T-joint, experiencing the most severe delam­
ination damage following low-velocity impact. In prior investigations,
non-destructive testing was performed on this region using ultrasonic C-
scan equipment. Therefore, the damage outcomes pertaining to the
bonding interface within the FE model are extracted and juxtaposed
against the experimental findings, as shown in Fig. 8. The comparative
analysis reveals a high degree of similarity between the damage states
observed in both the model and the experiments. Notably, after 8 J
impact, both exhibit minimal damage (with the slight damage in the
experimental results attributed to unavoidable initial defects during
Fig. 6. Test results of unpinned and Z-pinned T-joints under low-velocity impact of (a) 8 J, (b) 15 J, and (c) 25 J.
7
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
specimen preparation). However, following impacts of 15 J or 25 J, both
show conspicuous delamination damage, characterized by a distinctive
"bow tie" pattern. Higher impact energy caused more serious delami­
nation damage. Nonetheless, some disparities between the model and
experimental results exist, primarily concerning the extent of the
damaged region. In the experiments, after a 25 J impact, the damage has
already spread to a portion of the Z-pin reinforcement region, whereas
this is not replicated in the numerical results. This divergence is likely
attributed to initial defects arising during specimen preparation, which
represents the most significant distinction between the experiment and
simulation at present.
5.2. Residual tensile failure prediction of T-joints
Displayed in Fig. 9 are the experimental outcomes alongside corre­
sponding numerical results, depicting typical residual tensile load-
displacement response curves for T-joints subjected to varying energy
impacts. The experimental data reveal that the tensile stiffness of the
intact specimen, i.e., following a 0 J impact, remains virtually un­
changed until nearing the ultimate load (Fig. 9(a)(e)). After an 8 J
impact, the specimen only experiences minor tensile stiffness degrada­
tion as the load approaches the ultimate value (Fig. 9(b)(f)). However,
specimens subjected to 15 J and 25 J impacts exhibit pronounced
stiffness degradation during the later stages of loading (Fig. 9(c)(d)(g)
(h)). These phenomena can primarily be attributed to disparities in the
extent of internal damage incurred by the specimens following low-
velocity impact.
Notably, all Z-pinned T-joints subjected to 15 J and 25 J impacts
exhibit two discernible load recovery stages following the attainment of
maximum tensile load. Subsequently, the load stabilizes for a period
after reaching near the regional ultimate load (Fig. 9(g)(h)). This
behavior arises from the fact that the tensile load is insufficient to induce
instantaneous failure of the remaining region, given the significant and
progressive damage within the specimen. The propagation of cracks is
temporarily impeded when they reach the Z-pin reinforcement region,
resulting in the load recovery stage observed in the curve. Meanwhile,
stress concentration at the crack tip continues to intensify. This stress
concentration induces ongoing matrix damage before Z-pin fracture or
pull-out, owing to the relatively weaker strength of the resin. This
phenomenon is reflected in the load stabilization stage of the curve.
Ultimately, once the stress reaches the limit necessary for Z-pin fracture
or pull-out, Z-pins near the deltoid region are the first to fail, leading to
local stress redistribution. Consequently, multiple stages of load recov­
ery and stabilization in tensile load occur.
The simulation results align closely with the experimental observa­
tions mentioned earlier. Specifically, the differences between the
average experimental results and their corresponding numerical coun­
terparts regarding the residual ultimate tensile load of both unpinned T-
joint (un) and Z-pinned T-joint (Z) following 0 J, 8 J, 15 J, and 25 J
impacts are as follows: 8.92 % (un), 6.73 % (un), 9.77 % (un), 8.08 %
(un), 3.14 % (Z), 6.04 % (Z), 9.98 % (Z), and 10.30 % (Z), respectively. It
is worth noting that the simulation results also exhibit a notable load
J. Zhou et al.
Fig. 7. Typical experimental and numerical results for (a)~(c) impact force-time response curves, (d)~(f) transfer energy-time response curves, and (g)~(i) impact
force-central displacement response curves for T-joints during low-velocity impact at 8 J, 15 J, and 25 J energy levels, respectively.
recovery phenomenon. Although the extent of load fluctuation during
this stage is considerably greater than what is observed in the experi­
mental data (and lacks a distinct load stabilization stage), and the
starting positions of multiple load recovery stages are not well distin­
guished, the phenomenon within the numerical results strongly supports
the effectiveness of Z-pin reinforcement in T-joints that have undergone
substantial damage.
On the other hand, all test specimens, encompassing both intact
specimens and those that have sustained damage, manifest two distinct
types of failure occurrences. The first type entails the observation of
damage extension solely within specific bonding interfaces, more pre­
cisely, between the deltoid and one of the fillet regions, and between the
skin and both the flange region and the deltoid, as shown in Fig. 10(a).
The second type of failure involves the extension of damage within the
fillet regions in addition to the same regions as the first type, as shown in
Fig. 10(c). The FE simulation also replicates these two distinct failure
phenomena, as illustrated in Fig. 10(b)(d).
Upon comparison, it becomes evident that the failure mode of the T-
joint obtained through simulation closely aligns with the failure mode
observed experimentally, exhibiting only minor discrepancies. Both
types of failure phenomena primarily occur during the pull-off process of
intact specimens and specimens subjected to an 8 J impact. Meanwhile,
the second type of failure phenomenon primarily emerges during the
pull-off process of specimens subjected to 15 J or 25 J impacts. An ex­
amination of the cross-sectional damage state within the FE model re­
veals that specimens subjected to 15 J and 25 J impacts exhibit more
pronounced delamination damage across multiple layers, including
within the fillet regions (Fig. 10(f)(g)), whereas specimens subjected to
an 8 J impact display only limited damage in these regions (Fig. 10(e)).
8
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
Consequently, during the post-impact tensile process, these delaminated
regions, in addition to the inherently fragile bonding interface, undergo
further extension of delamination damage. The certain differences do
exist between the two types of failure phenomena observed in all
experiments.
In both types, the deltoid is completely separated from the skin, a
result consistent with experimental findings. However, simulation yields
two distinct final positions for the deltoid. In the first scenario, the
simulation aligns with the experimental results, while in the second
scenario, following the complete pull-off failure of the T-joint, the del­
toid remains adhered to the skin. Additionally, most experiments
generate cracks near a specific tip of the deltoid (Fig. 10(c)), whereas the
simulation does not produce similar outcomes. It is highly likely that
these two distinct phenomena share similar underlying causes. This
stems from the fact that during the actual preparation process, the del­
toid is formed by gradually filling unidirectional prepreg material,
inevitably resulting in the formation of voids, particularly in regions
adjacent to the skin. The so-called "interlaminar" performance in this
region is considerably weaker than the genuine interlaminar perfor­
mance between layers. However, the FE model has yet considered these
discrepancies.
Lastly, the FE model faithfully reproduces the pull-off failure phe­
nomenon of Z-pins in Z-pinned T-joints, as shown in Fig. 10(h) (cross-
sectional view). The outcomes reveal that nearly all Z-pins experience
failure through pull-out mechanisms throughout the entire process.
Only a minority of Z-pins incur fiber and matrix damage at the end
where being pulled out, and the locations of the pull-out events
consistently occur within the flange regions. This phenomenon arises
from the fact that the skin’s thickness is four times that of the L-pieces,
J. Zhou et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental and simulation results of delamination damage region of T-joints after low-velocity impact at different energy levels.
endowing the skin with greater capacity to exert constraint force during
the load-bearing process of the Z-pin.
5.3. Bridging effect and failure mechanism of Z-pin
Given that Z-pin exhibits distinct strengthening effects on CFRP T-
joints depending on the extent of damage, delving deeper into its un­
derlying mechanism necessitates an analysis from the perspective of the
Z-pin’s constraining influence on the layers. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 notably
validate the element damage state transmission method employed in
this study and affirm the precision of the FE model. Consequently, this
model serves as a valuable tool for conducting the pertinent analysis.
Research findings [39] underscore that the bridging effect, specif­
ically bridging tractions, stands as the pivotal factor by which Z-pins
exert constraint on the layers. These bridging tractions predominantly
arise from the fractional stress interactions between the Z-pin and the
layers. Therefore, this paper analyzes the variation process of the total
force due to frictional stress on all Z-pin surfaces throughout the com­
plete pull-off process of the T-joint. The aims to elucidate the impact
characteristics of Z-pins at various positions on the residual tensile
performance within T-joints that exhibit varying degrees of damage.
As shown in Fig. 11, the Z-pins in the Z-pinned T-joint are catego­
rized into three groups according to their positions: Row 1, Row 2 and
Row 3. Subsequently, the total force due to frictional stress of all Z-pins
(26 each) in each group is calculated to determine the equivalent
bridging tractions for each group.
The results unveil that the fluctuation process of all equivalent
bridging tractions encompasses four distinct stages: a stable stage (Stage
1), a gradual ascent stage (Stage 2), a rapid ascent stage (Stage 3), and a
swift descent stage (Stage 4). Moreover, the fluctuations in equivalent
bridging tractions among different groups during the T-joint pull-off
process, at various levels of damage, fall into two primary categories.
9
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
After 0 J and 8 J energy impacts, the fluctuations are nearly synchro­
nous, whereas after 15 J and 25 J energy impacts, they occur in clusters.
The former exhibits a notably swifter fluctuation process, characterized
by markedly shortened durations of Stages 2, 3, and 4.
This distinction arises primarily from the impact of 8 J energy on the
T-joint, which incurs minimal damage, akin to that of an intact T-joint.
In this scenario, progressive damage is scarcely observable as the tensile
load nears its limit, thus accumulating a significant internal stress. The
damage propagates rapidly once the stress reaches the critical failure
threshold, and the separation strength between the layers in the region
reinforced by Z-pins far surpasses the bonding and bridging strength.
Consequently, the failure of the Z-pin reinforced region occurs nearly
simultaneously with the failure of other regions, resulting in the
simultaneous pull-out of these three rows of Z-pins.
Conversely, the impacts of 15 J and 25 J energy levels inflict sub­
stantial damage on the T-joint, with internal stress levels insufficient to
reach the point of complete T-joint failure. Instead, this stress is pro­
gressively released in tandem with the ongoing damage. Consequently,
the damage extends along the bonding interface, sequentially traversing
these three rows of Z-pins, leading to their batch pull-out. Even after the
Z-pins have been pulled out, the equivalent bridging tractions continue
to exhibit some fluctuations (Fig. 11(c)(d)). This phenomenon occurs
because the subject of measurement is the total force due to frictional
stress across the entire Z-pin surface. Even after Z-pins have separated
from the L-pieces, they maintain contact with the skin, inducing
continued oscillation.
It is important to highlight that, in the case of T-joints subjected to
15 J and 25 J energy impacts, a more pronounced drop in equivalent
bridging tractions occurs during the pull-out process of the third row of
Z-pins before final failure, as shown in Fig. 11(c)(d). This drop signifies a
notable slippage occurring between the Z-pin and the contact surface at
this particular moment. The primary reason for this phenomenon is that
J. Zhou et al.
Fig. 9. Typical experimental and numerical results of tensile load-displacement response curves of (a)~(d) unpinned T-joints and (e)~(h) Z-pinned T-joints after
different energy impact.
the T-joint, at this juncture, is approaching the state of complete pull-off,
leading to a significant reduction in the mutual constraint between the
skin and L-pieces. Consequently, it becomes susceptible to generating
substantial instantaneous fluctuations during the progressive damage
process along the bonding interface.
Furthermore, by examining the initial moments of Stage 2, it can be
inferred that for T-joints subjected to 15 J and 25 J energy impacts, Z-
pins at different positions commence bearing loads at distinct time
points. This observation indicates that not all Z-pins initiate the bridging
effect simultaneously. This phenomenon lends robust support to the
hypothesis concerning the load recovery stages outlined in Section 5.2.
In addition, the statistical findings also reveal that the rate of Z-pin
pull-out and its position exert a negligible influence on the maximum
equivalent bridging tractions. This suggests that bridging tractions
predominantly governed by frictional stress exhibit minimal depen­
dence on the rate of change. Z-pins undergoing high-velocity pull-out
still supply significant bridging tractions, although their contributions
become inconsequential in the face of substantial interlaminar separa­
tion stress. It is only when the interlaminar separation stress approxi­
mates the magnitude of the bridging tractions that the constraining
effect of Z-pins on the layers becomes fully apparent.
6. Conclusions
This study investigates the mechanical response of CFRP T-joints
through a new integrated modeling method. Through the study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
10
Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316
(1) Through the utilization of Python scripts to extract the ultimate
element information from the preceding model and subsequently
incorporating it into the corresponding elements of the subse­
quent model, the model’s damage state can be efficiently trans­
ferred with low loss. Building upon this foundation, the
integrated model, employing VUMAT subroutines for calcula­
tions, demonstrates precision in simulating the low-velocity
impact behavior of CFRP T-joints and their residual tensile per­
formance after impact. This analytical methodology can be
extrapolated to encompass a wide spectrum of FE simulation
challenges that necessitate integrated analysis across two or more
models, encompassing scenarios like post-impact compression,
post-impact fatigue, repeated impact, and more.
(2) While Z-pin reinforcement in the non-impact region exerts little
influence on the low-velocity impact response of CFRP T-joints
and minimal effect on the residual tensile performance of intact
or slightly damaged CFRP T-joints, it proves highly effective in
curtailing damage propagation within the bonding region when
significant interlaminar damage is induced by low-velocity
impact. Specifically, once the CFRP T-joint reaches its ultimate
load and encounters a sudden load reduction (reduced to
approximately 53.5 % of the ultimate load), the Z-pin intervenes
to prevent complete failure, allowing the structure to regain some
of its load-bearing capacity within a limited range (approxi­
mately 12.3 % of the ultimate load can be restored).
(3) The location of interlaminar damage resulting from low-velocity
impact on CFRP T-joints plays a pivotal role in determining the
number of regions where damage extends during subsequent
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

Fig. 10. (a)~(d) Comparison of different failure modes during tensile process, (e)~(g) difference in distribution of delamination damage regions of T-joints after
low-velocity impact, (h) comparison of final failure modes of Z-pin.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the bridging effect of Z-pins at different positions in the pull-off process of T-joint after (a) 0 J (viz., intact), (b) 8 J, (c) 15 J, and (d) 25 J
energy impact.

quasi-static pull-off process. Likewise, manufacturing process
imperfections significantly influence the precise failure location
of the deltoid in CFRP T-joints. Collectively, these factors govern
the ultimate failure mode of the CFRP T-joint, whether it involves
crack propagation at a single location or multiple locations.
Furthermore, in the case of almost all Z-pins, their final failure
mode involves complete pull-out within the flange region of the
L-pieces. This indicates that increasing the thickness of this re­
gion can enhance overall interlaminar reinforcement.
(4) In CFRP T-joints exhibiting extensive damage, Z-pins situated at
various positions do not initiate the bridging effect simulta­
neously. Conversely, in CFRP T-joints with minor damage, the
opposite scenario unfolds, with the latter experiencing a notably
shorter duration than the former. This disparity is primarily
determined by the time span encompassing the failure process of
the structure. Furthermore, the bridging tractions primarily
governed by frictional stress on the Z-pin surface exhibit insen­
sitivity to both the pull-out rate and the implantation position of

11
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

the Z-pin. They consistently provide nearly identical equivalent
bridging tractions. However, this effect becomes discernible only
when the CFRP T-joint harbors a certain degree of initial damage.
Author contributions
Jianwu Zhou: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing-
original draft, Writing-review draft.
Zhibin Zhao: Validation, Writing-original draft.
Liyong Jia: Investigation, Methodology, Funding acquisition.
Chao Zhang: Investigation, Funding acquisition, Resources,
Supervision.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (No. 12172303), the 111 Project (No. BP0719007) and
the Aviation Science Foundation of China (No. 2017ZD03020).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110316.

Appendix A. Failure modes of Hashin’s failure criterion

Fiber tensile failure (σ11 ≥ 0)

( )2 ( )2 ( )2
σ11 σ12 σ13
fft = +α +α ≥1 (A1)
Xt S12 S13
Fiber compressive failure (σ11 < 0)
( )2
σ11
ffc = ≥1 (A2)
Xc
Matrix tensile failure (σ22 + σ33 ≥ 0)
( ) ( )2 ( )2
σ 22 + σ33 2 σ12 σ 13 σ 2 − σ 22 σ33
fmt = + + + 23 2 ≥1 (A3)
Yt S12 S13 S23
Matrix compressive failure (σ22 + σ33 < 0)
[( )2 ] ( ) ( )2 ( )2
Yc σ 22 + σ 33 σ22 + σ33 2 σ 12 σ13 σ 2 − σ 22 σ 33
fmc = − 1 + + + + 23 2 ≥1 (A4)
2S23 Yc 2S23 S12 S13 S23

where σij (i, j = 1, 2, 3) is the effective stress tensor; Xt and Xc are the tensile and compressive strengths of the unidirectional composite laminate in the
fiber direction, respectively; Yt and Yc are the tensile and compressive strengths in the transverse direction, respectively; S12 , S13 and S23 are shear
strengths under different modes; α (0 < α ≤ 1) is the shear failure coefficient applied to determine the contribution of shear stresses on the fiber tensile
failure. In the present work, it is set as 1.

Appendix B. Stiffness degradation model.

⎡ ⎤
(1 − d1 )2 C11 (1 − d1 )(1 − d2 )C12 (1 − d1 )C13 0 0 0
⎢ (1 − d1 )(1 − d2 )C12 (1 − d2 )2 C22 (1 − d2 )C23 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ (1 − d1 )C13 (1 − d2 )C23 C33 0 0 0 ⎥
Cd = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ (B1)
⎢ 0 0 0 (1 − d12 )2 C44 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 (1 − d23 )2 C55 0 ⎦
2
0 0 0 0 0 (1 − d13 ) C66

12
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

⎧
⎪ 1 − ν23 ν32 ν21 + ν23 ν31
⎪
⎪ C11 = , C12 =
⎪
⎪ E2 E3 Δ E1 E3 Δ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ν31 + ν21 ν32 ν32 + ν12 ν31
⎪
⎪ C13 = , C23 =
⎪
⎪ E1 E2 Δ E1 E2 Δ
⎨
1 − ν13 ν31 1 − ν12 ν21 (B2)
⎪
⎪ C = , C33 =
⎪ 22
⎪ E1 E3 Δ E1 E2 Δ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ C = G , C = G , C = G12
⎪
⎪ 44 23 55 31 66
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1 − ν ν − ν ν − ν13 ν31 − 2ν12 ν23 ν31
⎪
⎩Δ = 12 21 23 32
E1 E2 E3
⎧
⎪
⎪ ( )( )
⎪
⎪ d1 = 1 − t
1 − d11 c
1 − d11
⎪
⎪ ( )( )
⎪
⎪ t c
⎪ d2 = 1 −
⎪ 1 − d22 1 − d22
⎪
⎪
⎨ d3 = 0
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (B3)
⎪
⎪ d12 = 1 − (1 − d1 )(1 − d2 )
⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪ d13 = 1 − (1 − d1 )(1 − d3 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪
⎩ d23 = 1 − (1 − d2 )(1 − d3 )

where E1 , E2 and E3 represent the Young’s modulus in the three principal elastic directions, respectively; G12 , G23 and G31 represent the shear modulus
in the three planes, respectively; The Poisson’s ratio νij satisfies the relationship νij /Ej = νji /Ei (i, j = 1, 2, 3 and i ∕
= j) with the Young’s modulus; dtii and
dcii (i = 1, 2) represent the damage variables under tensile and compressive modes in the i direction, respectively. The specific definitions are expressed
in Eqs. (B4).
⎧ ( )
⎪ εtf,1 εt0,1
⎪
⎪ d t
= 1 −
⎪ 11 εt − εt
⎪ ε11
⎪
⎪ f,1 0,1
⎪
⎪ (
⎪
⎪ c c )
⎪ c
⎪ ε f,1 ε 0,1
⎪
⎪ d11 = c c 1−
⎨ εf,1 − ε0,1 ε11
( ) (B4)
⎪
⎪ εtf,2 εt0,2
⎪
⎪ d t
= 1 −
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
22
εtf,2 − εt0,2 ε22
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ c ( c )
⎪
⎪ ε f,2 ε 0,2
⎪
⎩ d22 c
= c 1 −
εf,2 − εc0,2 ε22

where εt0,i and εc0,i (i = 1, 2) represent the equivalent damage initial strain of element under tensile and compressive modes in the i direction,
respectively; εtf,i and εcf,i (i = 1, 2) represent the equivalent failure strain of element under tensile and compressive modes in the i direction, respectively.

Appendix C. Solution of failure strains and limitation of characteristic length.

⎧
⎪
⎪ t 2Gtic
⎪ εf,i = σt l
⎪
⎨
(C1)
0,i

⎪
⎪ 2Gcic
⎪ c
⎩ εf,i = σc l
⎪
0,i

⎧
⎪
⎪ 2Gt 2Gt
⎪
⎪ εtf,i = t ict ≥ εt0,i →lti ≤ t ict (i = 1, 2)
⎪
⎪ σ 0,i li σ 0,i ε0,i
⎪
⎨
(C2)
c
2G 2Gc
⎪
⎪ εcf,i = c icc ≥ εc0,i →lci ≤ c icc (i = 1, 2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
σ l
0,i i σ 0,i ε0,i
⎪
⎪ { t c}
⎩
l = min li , li

where Gtic and Gcic (i = 1, 2) represent the fracture toughness under tensile and compressive modes in the i direction, respectively [40–43]; σ t0,i and
σ c0,i (i = 1, 2) represent the equivalent damage initial stress of element under tensile and compressive modes in the i direction, respectively; l represents
the characteristic length of the element, which can be approximately calculated and obtained by transforming the target element through the char
Length function embedded in VUMAT.

Appendix D. Damage model for the interface.

[ ]2 [ ]2 [ ]2
〈σ n 〉 σt σs
fini = + + (D1)
Nmax Tmax Smax

13
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

where σn , σt and σ s are interlaminar normal stress and two kinds of interlaminar shear stresses under different modes, respectively; Nmax , Tmax and Smax
are interlaminar tensile stress and two kinds of interlaminar shear strength under different modes; fini is the damage initiation variable, and the
cohesive element starts to damage when it equals to 1.
( )
δf δm − δ0m
D = m( f ) (D2)
δm δm − δ0m

where D is the damage evolution variable. When D = 0, the material does not undergo stiffness degradation. When D = 1, the material undergoes
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
complete stiffness degradation. δm = 〈δn 〉2 + δ2t + δ2s , which represents the comprehensive opening displacement. δ0m represents the comprehensive
0
displacement when the material starts to damage. δfm = 2Gequivc /Teff , which represents the equivalent displacement when the material completely
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2 0
fails. Teff = 〈σ n 〉 + σt + σs , which represents the comprehensive stress. Teff
2 2 represents the comprehensive stress when the material starts to damage.
In addition, the equivalent fracture toughness under the mixed-mode is expressed in Eq. (D3).
( )η
GII + GIII
Gequivc = GIc + (GIIc − GIc ) (D3)
GI + GII + GIII

where GIc = 850 J/m2 and GIIc = 1450 J/m2 is the fracture toughness under the mode I and II loading, respectively; GI , GII and GIII is the strain energy
release rate under the mode I, II and III loading, respectively; η is the damage factor, it is set as 1.45.

Appendix E. Correction of equivalent damage initiation strain and strength under different failure modes.

Failure mode Longitudinal tension Longitudinal compression

Failure factor (fiber) fft ffc

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Equivalent strain (fiber)
ε = 〈ε11 〉2 + αε212 + αε213 ε = 〈− ε11 〉2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Modified equivalent damage initiation strain (fiber)
〈ε11 〉2 + αε212 + αε213 〈− ε11 〉2
ε0 = √̅̅̅̅̅ ε0 = √̅̅̅̅̅
fft ffc
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Modified equivalent damage initiation strength (fiber)
〈σ11 〉2 + ασ212 + ασ213 〈− σ11 〉2
σ0 = √̅̅̅̅̅ σ0 = √̅̅̅̅̅
fft ffc
Failure factor (matrix) fmt fmc
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Equivalent strain (matrix)
ε = 〈ε22 〉2 + 〈ε33 〉2 + ε212 + ε213 + ε223 ε = 〈− ε22 〉2 + 〈− ε33 〉2 + ε212 + ε213 + ε223
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Modified equivalent damage initiation strain (matrix)
〈ε22 〉2 + 〈ε33 〉2 + ε212 + ε213 + ε223 〈− ε22 〉2 + 〈− ε33 〉2 + ε212 + ε213 + ε223
ε0 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ε0 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
fmt fmc
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Modified equivalent damage initiation strength (matrix)
〈σ22 〉2 + 〈σ33 〉2 + σ212 + σ213 + σ223 〈− σ22 〉2 + 〈− σ33 〉2 + σ212 + σ213 + σ223
σ0 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅ σ0 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
fmt fmc

Note. The symbol˂> represents the Macaulay operator.

Appendix FLow-velocity impact test arrangements of T-joint specimens.

Test Impact energy (J) Repeated times Drop height (mm) Initial contact velocity (m/s)

Unpinned T-joint-8J 8 3 146.72 ± 0.38 1.70 ± 0.00

Z-pinned T-joint-8J 146.52 ± 0.88 1.69 ± 0.00
Unpinned T-joint-15J 15 272.20 ± 0.53 2.31 ± 0.00
Z-pinned T-joint-15J 271.90 ± 0.52 2.31 ± 0.00
Unpinned T-joint-25J 25 459.23 ± 0.73 3.00 ± 0.00
Z-pinned T-joint-25J 457.67 ± 0.18 2.99 ± 0.00

Appendix G. Material properties of unidirectional laminate of IM7/M91 and S35/YH69.

Material Category Parameter

IM7/M91 Density 1570 kg/m3

Stiffness properties E1 = 165 GPa; E2 = E3 = 10.3 GPa; ν12 = ν13 = 0.3; ν23 = 0.4
G12 = 6.3 GPa; G13 = 6 GPa; G23 = 3.7 GPa
Strength properties Xt = 2980 MPa; Xc = 1860 MPa; Yt = Zt = 82 MPa; Yc = Zc = 236 MPa
S12 = 110 MPa; S13 = 90 MPa; S23 = 40 MPa
Fracture energy Gft = 91.6 N/mm; Gfc = 79.9 N/mm; Gmt = 0.22 N/mm; Gmc = 1.1 N/mm
S35/YH69 Density 1870 kg/m3
Stiffness properties E1 = 115 GPa; E2 = E3 = 8.2 GPa; ν12 = ν13 = 0.32; ν23 = 0.41
G12 = G13 = 3.5 GPa; G23 = 2.4 GPa
Strength properties Xt = 1090 MPa; Xc = 760 MPa; Yt = Zt = 80 MPa; Yc = Zc = 145 MPa
S12 = 105 MPa; S13 = 95 MPa; S23 = 36 MPa
Fracture energy Gft = 62.1 N/mm; Gfc = 49.7 N/mm; Gmt = 0.17 N/mm; Gmc = 1.2 N/mm

14
J. Zhou et al. Composites Science and Technology 245 (2024) 110316

References [22] H. Liu, B.G. Falzon, W. Tan, Predicting the Compression-After-Impact (CAI)
strength of damage-tolerant hybrid unidirectional/woven carbon-fibre reinforced
composite laminates, Compos. Part A-Appl. 105 (2018) 189–202, https://doi.org/
[1] H. Liu, J. Liu, Y. Ding, Z.E. Hall, X. Kong, J. Zhou, et al., A three-dimensional
10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.11.021.
elastic-plastic damage model for predicting the impact behaviour of fibre-
[23] H. Tuo, Z. Lu, X. Ma, J. Xing, C. Zhang, Damage and failure mechanism of thin
reinforced polymer-matrix composites, Compos. Part B-Eng. 201 (2020), 108389,
composite laminates under low-velocity impact and compression-after-impact
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108389.
loading conditions, Compos. Part B-Eng. 163 (2019) 642–654, https://doi.org/
[2] S. Yan, X. Zeng, A. Long, Meso-scale modelling of 3D woven composite T-joints
10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.006.
with weave variations, Compos. Sci. Technol. 171 (2019) 171–179, https://doi.
[24] H. Tuo, Z. Lu, X. Ma, C. Zhang, S. Chen, An experimental and numerical
org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.12.024.
investigation on low-velocity impact damage and compression-after-impact
[3] H. Zhang, R. He, B. Hou, Y. Li, H. Cui, W. Yang, Artificial hail ice impact damage of
behavior of composite laminates, Compos. Part B-Eng. 167 (2019) 329–341,
laminated composite T-joint with stitching reinforcement, Compos. Struct. 278
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.043.
(2021), 114714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114714.
[25] W. Jia, W. Wen, L. Fang, Low-velocity impact and post-impact biaxial residual
[4] S. Yan, X. Zeng, A. Long, Experimental assessment of the mechanical behaviour of
strength tests and simulations of composite laminates, Compos. Struct. 235 (2020),
3D woven composite T-joints, Compos. Part B-Eng. 154 (2018) 108–113, https://
111758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111758.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.007.
[26] Z. Cheng, J. Xiong, Progressive damage behaviors of woven composite laminates
[5] J. Zhou, Z. Zhao, Y. Shi, X. Wang, X. Chen, C. Shan, Hail impact responses and
subjected to LVI, TAI and CAI, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 33 (10) (2020) 2807–2823,
residual tensile properties of CFRP T-joints, Chin. J. Aeronaut. (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.015.
S1000936123000614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2023.03.005.
[27] Z. Cheng, W. Tan, J. Xiong, Progressive damage modelling and fatigue life
[6] M.M. Thawre, K.N. Pandey, A. Dubey, K.K. Verma, D.R. Peshwe, R.K. Paretkar, et
prediction of Plain-weave composite laminates with Low-velocity impact damage,
al., Fatigue life of a carbon fiber composite T-joint under a standard fighter aircraft
Compos. Struct. 273 (2021), 114262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spectrum load sequence, Compos. Struct. 127 (2015) 260–266, https://doi.org/
compstruct.2021.114262.
10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.026.
[28] Z. Cheng, W. Tan, J. Xiong, Modelling pre-fatigue, low-velocity impact and post-
[7] J.-B. Bai, C.-H. Dong, J.-J. Xiong, C.-Y. Luo, D. Chen, Progressive damage
impact fatigue behaviours of composite helicopter tail structures under multipoint
behaviour of RTM-made composite T-joint under tensile loading, Compos. Part B-
coordinated loading spectrum, Thin-Walled Struct. 176 (2022), 109349, https://
Eng. 160 (2019) 488–497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.069.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109349.
[8] M. Barzegar, M.D. Moallem, M. Mokhtari, Progressive damage analysis of an
[29] J. Zhou, Y. Shi, Y. Zuo, C. Shan, Z. Gu, Experimental investigation into influences
adhesively bonded composite T-joint under bending, considering micro-scale
of Z-pin and deltoid on structural properties and damage tolerance of CFRP T-
effects of fiber volume fraction of adherends, Compos. Struct. 258 (2021), 113374,
joints, Compos. Part B-Eng. 237 (2022), 109875, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113374.
compositesb.2022.109875.
[9] J. Cheng, Y. Xu, W. Zhang, W. Liu, A review on the multi-scale simulation of Z-
[30] Z. Hashin, Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites, J. Appl.
pinned composite laminates, Compos. Struct. 295 (2022), 115834, https://doi.org/
Mech. 48 (4) (1981) 846–852, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3157744.
10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115834.
[31] A. Faggiani, B.G. Falzon, Predicting low-velocity impact damage on a stiffened
[10] B. Gong, W. Ouyang, M. Nartey, H. Wang, K.D. Potter, H.-X. Peng, Minimizing the
composite panel, Compos. Part A-Appl. 41 (6) (2010) 737–749, https://doi.org/
in-plane damage of Z-pinned composite laminates via a pre-hole pin insertion
10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.02.005.
process, Compos. Sci. Technol. 200 (2020), 108413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[32] A. Hillerborg, The theoretical basis of a method to determine the fracture energyG
compscitech.2020.108413.
F of concrete, Mater. Struct. 18 (4) (1985) 291–296, https://doi.org/10.1007/
[11] B. Liao, J. Zhou, J. Zheng, R. Tao, L. Xi, T. Zhao, et al., Effect of Z-pin inclined angle
BF02472919.
on the impact damage suppression effectiveness for cross-ply composite laminates,
[33] M.L. Benzeggagh, M. Kenane, Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture
Compos. Part A-Appl. 142 (2021), 106264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending
compositesa.2020.106264.
apparatus, Compos. Sci. Technol. 56 (4) (1996) 439–449, https://doi.org/
[12] B. Gong, H. Wang, M. Nartey, W. Ouyang, J. Ye, S. Qu, et al., Fatigue life
10.1016/0266-3538(96)00005-X.
assessment and damage evolution in Z-pinned laminates, Compos. Sci. Technol.
[34] P.P. Camanho, C.G. Davila, M.F. de Moura, Numerical simulation of mixed-mode
221 (2022), 109328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109328.
progressive delamination in composite materials, Materials 37 (16) (2003)
[13] L. Francesconi, F. Aymerich, Damage mechanisms in the CAI failure of thin z-
1415–1438, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998303034505.
pinned composite laminates, Compos. Part A-Appl. 158 (2022), 106991, https://
[35] Y. Shi, T. Swait, C. Soutis, Modelling damage evolution in composite laminates
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2022.106991.
subjected to low velocity impact, Compos. Struct. 94 (9) (2012) 2902–2913,
[14] H. Zhang, H. Ding, D. Yang, Q. Xu, Y. Ma, Y. Bi, Experimental investigation of Z-pin
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.03.039.
insertion angles on the mechanical behavior and failure mechanism of compression
[36] J. Zhou, B. Liao, Y. Shi, Y. Zuo, H. Tuo, L. Jia, Low-velocity impact behavior and
after impact for CFRP laminates, Compos. Struct. 304 (2023), 116476, https://doi.
residual tensile strength of CFRP laminates, Compos. Part B-Eng. 161 (2019)
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116476.
300–313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.090.
[15] T.M. Koh, S. Feih, A.P. Mouritz, Experimental determination of the structural
[37] X.K. Li, P.F. Liu, Experimental analysis of low-velocity impact behaviors of carbon
properties and strengthening mechanisms of z-pinned composite T-joints, Compos.
fiber composite laminates, J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 161 (2017) 1126–1130, https://doi.
Struct. 93 (9) (2011) 2222–2230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1007/s11668-017-0350-z.
compstruct.2011.03.009.
[38] J. Zhou, B. Liao, Y. Shi, L. Ning, Y. Zuo, L. Jia, Experimental investigation of the
[16] J. Hoffmann, G. Scharr, Mechanical properties of composite laminates reinforced
double impact position effect on the mechanical behavior of low-velocity impact in
with rectangular z-pins in monotonic and cyclic tension, Compos. Part A-Appl. 109
CFRP laminates, Compos. Part B-Eng. 193 (2020), 108020, https://doi.org/
(2018) 163–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.03.004.
10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108020.
[17] S.Z.H. Shah, S. Karuppanan, P.S.M. Megat-Yusoff, Z. Sajid, Impact resistance and
[39] F. Bianchi, T.M. Koh, X. Zhang, I.K. Partridge, A.P. Mouritz, Finite element
damage tolerance of fiber reinforced composites: a review, Compos. Struct. 217
modelling of z-pinned composite T-joints, Compos. Sci. Technol. 73 (2012) 48–56,
(2019) 100–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.09.008.
[18] P. Rozylo, H. Debski, T. Kubiak, A model of low-velocity impact damage of
[40] I. Lapczyk, J.A. Hurtado, Progressive damage modeling in fiber-reinforced
composite plates subjected to Compression-After-Impact (CAI) testing, Compos.
materials, Compos. Part A-Appl. 38 (11) (2007) 2333–2341, https://doi.org/
Struct. 181 (2017) 158–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.097.
10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.017.
[19] A.H. Baluch, O. Falcó, J.L. Jiménez, B.H.A.H. Tijs, C.S. Lopes, An efficient
[41] F. Guo-dong, L. Jun, W. Bao-lai, Progressive damage and nonlinear analysis of 3D
numerical approach to the prediction of laminate tolerance to Barely Visible
four-directional braided composites under unidirectional tension, Compos. Struct.
Impact Damage, Compos. Struct. 225 (2019), 111017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
89 (2009) 126–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.07.016.
compstruct.2019.111017.
[42] R. He, Y. Gao, L. Cheng, H. Cui, Y. Li, Fracture toughness for longitudinal
[20] T. Ouyang, R. Bao, W. Sun, Z. Guan, R. Tan, A fast and efficient numerical
compression failure of laminated composites at high loading rate, Compos. Part A-
prediction of compression after impact (CAI) strength of composite laminates and
Appl. 156 (2022), 106834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2022.106834.
structures, Thin-Walled Struct. 148 (2020), 106588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[43] Y. Zhao, J. Zang, J. Ben, J. Yang, X. Wan, W. Wang, X. Chen, Revealing the
tws.2019.106588.
interlaminar shear failure behavior of unidirectional laminate under combined
[21] J. Zou, Z. Lei, D. Liu, X. Hong, Y. Shang, R. Bai, Rapid prediction of compression
compression-shear loads, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 157 (2023) 110–119, https://doi.
after impact properties of composite structures: an equivalent strategy for impact
org/10.1016/j.jmst.2023.01.049.
damage, Compos. Struct. 307 (2023), 116655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2022.116655.

15