A progressive damage model for 3D woven composites under compression

Abstract

A progressive damage model is proposed to investigate the damage initiation and evolution of 3D woven composites under uniaxial compression at a micromechanical level. The typical compressive experiments were carried out. Based on the observations, the compression failure modes of 3D woven composites mainly include fiber kinking, transverse failure of fiber tow, matrix fracture, and interfacial debonding. The initial damage criteria are according to the physically based failure criteria for the fiber kinking, the Puck criteria for the transverse failure of fiber tow, and the maximum stress criterion for the matrix. The damage of fiber tow–matrix interfacial is simulated through cohesive contact. Particularly, the fiber’s initial misalignment angle is taken into account in the damage model. The simulated compression results agree well with the experimental ones. The compressive stress–strain response of the 3D woven composite is forecasted. The damage evolution of each constituent of the 3D woven composite is obtained. The results show that the influence of the fiber’s initial misalignment angle on the compression strength of the 3D woven composite needs to be considered.

A new progressive damage model for predicting the tensile behavior of the three-dimensional woven carbon/carbon composites using micromechanics method

“…The Representative Volume Element (RVE) model is usually selected to investigate the mechanical properties according to the periodic microstructure of the 3 D woven composites. Based on the RVE model, the effective elastic properties (Chen et al., 1999; Zhang and Xu, 2013; Zhang L et al, 2019), influence of woven architecture and imperfections (Fang et al., 2009; Huang and Gong, 2018; Rao et al., 2008), and damage behavior (Fang et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2000; Zako et al., 2003) have been examined numerically. Typically, progressive damage model for the 3 D woven composites based on continuum damage mechanics theory includes damage initiation criterion and damage evolution model.…”

“…Typically, progressive damage model for the 3 D woven composites based on continuum damage mechanics theory includes damage initiation criterion and damage evolution model. For the matrix in the 3 D woven composites, the Von-Mises failure criterion (Wang et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2004; Zhai et al., 2017) and maximum stress failure criterion (Fang et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020) are commonly used as damage initiation criterion considering its isotropic material property. In order to take the interfacial debonding between yarns and matrix into account, the cohesive zone model and traction separation constitutive are usually utilized in the damage simulation of the 3 D woven composites (Ai et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2013; Rao et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2015), and zero thickness cohesive elements are generally selected to facilitate the interface geometry construction because the interface is extremely thin in thickness.…”

“…(2016) adopted Hashin’s failure criterion to characterize the longitudinal fiber failure and transverse matrix failure of the yarns in the 3 D woven composites. Lu et al. (2019), Liu et al.…”

A unified damage model for fibrous composite laminae subject to in-plane stress-state and having multi material-nonlinearity

“…Consecutively, Lu et al. (2019) adopted a micromechanics-based model to trace damage initiation and propagation in 3D-woven composite specimens which were loaded in compression.…”

Differences of transverse impact damages in 3D angle-interlock woven composites between warp and weft directions

“…So far, the impact damage behaviors of 3D woven composite panel were reported in testing such as drop-weight tests (Bandaru et al., 2016; Hart et al., 2017)? ballistic tests (McWilliams et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2018), and dynamic compressive loading (Arbaoui et al., 2016; Bandaru et al., 2017b; Liu et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2018). However, multiple impact will occur when the mass of projectile is not small compared to the target (Park et al., 2000).…”