Application of Reduced Order Multiscale Homogenization to ‘Assess and Quantify the Benefits of Applying Damage Tolerant Design Principles to Advanced Composite Aircraft Structures’

Bogdanor, Michael; Crouch, Robert D.; Oskay, Caglar

doi:10.2514/6.2015-1879

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EHM can also account for progressive debonding between fiber and matrix at the scale of the microstructure, and is equipped with an adaptive model improvement capability to hierarchically increase model fidelity. 14 EHM has been successfully employed in the prediction of failure under static loading, 18,19 blast, 20 compression-after-impact, 21 and fatigue loading, 22 as well as failure in thin composite plates, 23,24 in the presence of environmental effects, 25 and in the presence of constituent material uncertainty. 26 In this manuscript, EHM is employed to predict the failure response of a suite of laminated, unidirectionally reinforced carbon fiber polymer (i.e., IM7/977-3) composite specimens subjected to static loading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of progressive damage and strength of IM7/977-3 composites using the Eigendeformation-based homogenization approach: Static loading

Bogdanor

Oskay

2016

Journal of Composite Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results from the authors' participation in the Air Force Research Laboratory's Damage Tolerance Design Principles Program. The Eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization method was employed to predict the mechanical response of a suite of open hole and unnotched IM7/977-3 composite laminates under static tension and compression. Damage accumulation, effective stiffness, and ultimate strength blind predictions are included in addition to the results of the recalibration study. In blind predictions, the proposed multiscale model produced predictions with an average error of 13.1% compared to the experiments for static ultimate strength and 13.6% for stiffness. After recalibration, the average prediction error was improved to 8.7% for static ultimate strength and 4.4% for stiffness. Details of the blind predictions and the recalibration are discussed.

show abstract