Assessment of Intralaminar Progressive Damage and Failure Analysis Methods Using an Efficient Evaluation Framework

Implementation of a Matrix Crack Spacing Parameter in a Continuum Damage Mechanics Finite Element Model

“…The differences in analysis predictions and test observations of damage evolution may have been due to the material model assuming a linear constitutive response prior to damage initiation and not including nonlinear stress-strain relationships. Previous work in [10] revealed the need for further refinement of the pre-peak nonlinear model in CompDam and better coupling with compressive damage modes; hence this feature was not used in this study. Oversimplification of the fiber kinking failure mode with a traditional CDM crack-like representation may also contribute to the differences between the test and analysis results.…”

“…The geometry, mesh, section assignments, step definition, and boundary conditions used in the analysis models all follow the procedures outlined in [10] and [11]. Schematics of these models are shown in Figures 1 and 2.…”

“…Plane stress elements with reduced integration (CPS4R) were used, where the typical element length ahead of the notch tip was = 0.25 mm. Unlike the CNT and CNS models from [10] and [11], multiple pre-damaged CDM cracks were defined in the model for different values of the MCS parameter. The MCS values that were assessed were 0, 1, 3, and 5.…”

“…The separate plies were connected with COH3D8 cohesive elements which were used for modeling delaminations. The approximate mesh size in the damage region was 0.25 mm based on work from [10]. The elastic region was meshed with a free meshing strategy, whereas the damageable region was meshed with a fiber-aligned meshing technique.…”