Progressive failure analyses of compression-loaded composite curved panels with and without cutouts

Verification of Dynamic Relaxation (DR) Method in Isotropic , Orthotropic and Laminated Plates using Small Deflection Theory

“…Numerical techniques other than the DR include finite element method, which is widely used in several studies i.e., of Damodar R. Ambur et al, [22], ying Qing Huang et al, [23], Onsy L. Roufaeil et al, [3]… etc. In a comparison between the DR and the finite element method, Aalami [24] found that the computer time required for finite element method is eight times greater than for DR analysis, whereas the storage capacity for finite element analysis is ten times or more than that for DR analysis.…”

Finite Element Analysis of Progressive Degradation versus Failure Stress Criteria on Composite Damage Mechanics

“…Similar mixed modes criteria were used by Chang and Lessard (1991) which were coded by Ambur et al (2004) as an Abaqus user subroutine for the reader interested in this type of computer implementations. They modelled the progression of the damage modes proposed by Hashin (1980) and applied it to the simulation of composite shells.…”

On the Prediction of the Residual Behaviour of Impacted Composite Curved Panels

“…Many approaches can be found in the literature to describe the progressive failure of a laminate, e.g., a state of the art approach was presented during the World Wide Failure Exercise (Kaddour et al, 2004). Different criteria are used in these approaches: for example, Ambur (Ambur et al, 2004) and Laurin (Laurin et al, 2007) use the Hashin-Rotem multi-criterion (Hashin and Rotem 1973); Bogetti (Bogetti, 2004) a 3-D maximum strain criterion and Zinoviev (Zinoviev, 2002) a maximum stress criterion. For this study, we have chosen the following maximum strain criterion.…”