2016
DOI: 10.2514/1.j054700
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stress Recovery in Composite Laminates Including Geometrically Nonlinear and Dynamic Effects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They first approximate a transverse stress field, whose error is reduced via minimisation of a least square functional at the element level. Later, Hartman et al [39] proposed an iterative stress recovery technique with application to laminated plates, which is then extended to include inertial effects in a later publication [42]. These works demonstrated considerable savings in the computational time for accurate interlaminar stresses.…”
Section: D Cauchy Stress Tracking In a Thick Laminated Roofmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They first approximate a transverse stress field, whose error is reduced via minimisation of a least square functional at the element level. Later, Hartman et al [39] proposed an iterative stress recovery technique with application to laminated plates, which is then extended to include inertial effects in a later publication [42]. These works demonstrated considerable savings in the computational time for accurate interlaminar stresses.…”
Section: D Cauchy Stress Tracking In a Thick Laminated Roofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Firstly, the 3D stress accuracy of the VKCS model is validated with a simple benchmark from Hartman et al [39], as shown in Figure 7. It shall be noted that the benchmarks for nonlinear Cauchy stresses are scarce in the literature, and mostly focus on laminated flat plates [39][40][41][42] that are 2D in nature (plane stress/strain).…”
Section: D Cauchy Stress Tracking In a Thick Laminated Roofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 3 shows this comparison for mesh densities of 16 × 16 ×16 in the case of Abaqus 3-D models). In the 3-D models, it should be highlighted that the midplane outer edges were constrained in attempt to simulate the same restriction of the two-dimensional models [19].…”
Section: B Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%