Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:33:56.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Predicting Failure Behavior of Polymeric Composites Using a Unified Constitutive Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

M. J. Vallejo
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A.
R. A. Tarefder*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A.
*
**Assistant Professor, corresponding author
Get access

Abstract

This study predicts the failure behavior of an IM7/977-2 carbon epoxy composite material through a unified constitutive model. The traction-separation response and damage initiation and evolution behavior were studied by modeling a composite double cantilever beam subjected to a Mode I delamination. Damage within the composite panels was also taken into consideration through the use of the disturbed state concept (DSC). The finite element modeling software Abaqus was used to model the failure behavior of the composite using a unified constitutive modeling approach. The finite element model was validated by comparing the model results to referenced laboratory testing performed on IM7/977-2 carbon epoxy composite. The results of the finite element modeling performed in this study are in good agreement with the referenced laboratory testing. The damaged states associated with various stages of loading are presented in this study.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, R.O.C. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Sane, S. M, Desai, C. S., and Jenson, J. W. et al. , “Disturbed State Constitutive Modeling of Two Pleistocene Tills,” Quaternary Science Reviews, 27, pp. 267283 (2008).Google Scholar
2. Desai, C. S., “Mechanics of Materials and Interfaces: The Disturbed State Concept,” CRC Press LLC (2001).Google Scholar
3. Abaqus Analysis Users Manual, v. 6.7, Dassault Systemes (2007).Google Scholar
4. Hyer, M. W., “Stress Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials,” Second Edition, DEStech Publishers Inc., Lancaster, PA (2008).Google Scholar
5. Diehl, T., “On Using a Penalty-Based Cohesive- Zone Finite Element Approach, Part I: Elastic Solution Benchmarks,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 28, pp. 237255 (2008).Google Scholar
6. Johnson, W. S., Pavlick, M. M. and Oliver, M. S., “Determination of Interlaminar Toughness of IM7/977-2 Composites at Temperature Extremes and Different Thicknesses,” Final Report, NASA Grant Number NAG-1-02003 (2005).Google Scholar
7. “Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites,” American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007).Google Scholar
8. Hexcel® HexTow® IM7 Carbon Fiber Product Data Sheet, accessed on 2/11/2010. http://www.hexcel.com/NR/rdonlyres/BD219725-D46D-4884-A3B3-AFC86020EFDA/0/HexTow_IM7_5000.pdf.Google Scholar
9. Cycom® 977-2 Toughened Epoxy Resin Data Sheet, http://www.cytec.com/engineered-materials/products/Cycom977-2.htm (February 11, 2010).Google Scholar
10. Parry, D. J. and Al-Hazmi, F. S., “Stress-Strain Behavior of IM7/977-2 and IM7/APC2 Carbon Fibre Composites at Low and High Strain Rates,” Journal de Physique, 110, pp. 5762 (2003).Google Scholar