4.6 Article

Benchmark assessment of automated delamination propagation capabilities in finite element codes for static loading

期刊

FINITE ELEMENTS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 28-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2012.01.006

关键词

Laminated composite materials; Delamination; Fracture mechanics; Benchmarking

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center [NNL09AA00A]
  2. NASA
  3. RMIT University
  4. Per Nordlund of MSC.Software Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increasing implementation into commercial finite element (FE) codes of capabilities for simulating delamination propagation in composite materials, the need for benchmarking and assessing these capabilities is critical. In this study, the capabilities of the commercial FE code Marc (TM) 2008r1 with implementation of the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) was assessed. Benchmark delamination propagation results for several specimen configurations were generated using a numerical approach. Specimens were analyzed with three-dimensional and two-dimensional models, and compared with previous analyses using Abaqus (R) with the VCCT implemented. The results demonstrated that the VCCT implementation in Marc (TM) was capable of accurately replicating the benchmark delamination growth results. The analyses in Marc (TM) were significantly more computationally efficient than previous analyses in Abaqus (R). This was due to a lack of convergence issues, and a solution process that maintained the use of large time increments. The results demonstrated the advantages of numerical over experimental and analytical benchmarks, particularly with regards to comparison of capabilities a cross codes. More broadly, the results illustrated key similarities and differences between two commercial FE codes implementing the same analysis technique, which reinforces the need for rigorous benchmarking and assessment. (C) 2012 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据