Lecture11 All

IFB
Composites modelling:
For impact and crash
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University Stuttgart
Finite Elements: Impact and crash modelling

of composites
Further theory on the Explicit FE method
Composites impact and crash modeling:
o Ply failure and damage
o Axial crash
o Delamination
Examples of composite crash modeling from Motorsport
Composites tutorials (number 10, 11, 12 on the web)
1
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Simulation chain for composites

and typical analysis methods
Properties
Structural
analysis
Preforming
Infusion
Others
Micromechanics
FE Stiffness
Draping
(mapping)
Filling (FE)
Optimisation
WiseTex (meso
mechanics)
FE Failure
Draping (FE)
FE Fatigue
Laminate
analysis
FE
Crash/Impact
Braiding
Residualstresses
Laminate
analysis (maco
2
mechanics
Etc
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Comparison of Implicit and Explicit FE methods

Implicit method
Explicit method
k m f(t),u,u ,u
Governing equations
P K
Load
Stiffness
cu ku f(t)
mu
Displacements
For each element
2
/
1
/
1
n
u2
tn
n
u n1/2 u n1/2 t nu
1
For linear problems simple one step matrix

inversion of the global stiffness matrix is
needed. For non-linear problems iterative
Newton-Raphson type solutions are needed.
(2)
un
[E] is constant for elastic and non-linear for

elasto-plastic, damage and similar materials.
n m 1(fn ku n )
u
un
[B] is constant for linear problems and a

p
for geometrically
g
y
function of displacements
non-nonlinear problems.
(1)
f B T EBdV u k u
V
n kun fn (t)
mu
Equations are solved as a dynamic problem.

The method is conditionally stable; meaning
that the timestep must be smaller than a
critical (allowed) limit.
In each small timestep the structure and
material can often be treated as pseudolinear.
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit versus Implicit: Advantages and disadvantages
Number of time steps
Equations to be solved
Implicit
Explicit
Unconditionally stable (any

timestep).
Conditionally stable and reqires

a small time step.
B
Butt many ti
time steps
t
are
usually needed to properly
trace the physical
phenomena and achieve
convergence.
Thi
This lleads
d to
t many, b
butt CPU
cheap solutions: Contact,
material and geometrical nonlinearities are easily handled.
Requires matrix inversion.
Requires no matrix inversion or

iterative methods (some
materials laws do iterate to
ensure e.g. plasticity remains on
th yield
the
i ld surface).
f )
The solution of the nonlinear equations requires

CPU expensive iterative
solution strategies (e.g.
Newton Raphson).
Static problems
Can solve static problems.
Can only solve quasi-static

problems by careful choice of
loading and maybe some added
damping.
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Some details of the Explicit method

(1)
n m 1(fn kun )
u
un
un
IFB
un
un
(6)
Strain update: From the [B] matrix and displacements. Usually

this is in terms of increments during a timestep using the [B]
matrix for the current deformed element (at time Tn)
(4)
(5)
Nodal accelerations, velocities and

displacements update are from the equations of
motion and central finite difference equations
2
/
1
n
2
/
1
tn
un
un
n
(2) u n1/2 u n1/2 tnu
B
n1 n
Stress update: This uses the current material elasticity matrix [E] corresponding to the
current total state of strain. [E] can be elastic, elasto-plastic, damage or another type;
for some material laws (e.g. composites) additional transformations may be needed
between fibre and global frames
n1 n
Nodal (internal) forces: Using the strain-displacement matrix [B],

the material law [E] and element nodal displacements, the nodal
internal forces are computed (see next slide). These are then used
in the next cycle and the process repeated.
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Item (6) previous slide: Computation of internal forces

Remember the element internal nodal forces are obtained from the following relationship,
f B T EBdV u k u
V
These parts give stresses at a point (computed in step (5) already); where
u are the element nodal displacements and [B] the strain-displacement
matrix computed at the point x,y of interest (e.g. a gauss point)
The integration is done over the element volume; which is generally much easier to
compute using an isoparametric element formulation and Gaussian integration.
These computations can be done in incremental form using displacement increments
(= nodal displacements during one time step) giving increments of nodal forces. In this
case:
o [B] is the geometrically linear strain-displacement matrix corresponding to the current
element deformed state.
o [E] is the material law corresponding to the current state of total strain in the material.
6
The internal forces for all attached elements to a node must be computed and summated to
get the total internal nodal force(s) at the node.
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Stable time step for the Explicit scheme (Courant criteria)

m = AL/2
L, E,
k = EA/L
bar
L
c
spring-mass
c E
is the speed of sound in the material
is the time the shockwave needs to travel

between nodes
Stiff or light elements are bad for the timestep (small) which will lead to high CPU costs.
This criteria enforces that the shock wave (information) does not pass more than one
element in one timestep.
7
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Timestep stability and methods to limit its (CPU) effects
Solution stable
Solution stable
and same results
Information lost
Solution unstable:
Solution diverges
and explodes
The timestep
Th
ti
t mustt b
be ( L/c)
L/ ) where
h
L is
i the
th smallest
ll t element.
l
t Alternatively
Alt
ti l the
th lightest,
li ht t or
stiffest element (factor c) can control the stable timestep size. Methods (or tricks) are
commonly used to improve timesteps, for example:
1. Sub-cycling: This splits the structure into groups of elements; with each group having its
own stable timestep limit. Roughly equal groups of elements having timesteps less that
t, 2t, 4t and 8t are used.
8
2. Automated methods to add mass (or lower stiffness) to elements with poor timesteps.
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Propagation of shock wave information in a 1D explicit integration system

Node 1
Mass M
2
2M
3
2M
L o , Fint = 0
Pext
A n = (Pext -Fint)/M
V n+ = Vn- +A n * T
X n+1= Xn + V n+ * T
n=0
Pext
L o , Fint = 0
An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0
4
M
Lo , Fint = 0
An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0
L n+1 = Ln - X n+1
Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Fint = (Fn+1)
A n = (Pext -F
Fint)/M
V n+ =V n- + A n * T
X n+1= Xn + V n+ * T
Fint = 0
=0
A n = (Pext -F
Fint)/2M
V n+ =V n- + A n * T
X n+1= Xn + Vn+ * T
An = 0
V n+ =0
X n+1= 0
n=1
L n+1 = Ln - X n+1
Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Pext
Fint = (F n+1)
L n+1 = Ln - X n+1
Fn+1 = K *X n+1
Fint = (F n+1)
ETC
Fint = 0
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit method: Some points to note

No stiffness matrix is formed for either the local
element or global structure.
The internal forces {fn} are accumulated at nodes from
adjacent elements using the [B] matrix and nodal
displacement (increments) for each element.
The only matrix inversion (a CPU expensive operation)
is for the mass matrix.
BUT in order to keep this simple a lumped mass matrix
system is used giving a diagonal mass matrix. This is
diagonal meaning [M]-1 = [M]T and CPU expensive
inversion is avoided. For similar reasons the rotational
inertia terms in shells and beams use a Local principle
axis system (not the Global one).
10
The timestep is typically small (e.g. 1 sec for a 5mm

element made of steel). Typical strain increments in 1
cycle are therefore also very small. This allows
simplifications so that behaviour is assumed to be
linear during this small increment.
L
c
where
c E
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit method: Some additional points

Since the timestep is below a critical limit each node may be treated as an individual
analysis problem there is no coupling of nodes.
This means computations are done for each node independently (with its attached
elements):
l
t )
o
Minimum CPU storage is needed for quantities such as nodal displacements and
velocities, and element stresses and strains.
The order in which the nodes are analysed is not important.

Explicit methods are successful because very many simple CPU cheap operations are
needed in each cycle (rather than CPU expensive matrix inversion methods).
The method has no natural material damping. Velocity dependent damping [C] is ignored
in the dynamic equations of motion as this matrix would be fully populated; this would
require matrix inversion which is CPU very expensive.
The method has high frequency accelerations due to the shock wave propagation stresses.
These are integrated out when velocities and displacements are computed. Filters must
(usually) be used when looking at nodal accelerations.
11
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Contact is treated as temporary external loading

One main advantage of Explicit methods is handling contact (either internal or between
two bodies). This can be treated by introducing temporary external forces to resist
contact (there is no [K] matrix as in implicit codes).
Intersection
depth
1. A search algorithm identifies elements that

penetrate each other (main CPU cost).
2. The depth of penetration is identified and
temporary resistance forces (fR) are applied to
push the structures apart.
3. The trick is imposing forces that depend on the
depth of intersection and codes use empirical
methods. These forces should slow, stop and
gently
gently push the structures apart over many
time steps:
fR
If contact forces are to low penetration occurs

If forces are to high an unrealistic rebound will
occurs
12
4. The contact forces are introduced as additional

temporary forces in the dynamic equations of
motion.
1
xn m (fn kxn - fR )
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

More details on contact interfaces (in PAM-)

One side is defined as the master surface
Intersection
depth
The other as the slave surface
There are many contact types: e.g.

Self contact (type 36)
36), symmetric
contact (type 33) and node to
segment contact (type 34)...
Mainly you have to define:
1.Contact type.
2.The master and slave entities.
3.The required contact thickness.
4.Possible friction and damping.
13
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Force and Kinematic option in Explicit FE codes

Force level operations: These are typically:
Applied nodal forces
Applied element pressures (redistributed as equivalent nodal loads)
Penalty force based contact
Others..
These can be
summated
i.e. nodes can
belong to
several g
groups
p
These operations lead to additional nodal forces that influence the computed nodal
accelerations (and therefore nodal velocities and displacements)
Kinematic level operations: These are typically:
Boundary conditions (note nodal acceleration are set to zero not
displacements !)
So
So-called
called nodal constraints (a set of nodal accelerations are
overwritten with a common value)
So-called rigid bodies (similar to nodal constraints but includes also
rotations)
Kinematic contacts (rarely used and has limitations)
Others..
14
Cannot be
summated A
node cannot
belong to several
kinematic
constraint type
operations
These operations impose conditions on the nodal accelerations which then modify
nodal velocities and displacements
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Force options

a F /M
Kinematic options
t t t

v,u
t t sim
STOP
1) Initialise timestep
2) Set nodal force array {f} to zero
3) Add concentrated nodal load/pressures to force array
4) Loop over finite elements
4.1) Calculate strains at element gauss points
4.2) Compute stresses from strains and material law
4.3) Calculate internal nodal forces
4.4) Add internal nodal forces to force array {f}
5) Treat penalty contact and add contact forces to {f}
6) Calculate rigid body forces
7) Calculate global accelerations
8) Apply boundary conditions (note to accelerations !)
9) Update rigid body slave nodes
10) Apply nodal constrains (again to accelerations)
11) Treat any rigid wall type contacts
12) Compute nodal velocities and displacements
13) Calculate nodal principal inertia coord. system
15) Update time (t) and go to 2 for next loop
Kinematic Level
INI
Force Level
Summary of the Explicit FE operations
15
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit methods: Some examples
Head impact (biomechanics)
Explosion and detonations:

The original applications of
structural explicit codes were
largely
a ge y in tthe
e military
ta y field.
e d Faster
aste
computers in the 1980s allowed
the migration to civil crash and
other applications.
Manufacturing: Todays CPU power allows even relatively slow processes to be tackled
with explicit codes.
Braiding
ring
Braiding
mandrel
Standing
yarns
Braiding
take-up
direction
Yarn paths
Braiding yarns
Bobbin elements
16
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Example: Composite impact

Orthotropic
composite shell
Setup and details
Detailed
ply/delamination
section
Orthotropic
composite shell
Detailed ply/
delamination section
Simulation
Test
Birdstrike
example
17
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014


of composites
o Axial crash
o Delamination
18
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Types of composites damage: Transverse impact and axial crushing

Ply failure coupled with delamination
Fragmentation
OR
1. Inter-ply (delamination) damage due to excessive shear

or poissons ratio mismatch between adjacent plies
2. Delamination is (probably) coupled with ply failure
Delamination sequence
X
Example: Dynamic axial
composite tube crushing
19
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Composite failure modes
Mechanical Loading
2.Compressive failure in the fiber direction.

3.Tensile, or compressive, failure in the
transverse directions.
4.Fiber debonding at the fiber-matrix
interface (often occurs under shear loads).
5.Matrix crazing (microscopic cracks) due to
loading, aging, curing, thermal stresses...
20
11
Fibre tensile
rupture
11
Fibre compression
kink band
1
22
22
Transverse tension /
compression
3
Matrix transverse tensile cracking
1
12
23
23
7.Others.
Matrix shear cracking
Out-of-plane shear
Inter-laminar
Failure
This may also be due to other causes, such

as excessive deflections or buckling.
Fractographs of the Failure Zone
12
In-plane shear
6.Delamination: Separation between plies at

the
h resin rich
h interface.
f
In addition there may be other causes for

structural failure; e.g.
Matrix Failure
1.Tensile failure in the fiber direction; this

may start at stress levels well below
ultimate failure.
Intra-laminaar Failure
Failure of composites can be due to:
Fibre Failure
Delamination
(Mode-I)
Ply separation
10
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Types of composite elements in PAM-CRASH (and most other codes)

3D - SOLID Composite element
Generally: Most codes have either a homogenised orthotropic
element; some also have a multi-layered element.
PAM- uses a Bi-phase composite law with linear or non-linear
fib
fibers.
Th
There is
i no multi-layered
lti l
d solid;
lid either
ith homogenisation,
h
i ti
or many layers of solids would be needed for the laminate.
2D Multi-layered composite shell
Generally: Most codes have either a homogenised orthotropic
element; some also have a multi-layered element.
PAM- uses the Bi-phase and Global ply models in multi-layered
form for both UD (Uni-Directional) and woven composites.
1D (Bar or beam) composite element
Not available and makes little sense.
(1D) Delamination interface element
Tied interface specifically for delamination modelling. Rather
specialised, but becoming popular, especially in explicit codes.
PAM- has several delamination models.
21
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Common Composite laminate modelling methods today

Shell
Solid
Stacked Shell
CPU efficient, but of limited accuracy; especially if

delamination is important.
CPU expensive (timestep and number of

elements), but potentially good accuracy.
Stacked shells (for ply failure) with

tied interfaces
inte faces (for
(fo delamination
failure).
In this case solid elements are used
only to model the core in this
sandwich composites.
CPU costs are reasonable for large
structures.
22
11
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Summary of PAM-CRASH ply failure and damage models
Classical Ply models for in-plane (intra-ply) failure.

These models are for failure prediction (actual or for visualisation only). For failure,
once the criteria is reached,
reached the element is eliminated over a number of cycles:
Limit criteria: Maximum Stress and Maximum Strain
Quadratic failure criteria: Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu
Others (Puch, Hoffman )
Ply damage models suitable for Crash/Impact cases.

These models allow independent, or coupled, progressive damage and failure of
the different failure modes that can occur in a composite.
composite Two models are
available:
The PAM-CRASH Bi-phase model
The Ladeveze and Le Dantec model
23
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Classical Ply failure versus impact/crash damage models

Classical Ply (intra-ply) failure models
Classical ply failure models include:

Max. stress
Max. strain
Tasi
Tasi-Hill/Wu
Hill/Wu
Puck + many others..
Useful for:
First (or maybe last) ply failure
Limit load design
Damage models for impact and crash
For impact/crash we need other

criteria:
Identification of each failure mode
Independent damage/failure of
each failure mode:
24
o Fibre failure in tension

o Fibre buckling in compression
o Transverse or shear matrix
1
22
Transverse tension /
compression
22
Matrix transverse tensile cracking
12
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Damage type methods suitable for impact and crash: Allows treatment
of individual composite damage modes
The FE code PAM-CRASH contains two damage models suitable for impact and crash
analysis of composites.
Th are typical
They
t i l state-of-the-art
t t f th
t models
d l in
i this
thi field;
fi ld the
th main
i features
f t
are:
1.
The Bi-phase model (for UD and woven composites)

a. Considers fibre and matrix separately for mechanical stiffness and failure.
b. Uses simple damage mechanics to degrade mechanical stiffness properties.
c. A useful model if only limited or composites manufacturers data is available.
2.
The global ply model (UD composites):

a. Considers the composite as a homogenised orthotropic material.
b. Uses damage and plasticity laws to degrade mechanical properties.
c. Probably more accurate, but does require some special (non standard) mechanical
testing for shear behaviour.
25
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Ply Model 1: The Bi-Phase ply damage model

The model separates matrix and fibre phases
(Bi-phase). For each phase separate matrix and
fibre damage functions can be defined.
Calibration against coupon tests is not straightforward
forward.
FIBERS (f) +
=
UD-COMPOSITE (UD)
3
MATRIX (m)
2
=
UD= unidirectional
f = fiber
m = matrix
stress
Simple damage functions are used to degrade

mechanical properties for fibres and matrix phases,
E() = (1 - d ()) Eo
Eo
E()
Residual
strength
Damage function: this is based on the state

of fibre strain,, or J1/J2
/ in the matrix.
Various (standard) techniques
are available for definition of the
fibre directions.
26
OR information may be
transferred from a pre- draping
analyses (V2010).
strain
Z
8
global
system
n2
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
5
4
n1
y
4
2
1
local system
for bricks
2
local system
for shells
13
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

PAM-CRASH Bi-phase composites model calibration
We have already done this in Lecture 6. See

previous notes.
Also, for the Bi-phase and Global ply models there
are worked examples showing the calibration
process. See the web address:
27
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Ply Model 2: The Global Ply damage model

Three damage variables, d1, d2 and d12, characterise ply damage:
1. Axial (Fibre breakage):
E 1 = E1 o ( 1 - d1 )
2. Transverse ((Matrix microcracking):

g)
E 2 = E2 o ( 1 - d2 )
3. Shear (Fibre matrix debonding):
G12= G12o (1 - d12 )
E1
2
1
G12
Gd = Go (1 - d12 )
Go
12
23
22
E2
13
12
11
21
Ed = Eo (1 - d)
Fibre direction response
Model needed for

damage growth
12
Diffused matrix
microcracking
due to
transverse
loading
22
12
Shear direction response
Model needed for damage

and plasticity growth
11
Fib
/ ti
Fibre/matrix
interface
debonding
due to
shear
loading
1
Fibre failure due

axial loading
28
14
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Global ply (Ladeveze and Le Dantec Model): Required tests

Matrix micro-cracking
Fibre matrix debonding
Tension/compression in the
transverse (2) direction
Shear type loading in the

1-2,, 2-3,, 1-3 direction
Fibre rupture:
Tension/compression in
fibre (1) direction
Some basic assumptions:
Original model for UD composites (but can be applied to woven etc.)
Uses homogeneous continuum mechanics and damage mechanics
Tries
phenomena
T i to
t model
d l experimentally
i
t ll observed
b
d failure
f il
h
Test series
Tension test on [0]8 laminates
29
IFB
> Tension data
Tension test with load/unload cycles on [45 ]2S laminates
> Shear data (plas./ damage)
Tension test with load/unload cycles on [+45]8 laminates
> transverse tension and

coupling data
Tension test [67.5]2S laminates
> (2) and (1-2) coupling data
Compression test [0]8 laminates
> Compression data
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Some features required by composite ply damage and failure models

Shear and transverse directions
Fibre Direction
250
200
e.g. residual
damage =0.9
E=131 GPa
150
100
50
E=118 GPa
0
0.000
30
Non-symmetric modulus in tension-compression
Non-symmetric failure in tension-compression
Non-linear modulus (especially in compression)
Residual damage
30
experiment
simulation
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
Shear is symmetric but non-linear with

coupled modulus damage and plasticity
Criteria for failure (e.g. Critical shear

damage)
Similar methods are required for

transverse matrix loading and failure
30
15
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Typical fitting simulation to test (Woven fabric Global ply)

-0.009
-0.008
-0.007
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
1000
0
0
900
M46J Experimental
M46J Sim
T1000J Experimental
T1000J Sim
-50
Tension
Simulation T1000J
Experiment T1000J
Simulation M46J
Experiment M46J
800
700
-100
xx (MPa)
xx
600
-150
Compression
500
400
-200
300
-250
200
100
-300
0
0
-350
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
xx
xx
180
160
140
xx (MPa)
120
100
80
Simulation 7
Specimen 7
Simulation 11
Specimen 11
60
40
Shear
20
0
0
0.02
31
IFB
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
xx
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014


of composites
o Axial crash
o Delamination
32
16
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Axial composite crash energy absorbers: Automotive applications
a)
b)
Courtesyy VW
The Volkswagen EcoRacer concept car:

a) Complete vehicle,
b) Continuous Carbon Fibre Reinforced
Composite body structure
Courtesy Mercedes McLaren
33
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

SAE for tubes (100mm diameter and crush load of ca. 70kN)
Dynamic Axial
Aluminium Tube
Internal enerrgy kJ/kg
Typical Automotive steel

crash can (10-15 kJ/kg)
34
Dynamic Off-Axis
Composite Tube
Dynamic Axial
Composite Tube
120
100
80
60
66
40
20
11.3
Reihe1
18.7
28.3
Mild
Steel
Dual
Phase
Steel
Trip Steel
11.3
18.7
28.3
29.4
25.9
36.3
STS
Al 6000
Mg: AZ31 Mg: AZ61 Carbonseries
Epoxy
29.4
25.9
102
36.3
66
HTS
CarbonEpoxy
102
17
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Composite failure broken down into three key mechanisms
Fracture
initiation
Fracture
propagation
3D crushing
/fracturing
zone
Potential
crushing,
buckling,
delamination
transverse
cracking,etc
zone
1. Base
composite:
2. Fracturing
Progressively
composite:
damages in
treated as a
the fracturing
ccrushing
us g
zone
material crush
strength from
testing
3. Delamination:
Always active
35
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Axial crushing problems
Initial central
mode 1 crack
Central crack
opens
The trigger initiates a local process zone that self

propagates as crushing advances.
An numerical model must differentiate between the 3D
fracture process and failure for the undamaged part.
Fracture
initiation
Additional mixed
mode splitting
Fracture
propagation
3D crushing/
fracturing
zone
3
Central wedge
of debris
Potential failure
zone (ply failure
delamination,
buckling etc.)
Approximately
constant
crushing zone
4
36
18
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

The two predominant crushing modes for composite tubes

1. Central cracks developing into a
spaying mode
2. Central cracks developing into a

Transverse
Transverse shear
shear fracturing mode
Low - poor energy absorbing splayingmode
Lack of hoop fibres (or through thickness

strength) to constrain axial crash and
fragmentation
High - good energy absorbing
3. Buckling also possible with open braids and ductile Kevlar

type fibre composites
37
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Meso modeling the `splaying mode

Debris
Wedge
Splaying Fronds
Centre Wall Crack
110
Experimental Crush
FE Analysis
90
Load [kN]
70
Collaboration ESI
GmbH and Nuno
Lourenco PhD
Nottingham 1999
50
30
10
-10
38
10
Displacement [mm]
19
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Simulation models for axial crash

Some issues:
Questionable if conventional coupon and DCB type tests can
yield sensible data to represent failure and fragmentation
mechanisms in the crushing zone.
If calibration of the model is needed then it will not be valid
for the uncracked materials remote from the crush front.
We need a model that is valid for the crush front and the rear
composites section, and can properly capture effects such as
lay-up variations and materials types.
39
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

TECABS project: Crushing via local crushing elements at crush zone

Crushing
element zone
Conventional
composite
element
kN
40
20
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Early ESI solution via Energy Eating Contact

Master (contact surface) and Slave (impacting body).
Elements do not collapse and crush; thus avoiding timestep problems. They simple
pass though the contact surface, passing on load to the composite structure. Once
through the wall they are eliminated.
Features implemented to account for axial and oblique impact.
Consumed
area
Elastic domain
for unloading
Intersection line
Master
i
Slave i
Penalty
stiffness
Origin of
fragmentation
force
II
III
Remaining
area
a)
I
c)
Greve L. Pickett AK. and Payen F., Experimental testing and

phenomenological modelling of the fragmentation process of braided
carbon/epoxy composite tubes under axial and oblique impact, submitted
for publication in Composites Part B, Spring 2007.
41
IFB
b)
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

New (V2011) solution based on crushing elements
Pre-defined row of
trigger elements
Conventional composites elements

Crushing element zone:
Elasto-plastic crush behaviour law
ESI Frozen metric for timestep control
Techniques to progress crush zone
Overview
Trigger zone
Damage
Geometry courtesy
DLR and IFB
Methods based on
concepts from the

CEC TECABS project
42
21
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Experimental testing for axial crush parameters
Input data for axial crushing requires crush data:

work
Unsupported test specimens do not work.
Some people are trying rigs that provide lateral
support and force axial fragmentation.
Others use tubes, omega shapes where the
geometry provides the necessary support.
Ideally the real geometry and layups should be

used; e.g. A box type section will probably be poorly
represented by any of the above methods.
43
IFB
43
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014


of composites
o Axial crash
o Delamination
44
22
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Low Velocity Impact: Delamination patterns and how it develops

Delamination occurs between plies of different orientations (not the same orientation)
Largely depends on ratio of the fiber and matrix properties
90
Transverse tensile cracks initiate (due to shear)
SFD
90
From transverse cracks delaminations at the

interfaces and additional transverse cracks develop
45
-45
In general: Delamination is peanut shaped and has its major

axis in the direction of the lower fibers at the interface
45
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Delamination test methods

Two test types will be needed to model delamination:
1. Use a strength of materials approach to
determine if a crack starts (e.g. look at the
maximum tensile strains compared to the
allowable limits)
limits).
2. Use an energy based criterion to determine if and
how (much) the crack grows.
The Arcan test

and composite
specimen for
initial failure
Critical stress or strain

a crack starts if > allowable
For GIC, GIIC interaction
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
For GIIC
For GIC
Mode I Double
Cantilever Beam (DCB)
Mode II End Notched

Flexure (ENF)
Critical strain energy release rate GIC, GIIC
46
Mode I/II Mixed Mode

Bending (MMB)
a crack grows if GI > GIC, or GII > GIIC
23
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Delamination fracture toughness test (Mode I): The simplest (so-called)

area method
From the test a plot of force P versus opening displacement is recorded.

For a load P1 corresponding to opening 1, the load drops to P2 at opening 1 during a
crack extension a.
GI
47
IFB
change in energy
A
aarea
ea o
of ccrack
ac g
growth
owt
b a
1 P1 1 P2 2
b a
2
Beware there are better methods see literature, eg: ISO

international standard DIS15024, Fibre-reinforced plastic
composites Determination of Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness, GIC, for unidirectionally reinforced materials.
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

The DCB test (Mode I): Example results
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
Results tend to jump due a stick-slip

effects.
48
NCF results higher due to fibre bridging.

The woven materials have a clean
break.
Woven Fabric 90 lay-up
200
Non Crimp Fabric 90 lay-up

0
60
90
120
150
crack length [mm]
48
24
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

The Mode II End Notched Flexure test
Mode II
Mode III
Numerous theories for GIIC are available; e.g. The directed beam theory method. This uses
the measured load-point displacement in the fracture toughness calculation:
P
G IIC
9 Pa 2
2b 2 L3 3a 3
where b is the width and the

deflection at the load point
Beware: This has not become a standard test and is unlikely to it is unreliable further
details are described in the protocol: ASTM draft standard D30.06: Protocol for inter-laminar
49
fracture testing, End-Notched Flexure (ENF), revised April 24, 1993.
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

The Mixed Mode (I-II) Bending (MMB) Test

DCB
+
ENF
c
MMB
G /G =4/1
I
II
1200
WF
G /G =1/1
I
II
NCF
1000
Length of the lever arm (c) is variable

and this controls the ratio of GIC/GIIC
loading at the crack tip
800
600
G /G =1/4
I
II
..
o
o
o
400
For details and formulae to compute GIc and GIIc

see: Reeder J R and Crews J H, Mixed-mode
200
0
0
50
500
1000
.
o
1500
2000
IIC
[J/m ]
2500
o
3000
o
3500
bending method for delamination testing, AIAA

Journal, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp 1270-1276, 1989.
25
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Inter-ply tests for initial failure stress and fracture energy

The so-called Arcan test can be used for
initial failure stress in an uncracked material
(no standardised test exists).
The Arcan test

and composite
specimen for
initial failure
stress
The standard DCB,, ENF and MMB tests are

used for fracture toughness.
initiation
II
propagation
opening displacement
Cyclic loading
shear (Mode II)
Cyclic loading
compression response
(Mode I)
51
IFB
The DCB test

The ENF test
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Example: Plate impact with and without pre-loading

Steel frame
40000
UD-unloaded panel
UD-preloaded panel
35000
Composite panel
Loading tab
30000
25000
20000
15000
Damage
10000
5000
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
Delamination
40000
35000
E unloaded
Exp
l d d panell
35000
30000
Sim unloaded panel
30000
25000
Unloaded
20000
15000
Force [N]
Force [N]
40000
Exp preloaded panel

Sim preloaded panel
25000
20000
Delamination
Pre-loaded
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
0,005
0,01
0,015
Time [s]
0,02
0,025
0,005
0,01
0,015
0,02
0,025
Time [s]
52
26
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Mode I/II Mixed Mode Bending (MMB)
G /G =4/1
I
GI GII

1
GIn GIIn
II
1200
WF
G /G =1/1
I
II
NCF
1000
800
600
GI/GII=1/4
o
o
..
o
400
200
0
0
500
53
1000
.
o
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
IIC
[J/m ]
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014
IFB Institut fr Flugzeugbau, University Stuttgart

Input data for the delamination model
II
initiation
stress
propagation
Data on the
interface mechanical
properties
Data on the
interface fracture
properties
opening displacement
Cyclic loading
compression response
(Mode I)
The DCB test
Data on the
GIC/GIIC interaction
properties
54
27
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Structures of the PAM-CRASH delamination input

Tied interface cards:
Type 303- Defines the
delamination interface data
Two plies:
Matching nodes
identified with
RDIST parameter
Materials cards:
Type 303- Defines the
delamination interface data
Parts cards:
Provide link to materials cards
Main parameter is the search
distance RDIST
55
IFB
55
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Validation of DCB, ENF and

MMB tests
DCB
ENF
a) Pure Mode testing
MMB
c = 95 mm
c = 41 mm
crack tip
simulation
test
c = 27 mm
b) mixed Mode testing
56
28
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Delamination test and modelling of a honeycomb panel (F1 structure)
1000
900
Exp
800
Sim
Load ((N)
700
Failure actually occurs as

tearing of the thin foil
Aluminium.
600
500
400
But is treated here as a

delamination type failure.
300
200
100
0
0
10
12
14
16
Note solids or shells may

be joined.
Displacement (mm)
57
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014


of composites
o Axial crash
o Delamination
58
29
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Formula 1: Front crash and side impact panels
DFC9 Conference
Sheffield, UK, April 2007
59
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Experimental testing
Video of experimental test

(mainrails impacting wall)
Tests (also) sometimes go wrong!
60
30
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014


of composites
o Axial crash
o Delamination
61
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

EXERCISES: Impact of composites (damage and delamination)
Tutorials 10, 11 and 12:

Read in each model.pc file and study the various entities,
Run each model and study the results; for example,
o Energy balance (internal, external and total energies)
o Contact (or section) forces...
62
31
IFB
A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Another (metal) crash problems
63
32

Lecture11 All

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lecture11 All

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IFB

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Finite Elements: Impact and crash modelling

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Simulation chain for composites

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Comparison of Implicit and Explicit FE methods

For each element

For linear problems simple one step matrix

[E] is constant for elastic and non-linear for

[B] is constant for linear problems and a

Equations are solved as a dynamic problem.

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit versus Implicit: Advantages and disadvantages

Number of time steps

Unconditionally stable (any

Conditionally stable and reqires

Requires matrix inversion.

Requires no matrix inversion or

The solution of the nonlinear equations requires

Can solve static problems.

Can only solve quasi-static

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Some details of the Explicit method

Strain update: From the [B] matrix and displacements. Usually

Nodal accelerations, velocities and

Nodal (internal) forces: Using the strain-displacement matrix [B],

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Item (6) previous slide: Computation of internal forces

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Stable time step for the Explicit scheme (Courant criteria)

is the speed of sound in the material

is the time the shockwave needs to travel

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Timestep stability and methods to limit its (CPU) effects

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Propagation of shock wave information in a 1D explicit integration system

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit method: Some points to note

The timestep is typically small (e.g. 1 sec for a 5mm

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit method: Some additional points

The order in which the nodes are analysed is not important.

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Contact is treated as temporary external loading

1. A search algorithm identifies elements that

If contact forces are to low penetration occurs

4. The contact forces are introduced as additional

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

More details on contact interfaces (in PAM-)

The other as the slave surface

There are many contact types: e.g.

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Force and Kinematic option in Explicit FE codes

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Summary of the Explicit FE operations

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Explicit methods: Some examples

Head impact (biomechanics)

Explosion and detonations:

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014

Example: Composite impact

Setup and details

A.K. Pickett, 2013-2014