| DOI | Trouver le DOI : https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-1165 |
|---|
| Auteur | Rechercher : Li, Gang1, 2; Rechercher : Renaud, Guillaume1, 2; Rechercher : Liao, Min1, 2 |
|---|
| Affiliation | - Conseil national de recherches du Canada. Aérospatiale
- National Research Council Canada
|
|---|
| Format | Texte, Article |
|---|
| Conférence | AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, January 11–15 & 19–21, 2021; Virtrual Event |
|---|
| Description physique | 16 p. |
|---|
| Sujet | fracture toughness; American society for testing and materials; cohesive zone model; catastrophic failure; cantilever beam; finite element modeling; stress distribution; composite structures; material properties; numerical modeling |
|---|
| Résumé | A parametric study was conducted to assess the applicability of using cohesive elements to model the progressive failure behaviour of a unidirectional composite double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen. A verification procedure to identify acceptable modelling predictions with limited experimental data is presented. The verification principle is based on the inherent equality relationship between the input and the calculated output DCB material fracture toughness, GIC, values. The output GIC values are calculated using the finite element simulation results in conjunction with the standard ASTM method and with a solution that was developed previously by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) for unidirectional composite DCB specimens. For the considered case, it was found that the NRC solution provided closer calculated GIC values than the ASTM method, as compared with the input value. Therefore, the acceptability of modelling results were selected based on a prescribed tight GIC agreement that was suggested to be within ±2% using the NRC solution. Within this procedure, very close load-displacement curves and similar crack propagation profiles were obtained from the models based on significantly different mesh sizes and cohesive zone parameters. This finding may significantly improve the modelling efficiency and make progressive failure analysis more practical. For instance, it allows the use of a relatively coarse-mesh model with a small cohesive strength and a high stiffness, rather than a dense-mesh model with a high cohesive strength and low stiffness. A commentary is provided regarding the minimum required number of cohesive elements within the cohesive zone length, and the robustness of modelling using cohesive elements. |
|---|
| Date de publication | 2021-01-04 |
|---|
| Maison d’édition | American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics |
|---|
| Dans | |
|---|
| Langue | anglais |
|---|
| Publications évaluées par des pairs | Oui |
|---|
| Exporter la notice | Exporter en format RIS |
|---|
| Signaler une correction | Signaler une correction (s'ouvre dans un nouvel onglet) |
|---|
| Identificateur de l’enregistrement | 131185ea-4d8c-427c-ac53-25041cf33701 |
|---|
| Enregistrement créé | 2022-09-06 |
|---|
| Enregistrement modifié | 2022-09-06 |
|---|
