A tensorial based progressive damage model for fiber reinforced polymers

Bogenfeld, Raffael Marius; Kreikemeier, Janko

doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.006

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparison of the force versus displacement curves, obtained using the damage model in [2], It is further demonstrated in Fig. 9a that an appropriate crack band is formed using Falzon's damage model [2] and not the distortion reported by Bogenfeld and Kreikemeier [1], reproduced in Fig. 9b.…”

Section: Minimal Example: Tensile Specimenmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…In Fig. 6b the model was executed with the Poisson ratio degradation deactivated where it is noted that, in this instance, the incorrect behaviour presented in [1], and erroneously attributed to the formulation in [2], is reproduced. This is one, but perhaps not the only, possible explanation for the error in Bogenfield's and Kreikemeier's implementation of Falzon's model.…”

Section: Constrained Single Element Testmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Two different constrained single element simulations were carried out with identical boundary conditions to those suggested in [1], Fig. 5.…”

Section: Constrained Single Element Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This communication is primarily concerned with highlighting fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the model presented in [2], by the authors in [1]. It is not concerned with assessing the merits, or otherwise, of the damage model presented by Bogenfield and Kreikemeier [1] although it has long been established that an eighth order damage tensor is not required to represent the most general form of damage arising from the concept of stiffness degradation and strain equivalence [5]. It is also worth pointing out that the basic definition of the constitutive damage law for intralaminar tensile damage reported in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also worth pointing out that the basic definition of the constitutive damage law for intralaminar tensile damage reported in Fig. 2 in [1] contains two basic inaccuracies. The first concerns the area under the bilinear constitutive curve which Bogenfield and Kreikemeier refer to as the energy release rate ‫)ܩ(‬ but which is actually the strain energy density, hence the requirement for the use of a characteristic length.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comment on “A tensorial based progressive damage model for fibre reinforced polymers”

Falzon

Liu

Tan

2017

Composite Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This communication is in response to unsubstantiated claims, arising from misinterpretations and misrepresentations, made by Bogenfield and Kreikemeier in their recent paper, ''A tensorial based progressive damage model for fiber reinforced polymers"[1], on a damage model developed by Falzon et al. [2]. While details of this model have been extensively reported in a number of publications (e.g. [2-4]), and validated through comprehensive experimental programmes, this brief paper provides additional information on the damage model's formulation for the purpose of clarification and rebutting the conclusions in [1]. The test cases reported in [1], to demonstrate the apparent shortcomings of the damage model in [2], are repeated here to show that the alleged shortcomings are non-existent and consequently provide further support for the robustness and predictive capability of Falzon's progressive damage model.

show abstract

Section: Minimal Example: Tensile Specimenmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Constrained Single Element Testmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Two different constrained single element simulations were carried out with identical boundary conditions to those suggested in [1], Fig. 5.…”

Section: Constrained Single Element Testmentioning

confidence: 99%