Comparison of Test Methods to Determine Failure Parameters for MAT162 Calibration

Abstract

MAT162, a laminated composite failure material model developed by The Material Sciences Corporation for the commercial finite element software LS-Dyna, is widely used within the aerospace industry to predict damage events under a range of dynamic conditions. The material model involves numerous inputs consisting of both physical material properties and numerical calibration parameters. Due to the large number material card inputs, often there is a lack of uniqueness to MAT162 material cards that limits the predictive capability to only the directly calibrated space. To expand this space, MAT162 requires a prudent and robust calibration process in which significant parameters are calibrated to high confidence damage events observed in experiment. Critical to this success is fully defining the material properties correctly, namely the fiber crush (SFC) and fiber shear (SFS) values, prior to calibrating the numerical parameters. In this paper, the effect of the determination of SFS and SFC on subsequent calibration steps is examined using two different experimental techniques.

Comparison of Radio-guided Occult Lesion Localization (ROLL) and Magnetic Occult Lesion Localization (MOLL) for Non-palpable Lesions: A Phantom Model Study

“…Hazzard et al [14] modeled the buckling and depth of penetration of a cross-ply unidirectional Dyneema® polyurethane composite using a homogenized model. Molitor et al [15] investigated the effect of punch shear and laterally constrained tests on the values of m 4 softening parameter of an IM7/8552 composite and recommended the use of punch shear test for the determination of the limits of crush and fiber shear strength. Materials Sciences Corporation (MSC) and the University of Delaware Center for Composite Materials have recently proposed a testing methodology for obtaining the MAT_162 material parameters [16].…”