2005
DOI: 10.1002/nme.1338
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical simulation of fatigue-driven delamination using interface elements

Abstract: This paper presents a computational technique for the prediction of fatigue-driven delamination growth in composite materials. The interface element, which has been extensively applied to predict delamination growth due to static loading, has been modified to incorporate the effects of cyclic loading. Using a damage mechanics formulation, the constitutive law for the interface element has been extended by incorporating a modified version of a continuum fatigue damage model. The paper presents details of the fa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
152
2
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(156 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
152
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that the mode II interfacial strength of 60MPa is significantly higher than that of 30MPa [15,28] and 40MPa [26,27] applied by previous authors. As discussed in …”
Section: Benchmark Applicationscontrasting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It should be noted that the mode II interfacial strength of 60MPa is significantly higher than that of 30MPa [15,28] and 40MPa [26,27] applied by previous authors. As discussed in …”
Section: Benchmark Applicationscontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…It is evident that for a mode II interfacial strength of 30MPa, as applied by previous authors [15,28], the analysis cannot accurately capture the peak load prior to crack propagation. This is due to a significant loss of stiffness during the elastic loading regime.…”
Section: (Insert Figure 16)mentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Robinson et al [180] proposed a damage parameter that was split into two parts: one for the static portion of delamination growth and one for the fatigue portion. The evolution of this damage parameter followed the relation proposed by Peerlings et al [181] and the interface elements and cohesive laws were based on the work of Alfano and Crisfield [182].…”
Section: Further Developmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, those studies were almost all carried out based on the fatigue tests under constant amplitude fatigue load. There are several common fatigue life evaluation methods of FRP, such as the experimental method based on S-N curve [1,2], residual strength degradation model [3,4], residual stiffness degradation model [5], energy dissipation model [6,7], fatigue modulus model [8], and numerical analysis [9][10][11][12]. These models or methods have distinct advantages and disadvantages.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%