On Complexities of Impact Simulation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites: A Simplified Modeling Framework

Abstract

Impact modeling of fiber reinforced polymer composites is a complex and challenging task, in particular for practitioners with less experience in advanced coding and user-defined subroutines. Different numerical algorithms have been developed over the past decades for impact modeling of composites, yet a considerable gap often exists between predicted and experimental observations. In this paper, after a review of reported sources of complexities in impact modeling of fiber reinforced polymer composites, two simplified approaches are presented for fast simulation of out-of-plane impact response of these materials considering four main effects: (a) strain rate dependency of the mechanical properties, (b) difference between tensile and flexural bending responses, (c) delamination, and (d) the geometry of fixture (clamping conditions). In the first approach, it is shown that by applying correction factors to the quasistatic material properties, which are often readily available from material datasheets, the role of these four sources in modeling impact response of a given composite may be accounted for. As a result a rough estimation of the dynamic force response of the composite can be attained. To show the application of the approach, a twill woven polypropylene/glass reinforced thermoplastic composite laminate has been tested under 200 J impact energy and was modeled in Abaqus/Explicit via the built-in Hashin damage criteria. X-ray microtomography was used to investigate the presence of delamination inside the impacted sample. Finally, as a second and much simpler modeling approach it is shown that applying only a single correction factor over all material properties at once can still yield a reasonable prediction. Both advantages and limitations of the simplified modeling framework are addressed in the performed case study.

An attempt to simulate structure and realistic images of scratches on rough polymeric surfaces

“…In addition to the geometry of scratches, the simulations can provide more information for the study of material behaviors during scratching, [8][9][10][11][12]17 influence of roughness, 13,[26][27][28][29] interaction between scratch tip and rough surface, [30][31][32][33] and process of material deformation and damage. 8,9,[34][35][36][37] These topics will not be discussed here, as the present study focuses on the geometry of the scratches and the calculation of the visual features of the scratched surfaces.…”

“…Scratch testing is widely used for assessing the abrasion resistance of polymeric and composite materials and coatings, 5,6 as well as automotive paints and varnishes 7 . The finite element method (FEM) is popularly used to gain insights into the mechanisms governing scratch formation and material damage 8–17 . Experimental tests and numerical simulations can produce three‐dimensional (3‐D) scratch structures, which provide useful foresights to improve CV detection.…”

“…7 The finite element method (FEM) is popularly used to gain insights into the mechanisms governing scratch formation and material damage. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Experimental tests and numerical simulations can produce three-dimensional (3-D) scratch structures, which provide useful foresights to improve CV detection. For example, scratches produced by low scratch forces appear in the images as a series of spots distributed linearly at a certain distance interval.…”

Finite Element Modelling and Experimental Validation of Scratches on Textured Polymer Surfaces

“…However, a literature review conducted by the authors shows that only a few simulation studies are focused on the influence of surface texture. Almost all simulations are only for smooth surfaces without large material deformation and damage, and are aimed at studying the material behaviors during indentation [ 24 , 25 ] and scratching [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], the influence of material mechanical properties (elastic modulus, yield strength, Poisson’s ratio, coefficient of friction) [ 17 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ], type of materials [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 38 ], surface texture [ 22 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] and roughness [ 42 , 43 ], interface interaction between rough material surface and scratch tip [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ], and scratch visibility [ 18 , 49 , 50 ].…”

A lower bound of longitudinal elastic modulus for three-phase fibrous composites

“…Yet, the assumption of a perfect bonding is many times unrealistic. Indeed, in many fibrous composites, the bond between fibres and matrix is not of the perfect kind that can be modelled by a continuity of traction and displacements across the fibre-matrix interface [25].…”