2008
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-008-0280-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization of laminated composite structures using delamination criteria and hierarchical models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…15 Regarding the structure of lamination films, there has been extensive research into enhancing the adhesion strength. 16,17 However, no studies have examined the effects of operating conditions in the R2R lamination process on the adhesion strength of the laminated composite. Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 Regarding the structure of lamination films, there has been extensive research into enhancing the adhesion strength. 16,17 However, no studies have examined the effects of operating conditions in the R2R lamination process on the adhesion strength of the laminated composite. Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the previous optimization work in the design of composite structures [16][17][18][19][20] focused on aerospace structures, but pultruded GFRP composites, commonly used in bridge decks, are quite different in nature with the composites used in aerospace structures [15], as can be reflected in Figure 2. These differences include: (i) the pultruded FRP laminations have a relatively poor quality, and (ii) the roving content is larger than fabrics, leading to an increase in the thickness of the unidirectional lamina (0°-lamina) of up to 5-15 times the laminas with other orientations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…886 Other than behavioral constraints, side constraints may be applied; e.g. design space may be restricted to positive values of thickness and cross-sectional area 50 584 stress interaction criterion, 511 C2 criterion, 150 Ye criterion, 964 Puck failure criterion, 882,974,975 Chang-Chang failure criterion, 937 Cheng and Lessard criterion, 299,475 Yamada failure criterion, 143 maximum distortion energy theory, 9,15,47,58,200,242,267,291,330,542,674,759,763,765,767,827,847,894,951 Huber-Mises criterion, 563,745,942,954 Treska, 5 maximum normal stress theory, 761,970 critical failure volume method, 949 point stress criterion, 112,183,519 where failure criterion is checked at a specific distance for a notch, multiscale stress criteria, 773,846 fracture mechanics, 73,299, 338 continuum damage mechanics, 501 energy based failure criteria, 438 failure-mechanism based failure criteria, 917,…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%