Figure 1
Specimen of the DCB test, the schematic applied load, and adhesive layer
Figure 2
Schematic damage process zone and corresponding bi-linear traction-separation law
Figure 3
Mesh used in the FE simulation and cohesive thickness element size
Figure 4
The boundary conditions of FE simulation
Figure 5
Comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 6
Comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation with explicit solver and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 7
Comparison of force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation with explicit solver and 3D modelling and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 8
Non-symmetric pattern of the displacement contour in the DCB composite specimen
Figure 2
Schematic damage process zone and corresponding bi-linear traction-separation law
Figure 3
Mesh used in the FE simulation and cohesive thickness element size
Figure 4
The boundary conditions of FE simulation
Figure 5
Comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 6
Comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation with explicit solver and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 7
Comparison of force variation as a function of displacement for delamination on DCB composite specimen between the present FE simulation with explicit solver and 3D modelling and the results of Cerioni (2009) Cerioni, A. (2009). Simulation of delamination in composite materials under static and fatigue loading by cohesive zone models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita'degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari
Figure 8
Non-symmetric pattern of the displacement contour in the DCB composite specimen
Figure 9
(a) Test specimen and fixture base and (b) detail of support area and clamping points of the specimen
Figure 10
Equivalent stress versus equivalent displacement in linear damage evolution
Figure 11
Master surface penetrate into the slave surface of a pure master-slave contact pair
Figure 12
Convergence study of element numbers (a) mesh pattern of the circular area surrounding the contact region (b) variation of maximum contact force vs. number of element
Figure 13
Cohesive surfaces in laminate configuration [454/04/-45 4/904]s
Figure 14
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 15
FE Simulation and Experimental energy dissipation variation of impactor as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 16
The comparison of contact force variation as function of impactor displacement for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 17
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 28.6 J
Figure 18
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Figure 19
FE Simulation and Experimental energy dissipation variation of impactor as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Figure 20
The comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement of impactor for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Figure 10
Equivalent stress versus equivalent displacement in linear damage evolution
Figure 11
Master surface penetrate into the slave surface of a pure master-slave contact pair
Figure 12
Convergence study of element numbers (a) mesh pattern of the circular area surrounding the contact region (b) variation of maximum contact force vs. number of element
Figure 13
Cohesive surfaces in laminate configuration [454/04/-45 4/904]s
Figure 14
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 15
FE Simulation and Experimental energy dissipation variation of impactor as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 16
The comparison of contact force variation as function of impactor displacement for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 19.3 J
Figure 17
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 28.6 J
Figure 18
FE Simulation and Experimental contact force variation as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Figure 19
FE Simulation and Experimental energy dissipation variation of impactor as a function of time for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Figure 20
The comparison of contact force variation as a function of displacement of impactor for a composite plate under impact kinetic energy of 38.6 J
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
