PSI - Issue 53

A. Neto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 53 (2024) 338–351 Alexandre de Oliveira Neto / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

342

5

Fig. 3. Comparison of WWFE theory and experimental tests between various failure criteria, from M. J. Hinton et al. (2000).

Table 2. MAT055 parameters. Non-represented parameters were left at their default value. Parameter Designation Units

Value

RO EA EB

Mass density

[kg/mm 3 ]

1,76e-06

Young’s modulus – longitudinal direction Young’s modulus – transverse direction

[GPa] [GPa]

139,85

10,93 0,029

PRBA

Poisson’s ratio ba

[ ]

GAB, GBC, GCA

Shear modulus, ab, bc, ca

[GPa] [GPa] [GPa] [GPa] [GPa] [GPa]

3,92 3,53 3,53 0,55 0,13 55.0 0,6

XC XT YC YT SC

Longitudinal compressive strength

Longitudinal tensile strength

Transverse compressive strength, b-axis Transverse tensile strength, b-axis

Shear strength, ab plane

CRIT

Failure criterion

N/A

Based on Tsai-Hill's, this criterion considers the total stress energy subjected to the composite to predict failure, although it does not provide additional information on the failure mode, including fibre, matrix, and fibre-matrix interface failure. However, it is broader than the Tsai-Hill failure criterion because it distinguishes between compression and tension failure resistances. It was developed with the aim of improving the correlation between experimental and theoretical results by increasing the number of parameters in the theoretical equations. When the following equality is confirmed, the failure of an anisotropic material is reached (equation 1): � � � �� � � � 1 (1) Where:  i,j = 1, …, 6;

 � � order 2 tensor component;  �� = order 4 tensor component;  � = longitudinal stress;  � = transversal stress.

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator