PSI - Issue 64

Quentin Sourisseau et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 893–900 Quentin SOURISSEAU/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

897

5

3. Determination of the cohesive zone model’s parameters It is then possible, using the results from the experimental campaign to determine cohesive zone model parameters adapted for the studied equivalent interface. For sake of simplicity, bilinear shapes were chosen as in Chataigner et al. (2011). Two different methods of determination were assessed in Sourisseau et al. (2022a): a direct and an inverse method. Only the inverse method is developed and used here. This method consists in using a finite element model of the three studied test configurations and to determine the cohesive zone parameters minimizing the difference between experimental and numerical results. 3.1. Presentation of the finite element model A 3D finite element model was used. The composite layers were modelled with solid volume elements. Steel elements were modelled with isotropic properties while composite elements were modelled with 3D orthotropic materials. In-plane properties for the composite plies were based on experimental tests, while out-of-plane properties were based on recommendations from NR546 (2022). The cohesive element layer was put at the interface between steel and first ply of GFRP, Deydier et al. (2023).

a)

b)

c) Fig. 5: Geometry and boundary conditions of the used finite element model for: a) the DCB model, b) ENF mode, c) MMB model.