Using Different Modelling Techniques for the Simulation of Impact upon Composites for Aerospace Applications

R A Gibbon, Dr L F Vaughn Frazer-Nash Consultancy Ltd., 1 Trinity Street, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TE Keywords: Composite, Fibre, Matrix, Failure, Delamination.

Abstract
Numerical finite element methods are increasingly used to simulate and therefore predict the impact behaviour and subsequent damage of composite materials. Within the aerospace industry composites are being specified for a growing number of components to take benefit from the potential for weight saving that they can offer. Unlike conventional metallic materials, the consequences of an impact event against a composite component can be diverse. This paper presents the results of an investigation into composite panel damage prediction using different modelling methods. The impact tests are modelled analytically using shells, continuum shells or solid elements to construct the composite panel and the results compared both between modelling methods. The work provides an extremely useful insight into how modern numerical simulation methods can be used to predict damage inflicted upon composite components during impact events encountered during service.

1 INTRODUCTION The use of carbon fibre reinforced composite materials in the aerospace industry is becoming increasingly common. Composites exhibit high stiffness and strength-toweight ratios and offer potential weight saving benefits over conventional aerospace materials such as aluminium, making them very attractive materials for use in modern aircraft. A thorough understanding of the properties and behaviour of these materials, and how to model them analytically, is key if the maximum potential benefits are to be exploited. By their very nature, the behaviour of composite materials is more complex than that of homogenous materials, and as such has provided significant challenges for the modeller in predicting the response of these materials to loading. Composite materials exhibit strengths dependant on the direction in which they are loaded. One ply-layer of a composite material will respond differently, and have a different stiffness, when loaded in the fibre direction, transverse direction, or an angle between these two. Composite materials are usually constructed by stacking layers of plies with the fibres aligned in a number of different directions, ensuring that the material has the ability to withstand loading in more than one direction. The anticipated loading scenario of the material will determine the proportion of ply layers

used in each direction, with the aim to ensure the worst-case loading scenario can be withstood by the composite, whilst minimising the total number of ply layers used (and hence weight, cost and complexity). It is not only the response to loading that is complex about composite behaviour, but also the failure mechanisms. Composite materials are known to fail by a number of mechanisms, including fibre failure, matrix failure and delamination. Fibre and matrix failure occur when the composite fibres or matrix material fail respectively, delamination being the mechanism whereby the inter-lamina bond between ply layers fails. When loading on composite materials is severe enough to fail regions of the composite, predicting the behaviour of the material becomes even more challenging. For aerospace applications predicting the response of a composite material to loading is necessary for both undamaged composite structures and composite structures that have been damaged by external loading, such as high-speed impact. In the latter case scenarios may be both penetrative and non-penetrative, but all have the potential to cause damage to the composite and significantly change its stiffness and behaviour. Of particular interest is the case of non-penetrative impacts where no visible damage may be left on the material surface once the impactor has rebounded, but where significant sub-surface damage (and resultant weakening of the structure) may still have occurred. This potentially leads to a case where routine inspection may not reveal weaknesses in the aircraft structure that render the aircraft unsafe for flight. It is important, therefore, that engineers are able to analyse the response of composite structures to impact, and have analytical tools developed to enable them to accurately predict the damage caused by high-speed impact and the residual strength of the structure after such an event. This paper describes a phase of analyses designed to explore different Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis (NLFEA) modelling techniques used to predict damage in composite materials as a result of impact, contrasting their suitability for this type of application and the difference in predicted results. Comparisons are made between the modelling techniques. This paper also highlights technology shortfalls associated with each type of modelling technique.

2 MODELLING APPROACH 2.1 Methodology This work investigated different modelling techniques by analysing their prediction of damage occurring in composite panels as a result of high speed impact. The aim was to assess the differences between the techniques, both in model creation and damage prediction, to see if any technique stands out above another in terms of suitability for this type of analysis. The impact tests were conducted on two of different flat composite panels, using a variety of impactors. The smallest and least complex panel modelled was a flat plate, held in a pictureframe test rig leaving a central exposed window (see Figure 1). This panel was modelled in three different thicknesses; 6mm, 12mm and 18mm. The more complex panel modelled was a larger flat plate, again held in a pictureframe test rig leaving a exposed central window (see Figure 2), but this panel also has

two stiffeners cohesively bonded onto the back surface of the panel (the surface opposite to the impact side), as shown in Figure 3. This panel was modelled with two thicknesses; 6mm and 12mm. Impactors were created in a variety of shapes, sizes and materials, specifically; A steel cube (see Figure 4); A steel cylindrical slug with a hemispherical end (see Figure 5); A cuboid, modelled in aluminium (see Figure 6); A square impactor modelled using rubber and a steel reinforcement layer (see Figure 7).

The impacts were conducted at a range of impact angles and velocities to ensure a broad range of impact scenarios were covered in this work. The impact configurations used in this work are summarised in Table 1. 2.2 Composite Panels All panels were modelled using T800 uni-directional pre-preg, with high strain rate material properties and ply orientations for the 6mm, 12mm and 18mm thick panels arranged as shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Two approaches to composite modelling were investigated in this work. The first approach is the least complex and uses the composite layup modeller tool within the pre-processor to define the individual ply layers through the laminate thickness. However this method does not allow delamination between ply layers to be modelled. The second approach is more complex and uses one layer of elements to represent each individual ply layer, each layer then being cohesively bonded together to form the laminate ply stack. This approach allows delamination between individual plies to be modelled. Another advantage of the latter, more complex, approach is that surface gouging as a result of impact can be modelled. Because each ply layer is modelled individually if one layer fails as a result of impact it can be deleted from the model (for failure criteria see section 2.6). A detailed picture of the possible gouging effects of impact can therefore be obtained. The first, less complex, approach will only delete elements from the model once every ply layer represented by that element has failed, i.e. if the element represents 24 ply layers and only 3 of them fail upon impact the element will remain in the model. It is therefore more difficult to gauge the response of the panel to possible surface gouging effects. 2.2.1 Models Not Assessing Delamination Two techniques were used to construct the panels using this approach: Shell Elements Continuum Shell Elements

2.2.1.1 Shell Elements Using shell elements was the simplest method used to construct the composite panel. A single layer of 4-noded, reduced integration shell elements (S4R) was used in combination with the composite layup modeller function built into the pre-processor. This modelling method was used because it was thought likely to produce the fastest run-times, would be simple to create and easy to modify. Using shell elements to construct the panel is this way will not allow delamination between ply layers to be modelled. However, it has been shown in previous work [1] that plotting matrix tensile damage on a shell model gives a good indication of where delamination is likely to occur, which will be used in this study. 2.2.1.2 Continuum Shell Elements Continuum shell elements used in this construction technique were modelled with a layer of continuum shell elements representing the panel, with the composite layup modeller function used to define the individual plies. To ensure that the aspect ratio of the continuum shell elements was kept within reasonable limits the 6mm, 12m and 18mm thick panels used one, two and three elements through-the-thickness respectively. It was expected that these continuum shell models would take slightly longer to run than the shell element model and provide the same data, yet model through-thickness stresses more accurately than the shell element construction method. As with the shell element model detailed in section 2.2.1.1, delamination will not be predicted using this method and matrix tensile damage used as a delamination indicator instead. 2.2.2 Models Assessing Delamination Two techniques were used to construct the panels using this approach: Solid Elements Continuum Shell Elements

2.2.2.1 Solid Elements For solid elements one reduced integration 8-noded brick (C3D8R) was used through the thickness of each ply. Cohesive surface interactions were used to allow for interlamina delamination between plies. It was expected that the solid element models would take significantly longer to run than the shell models but be able to provide detailed information on delamination between plies and gouging as a result of impact. 2.2.2.2 Continuum Shell Elements Continuum shell elements were modelled with one continuum C3D8R brick through the thickness of each ply layer. It was expected that these continuum shell models would take slightly longer to run than the solid element model but provide the same benefits in terms of data, and it would be interesting to note any differences in predicted panel behaviour between this and the solid element technique.

2.3 Stiffeners In models that required stiffeners (see Table 1), they were constructed with two backto-back L-shaped sections (see Figure 8), with an overall composite thickness of 5mm. The stiffener composite layup uses the same material as the panel (T800), with ply orientations as detailed in Table 5. The stiffeners were constructed using two different methodologies, shell elements and continuum shell elements. Solid elements were not used to construct stiffeners. 2.3.1 Shell Element Stiffeners Stiffeners constructed from shell elements were used with panels constructed from shell elements. These stiffeners used a single layer of shell elements to represent the thickness of each L-section. The simplest method to bond the stiffeners to the panel would be to use a tie constraint with cohesive properties between the adjacent surfaces - this feature is available in ABAQUS version 6.8. However, due to problems caused by shell element contact thickness reduction, this interaction could not be used and a layer of solid cohesive elements was used instead. This single layer of elements represented the cohesive layer between the two webs and between the stiffener and panel. 2.3.2 Continuum Shell Element Stiffeners Stiffeners constructed from continuum shell elements were used with panels constructed from continuum shell elements. These stiffeners used a single layer of continuum shell elements to represent the thickness of each L-section, and a tie constraint with cohesive properties to model the bond between the two webs and between the stiffener and panel. It should be noted that both methods of bonding the stiffeners use the same properties to define the stiffness and strength of the cohesive bonds. 2.4 Boundary Conditions The impactor is given an initial velocity towards the panel, with impact occurring at the panel centre. The test rig was represented by boundary conditions alone. 50mm at each end of the panel (opposing edges in the 0 direction) were fixed in x, y and z directions to represent being rigidly clamped in the test rig (See Figure 9). The outside 25mm of the other two edges of the panel were fixed in the z-direction (out-of-plane) to represent being held in guides during the test (See Figure 10). 2.6 Failure Criteria Given the simple nature of the model geometry it is not the model construction that poses the most significant challenge in this work, but the prediction of the composite

panel behaviour especially the onset and propagation of failure. The failure criteria are applied differently in the shell and solid element models as follows. 2.6.1 Shell Model Failure Criteria For shell or continuum shell elements the onset and propagation of damage in the panel is represented using the ABAQUS Hashin damage initiation and evolution model for fibre-reinforced composites. The damage initiation assumes that the behaviour of the undamaged material is linearly elastic and considers four different failure mechanisms: fibre tension, fibre compression, matrix tension, and matrix compression. Section 20.3.2 of the ABAQUS Analysis user manual provides a detailed description of this formulation [2]. Once damage has initiated, the evolution of damage is based on energy dissipation during the damage process (Section 20.3.3 of [2]). The damage evolution criterion introduces a characteristic length into the formulation, so that the constitutive law is expressed as a stress-displacement relation. The damage variable will evolve such that the stress-displacement behaves as shown in Figure 11 in each of the four failure modes. The positive slope of the stressdisplacement curve prior to damage initiation corresponds to linear elastic material behaviour; the negative slope after damage initiation is achieved by evolution of the respective damage variables. for the various modes depend on the elastic stiffness and the strength The values of parameters specified as part of the damage initiation definition. For each failure mode the energy dissipated due to failure, , is specified, which corresponds to the area of the triangle OAC in Figure 11. The values of for the various modes depend on the respective values. Unloading from a partially damaged state, such as point B in Figure 11, occurs along a linear path toward the origin in the plot of equivalent stress vs. equivalent displacement; this same path is followed back to point B upon reloading as shown in the figure. In ABAQUS Explicit a material point is assumed to fail when either of the damage variables associated with fibre failure modes (tensile or compressive) reaches an upper bound (default value of 1.0) and the element is removed from the mesh when this condition is satisfied at all of the section points at any one integration location of an element. Therefore, in the case of shell elements, all through-the-thickness section points at any one integration location of the element must fail before the element is removed from the mesh. If an element is removed, the output variable STATUS is set to zero for the element, and the element offers no resistance to subsequent deformation. It should be noted that this shell model failure criteria differs subtly from that for the solid model, since element deletion can occur as a result of both tensile and compressive fibre damage (solid model criterion only deletes elements on fibre tensile damage). In both cases matrix damage only contributes to the degradation of the element stiffness matrix.

2.6.2 Solid Model Failure Criteria For solid elements a constitutive material model for unidirectional fibres has been used to characterise the onset and propagation of damage in the panel. This material model determines damage separately for both the fibres and matrix of the composite and was developed by ABAQUS. The fibre damage is based on Hashins failure criteria for unidirectional composites and the matrix damage is based on Pucks action plane theory. The methodology supporting the material model is provided in detail in [3]. The failure criterion represents the onset and propagation of damage in the laminate through the following method: Using the stresses, damage is calculated for both the matrix and fibre (in both tension and compression) on an element by element basis. When damage in the matrix (tension or compression) or fibre (compression only) reaches unity, the stiffness component of that element is reduced to zero in all directions apart from the fibre direction. When damage in the fibre tension direction reaches unity the element is deleted from the analysis. When the maximum and minimum principal strains exceed limiting values (1.0 and -0.8 respectively) the element is deleted from the analysis. This means that the once fibre or matrix damage is initiated in an element, for example compressive through-thickness loads, the fibre will remain able to carry tensile load until either it fails in tension or the element reaches a limiting strain value. The default limiting strain values are 1.0 maximum and -0.8 minimum, and are defined within the VUMAT; these limits are in place to minimise computational complications from heavily distorted elements rather than to describe the physical behaviour of the laminate.

3 RESULTS Of the four panel construction techniques mentioned in Section 2.2 only two were found to be an appropriate way of modelling the panel. Both the solid element and continuum shell element construction techniques using one element per ply were found to produce models where the stable time increment reduced to unreasonable levels during impact, resulting in run-times far in excess of that deemed appropriate for this type of application. A number of methods were investigated to reduce this run-time, including material stiffness and element aspect ratio modifications, but none were found that had a significant effect. For this reason attention was focussed on the models representing the panel as a single shell layer, and the results presented in this paper are obtained using these techniques. This section describes the predicted results of the impact analyses using shell elements and continuum shell elements to construct the composite panel. The combinations of impactor and panel presented in this section are detailed in Table 1, and a total of 11 impact scenarios were considered. The first 4 scenarios reported are panels without stiffeners, the 5th to 11th scenarios are all more complex scenarios with stiffeners.

The following results were reported for each analysis: Initial and residual energy of the impactor; Extent of matrix tensile damage; Extent of stiffener delamination (where applicable); Extent of failed regions of the model; Impact contact forces; Depth of matrix tensile damage through composite panel. Selected results are presented in this paper. 3.1 Case 1 Case one involves the rubber impactor striking the 6mm thick smaller panel at 100m/s, edge-on at 45 to the panel. 3.1.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted for a small region in the centre of the panel for 3 of the 24 plies, and is predicted to cover a total area of 34.25 cm2. No regions of the panel are predicted to fail. 750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (75% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 12. 3.1.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted for a small region in the centre of the panel for 1 of the 24 plies, and is predicted to cover a total area of 5cm2. As with the shell element model, no regions of the panel are predicted to fail. 780kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (78% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 13. 3.2 Case 2 Case two involves the rubber impactor striking the 12mm thick smaller panel at 100m/s, face-on at 90 to the panel. 3.2.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted around the edges of the panel, for 15 of the 48 plies, and a small region of damage initiation in the panel centre. Matrix tensile damage is predicted to cover a total area of 221.5cm2. No regions of the panel are predicted to fail. 750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (75% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 14.

3.2.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted in the panel centre for 14 of the 48 plies, covering a total area of 164.25cm2. The energy absorbed by the panel is predicted to be the same as for the shell element model and, again, no regions of the panel are predicted to fail. The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 15. 3.3 Case 3 Case three involves the cuboid impacting the 12mm thick smaller panel at 160m/s, corner-on at 20 to the panel. 3.3.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted around the region of impact and around the edges of the panel, for every one of the 48 ply layers. Matrix tensile damage is predicted to cover a total area of 421.75cm2. Three small regions of panel at the initial point of impact are predicted to fail. 1375kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (80% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 16. 3.3.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted for the area around the region of impact and around the edges of the panel, for every one of the 48 ply layers. Matrix tensile damage is predicted for a total area of 529cm2. The matrix tensile damage is seen to track along the zero-degree plies particularly. A small section of panel at the initial point of impact is predicted to fail. 1375kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (80% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 17. 3.4 Case 4 Case four involves the slug impacting the 12mm thick smaller panel at 150m/s, noseon at 20 to the panel. 3.4.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted for a large area around the region of impact and around the edges of the panel, for every one of the 48 ply layers, covering a total area of 701.5cm2. A few points at the initial region of impact are predicted to fail, in line with the zero-degree plies. 1875kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (75% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 18. 3.4.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted to be the same as that for the shell element model, except it is seen to track along the zero-degree plies particularly, and cover a total area

of 612.25cm2. A few points at the initial region of impact are predicted to fail, in line with the 90-degree plies. 1500kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (60% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 19. 3.5 Case 5 Case five involves the rubber impactor striking the 6mm thick larger panel at 100m/s, face-on at 45 to the panel. 3.5.1 Shell Element Results No matrix tension damage or failure is predicted on either the panel or stiffeners. No damage is predicted to the cohesive elements bonding the stiffeners to the panel or bonding the stiffener webs together. 600kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (60% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The panel is able to respond elastically to this impact and exhibits no permanent deformation or damage. The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 20. 3.5.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Similarly to the shell element model, no matrix tension damage or failure is predicted on either the panel or stiffeners. No dis-bonding of the stiffener flanges is predicted but it is predicted that there will be a slight dis-bond at the very top of the stiffener webs. 600kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (60% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 21 and 22. Figure 22 shows the areas of predicted cohesive damage, firstly highlighting where these damaged areas are in relation to the model and secondly showing just the damaged areas. 3.6 Case 6 Case six involves the rubber impactor striking the 6mm thick larger panel at 90m/s, face-on at 90 to the panel. 3.6.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted in the region of impact and also under the stiffener webs in the panel centre. Matrix tension damage is predicted for 11 of the 24 ply layers over a total area of 191.5cm2, but no areas of the composite panel or stiffeners are predicted to fail. The stiffener flanges are dis-bonded immediately around the impact region and also slightly at the ends of the panel. One of the stiffener webs is dis-bonded in a small region at its base in the panel centre. 750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (94% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 23.

3.6.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted to occur in the same regions as for the shell element model, but for 10 of the 24 ply layers, covering a total area of 150.25cm2. No areas of the composite panel or stiffeners are predicted to fail. The stiffener flanges are predicted to dis-bond along the whole length of the panel and the stiffener webs are also almost entirely dis-bonded. 750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (94% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 24 and 25. 3.7 Case 7 Case seven involves the rubber impactor striking the 12mm thick larger panel at 170m/s, face-on at 45 to the panel. 3.7.1 Shell Element Results No matrix tension damage or failure is predicted on either the panel or stiffeners. No damage is predicted to the cohesive elements bonding the stiffeners to the panel or bonding the stiffener webs together. 1875kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (65% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The panel is able to respond elastically to this impact and exhibits no permanent deformation or damage. The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 26. 3.7.2 Continuum Shell Element Results As for the shell element model, no matrix tension damage or laminate failure is predicted on either the panel or stiffeners. The stiffener flanges are not predicted to dis-bond from the panel but a slight dis-bond at the very top and bottom of the webs is predicted. 1875kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (65% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 27 and 28. 3.8 Case 8 Case eight involves the cuboid impacting the 12mm thick larger panel at 200m/s, corner-on at 20 to the panel. 3.8.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted in the region around the initial point of contact, for 7 of the 48 ply layers. Matrix tensile damage is predicted over a total area of 19.75cm2. No areas of the composite panel or stiffeners are predicted to fail. The stiffener flanges are predicted to dis-bonded immediately around the impact region but no web dis-bond is predicted. 1800kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (45% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 29.

3.8.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted at the initial point of contact for 8 of the 48 ply layers, covering a total area of 18.75cm2. As for the shell element model, no areas of the composite panel or stiffeners are predicted to fail. No dis-bond is predicted in the stiffener flanges but the very top and bottom of both stiffener webs are predicted to dis-bond. 1875kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (47% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 30 and 31. 3.9 Case 9 Case nine involves the slug impacting the 6mm thick larger panel at 80m/s, nose-on at 90 to the panel. 3.9.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted around the region of impact for every one of the 24 ply layers, covering a total area of 84.5cm2, and a small area of the panel at the point of impact is predicted to fail. The stiffeners are dis-bonded across one half of each stiffener flange around the contact region, and also at the very base of one stiffener web in the panel centre. 620kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (88% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 32. 3.9.2 Continuum Shell Element Results As for the shell element model, matrix tension damage is predicted through the laminate thickness, and a small region of the panel at the initial point of impact is predicted to fail. Matrix tension damage is predicted to cover a total area of 91.75cm2. The stiffeners are dis-bonded across most of both stiffener flanges and also for small regions at the bottom of the stiffener webs. 600kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (86% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 33 and 34. 3.10 Case 10 Case ten involves the slug impacting the 12mm thick larger panel at 160m/s, nose-on at 45 to the panel. 3.10.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted around the region of impact for every one of the 48 ply layers, covering a total area of 210cm2. Panel failure occurs at the point of contact, where the impactor is seen to pass through the panel, and also at a small site under one of the stiffener webs. Both the stiffener flanges are dis-bonded along the whole length of the panel and small regions at the base of both stiffener webs are also predicted to dis-bond. 2250kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (78% of the

impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 35. 3.10.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is again predicted for all layers through the thickness, covering a total area of 162.25cm2. A small region of panel failure occurs at the initial impact point, but not enough for the impactor to penetrate. The stiffener flanges are disbonded along the whole length of the panel and the majority of the stiffener webs are also predicted to dis-bond. 2625kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (91% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 36 and 37. 3.11 Case 11 Case eleven involves the slug impacting the 18mm thick larger panel at 190m/s, noseon at 90 to the panel. 3.11.1 Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is predicted around the region of impact for every one of the 72 ply layers, covering a total area of 626.25cm2. A small region at the initial point of impact is predicted to fail but he impactor does not penetrate. The stiffener flanges are dis-bonded along the whole length of the panel and the very bottom of the stiffener webs are dis-bonded in the central region of the panel. 3750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (94% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figure 38. 3.11.2 Continuum Shell Element Results Matrix tension damage is again predicted for all layers through the thickness, covering a total area of 467.25cm2. A few small points around the region of impact are predicted to fail. Both the stiffener flanges and webs are dis-bonded along the whole length of the panel. 3750kJ is absorbed by the panel during impact (94% of the impactors original kinetic energy). The predicted state of the panel after impact can be seen in Figures 39 and 40. 3.12 Shell Element Model Discussion Using shell elements provides a simple and quick way of modelling these types of impact. The only complication when using shell elements in this way is when stiffeners are used, and cohesive elements are needed to attach the stiffeners to the panels. Only one of the impacts modelled is predicted to produce a scenario where the impactor penetrates the composite panel. The more severe cases are generally only predicted to cause a few small points of failure in the panel. Impacts onto the panels with stiffeners are predicted to produce a range of dis-bond scenarios. The impacts onto the thin, 6mm, panel are only predicted to cause localised stiffener dis-bonded because the panel is able to flex to absorb the impact.

The impacts onto the stiffer, thicker, panels are predicted to cause more extensive stiffener dis-bonding because the impact energy is transferred through the panel to the stiffeners. Unsurprisingly, the cases where the composite panel absorbed the largest amounts of energy are the cases where the most damage is caused. The cases where the impact is more of a glancing blow (and where the impactor retains much of its kinetic energy) are predicted to cause the least damage. Looking at the results in terms of energy, it seems there are three distinct scenarios analysed; Impact onto panels without supporting stiffeners; Impacts onto 6mm thick panels with two stiffeners; Impacts onto 12 or 18mm thick panels with two stiffeners.

Figure 41 shows a plot of energy absorbed vs. damaged panel area for the shell element models. Strong correlations can be seen between impacts in each category of impact. As one would expect, to cause a similar area of damage on the thicker 12mm or 18mm panels more energy is absorbed by the panel than that causing a similar area of damage on a 6mm thick panel. The result from the impact using an 18mm thick panel fits well into the data for the three impacts using a 12mm thick panel. This suggests that a step change in the stiffness response of the panel is achieved when increasing the panel thickness to 12mm from 6mm, which is not achieved again when increasing the thickness to 18mm. It may be that once the thickness of the panel becomes greater than 6mm the increased panel stiffness means that the load is transferred more evenly across the stiffener flanges instead of starting at the region of impact and working outwards as the panel deforms. This greater spread of load would explain why more energy is needed to cause damage in the panel, and why the stiffener dis-bond is only partial for some of the 6mm thick cases, whereas for the 12 and 18mm thick models the stiffener dis-bond looks to be either minimal or total. The panels without stiffeners exhibit a similar response to the 6mm thick panels with 2 stiffeners. This, again, seems to be because the response of the panel is a function of the stiffness of the panel itself, rather than a substantial load transfer through to any stiffeners. 3.13 Continuum Shell Element Model Discussion Using continuum shell elements provides a simple way of modelling this type of impact, and allows the preferred method (using a cohesive surface interaction) of attaching stiffeners. None of the impacts modelled are predicted to produce a scenario where the impactor penetrates the composite panel. The more severe cases are predicted to cause a few small points of failure in the panel. Impacts onto the panels with stiffeners are predicted to produce a range of dis-bond scenarios. The impacts onto the thin 6mm panel are predicted to cause less disbonding than impacts on to the stiffer, thicker, panels. The impacts onto the stiffer, thicker, panels transferred impact energy straight through the panel and dis-bonded both stiffener flanges and webs almost entirely. Impacts onto the thinner panels caused more dis-bonding along the stiffener flanges but generally not such widespread dis-bonding in the webs.

As with the shell element models, the cases where the composite panel absorbed the largest amounts of energy are the cases where the most damage is caused. The glancing impacts are predicted to cause the least damage. Looking at the results in terms of energy, again it seems there are three distinct types of scenario analysed, in the same way that was displayed for the shell element models: Impact onto panels without supporting stiffeners; Impacts onto 6mm thick panels with two stiffeners; Impacts onto 12 or 18mm thick panels with two stiffeners.

Figure 42 shows a plot of energy absorbed vs. damaged panel area for the continuum shell element models; strong correlations can be seen between impacts in each category of impact. The same phenomenon of panel thickness affecting the response as seen in the shell element models appears to be appearing in exactly the same way in the continuum shell element models, and again the panels without stiffeners respond in a very similar way to those with 2 stiffeners that are 6mm thick. Also notably similar to the shell models is the way in which for the 6mm thick, 2 stiffener models, the stiffener dis-bond is sometimes partial whereas in the 12 and 18mm thick panels the dis-bond is more regular over the whole stiffener length either intact or dis-bonded. 3.5 Model Construction Comparison The main point to note about the comparison between using shell elements and continuum shell elements for this type of impact prediction is that they give very similar results. On the whole the prediction of damage, failure and energy absorption is very similar between the two methods. For ease of comparison the results from the two construction methods are summarised in Tables 6 and 7. Studying the results closely, however, does reveal some differences in the behaviour of the panels in response to impact. Both methods predict almost identical number of layers affected by matrix tensile damage (the indication of delamination in the panel), whilst the shell element models predict that the total panel area affected by matrix tensile damage will be larger than that predicted by the continuum shell element models. Matrix tensile damage predictions are seen to track along the fibre directions more in the continuum shell element models than the shell element models. The shell element models predict a more circular region of matrix tensile damage around the impact site. The continuum shell element models appear to be less sensitive to sharp edges initiating damage than the shell element models. In a number of the smaller panels the shell element models display significant damage around the edges of the panel where the boundary conditions represent the fixed edge of the picture-frame test rig. The same phenomenon is visible in some of the continuum shell element models, but to a significantly reduced extent. The same effects are not visible on the larger models with stiffeners because the impact is further from the panel edges. One of the shell element models also appears to have matrix tensile damage in the panel centre initiated by the edges along the stiffener flanges, which is not seen in the continuum shell element model.

Figure 43 compares the two techniques in terms of energy absorbed by the panel as a result of impact. It can be seen that, as mentioned in the results, the panels absorb very similar amounts of energy whether modelled using conventional shell or continuum shell elements. Figure 44 compares the two techniques in terms of predicted delamination area in the panels. It can be seen that in general the predicted area is slightly greater when using conventional shells than when using continuum shells, even though the energy absorbed is very similar in both models. By comparing Figures 43 and 44 it can be seen that there are some cases where energy is absorbed by the panel but no delamination is predicted. There appears to be a threshold below which the panel is able to absorb energy without either the fibres or matrix failing. The main difference in the results between the two construction methods is the extent of predicted stiffener dis-bond. The continuum shell models predict much greater stiffener dis-bond than the shell models. Two of the shell models with stiffeners predict no dis-bond at all, whist all of the continuum shell models predict some degree of stiffener dis-bond. Dis-bonding of the stiffener flanges appears to be delayed in the continuum shell models compared to the shell models but the opposite is true regarding dis-bonding in the stiffener webs. Once dis-bonding is initiated in the stiffener flanges it is seen to spread much faster in the continuum shell models, resulting in large scale dis-bonding. The stiffeners in the shell models appear to be more resistant to un-zipping along their entire length once dis-bond is initiated. From the work carried out it is not clear whether the difference in the response of the cohesive bonds in the two laminate construction techniques is due to the element formulation transferring loads differently or the way the cohesive bond is modelled reacting differently. In one of the models constructed using shell elements the impact debris was able to penetrate the panel. The continuum shell element model of the same impact did not predict that the impactor would pass through the panel. Without comparing this impact to experimental data it is difficult to tell which of the two models is providing the more realistic answer. It is thought, however, that some artefact in the shell model is causing this difference because the panel is predicted to fail with the impact at 45, whilst a more severe impact at 90 to the panel does not predict penetration in this way when modelled with shell elements. In the course of this work it was noted that there was sometimes a significant difference in the run-times of the two modelling techniques. The models constructed using shell elements were, unsurprisingly, faster to run than those using continuum shell elements. For thin panels, there was only a difference of about 5% between the two methods because both construction techniques had the same number of elements. For the thicker panels (where more than one element through-the-thickness was used for the continuum shell element panels) the run-times differed significantly. For some cases the shell element models completed in under one-third of the time it took the continuum shell element models to complete.

4 CONCLUSIONS The impact analyses performed in this study are all relatively small and have simple geometry. The challenge of the work is in the application of material models to

represent the complex phenomenon of damage propagation and failure in composite laminates. It is recognised that the construction of composite laminates using solid or continuum shell elements for each ply is not a viable option for large structures due to the number of elements (and associated model run-times and disk space requirements). It has been surprising to find that in this work it was also not feasible to use these construction techniques for even relatively small laminate models. Composite laminates have been constructed in this manner successfully in previous work [1] using previous versions of ABAQUS, and the reason for this problem is still under investigation. The comparison between shell elements and continuum shell elements has been made because both construction methods have both advantages and disadvantages when compared to one-another. Both techniques allow simple and quick construction of complex geometries and produce models with relatively fast runtimes and low disk space requirements. It has been found that using shell elements can provide complications when attempting to attach structures using cohesive bonds and require the use of extra elements to provide this capability. In some cases shell elements give significantly shorter run-times than continuum shell elements though, whilst still providing broadly similar results. The following conclusions can be drawn from this work: Similarities The overall response of the shell and continuum shell models is very similar; Almost identical amounts of energy are absorbed by the panels from both construction techniques; Delamination depth (indicated by matrix tensile damage) is predicted to be the same using either construction technique; Models using shell elements predict delamination to cover a larger area than when continuum shell elements are used; Models using continuum shell elements predict delamination to track along ply directions more than shell element models, which predict a more rounded area of delamination; Modelling the cohesive bond between stiffeners and panels is simpler using continuum shell elements because the ABAQUS cohesive surface interaction function can be used. Stiffeners are predicted to suffer from greater dis-bonding when continuum shell elements are joined using cohesive surface interactions than when shell elements are joined using cohesive elements; Continuum shell element models seem to be less susceptible to damage initiation at edges than shell element models; Shell element models exhibit shorter run-times than continuum shell element models, especially for thick laminates.

Differences

Differences in predictions of composite laminate behaviour exist when modelling the laminate with shell elements or continuum shell elements. Without comparing the results to test data it is impossible to determine which of the two provides the more realistic predictions. In terms of the future development of the techniques reported here, this validation is the next stage. There are wider applications of the techniques used in this work package, extending beyond the limits of the simple composite panels modelled here. As well as applying these modelling techniques to models with larger and more complex geometry, a number of opportunities exist to integrate composite damage modelling with other FEA capabilities. Particularly within ABAQUS, the recently introduced CoupledEulerian-Lagrangian facility is one example of an application where modelling of damage within composite materials can greatly enhance a wider capability. Figures 45 and 46 show an example of how composite damage modelling techniques can be integrated into this capability.

References
[1] Use of ABAQUS for the Simulation of Impact upon Composites for Aerospace Applications, Dr L F Vaughn, R A Lawrence and Dr R J Dennis. Paper presented at ABAQUS RUM, November 2007. [2] ABAQUS User Manual, Version 6.8, ABAQUS Inc., 2008. [3] ABAQUS/Explicit VUMAT for the simulation of damage and failure in unidirectional fiber composite materials, ABAQUS Answer 3123, May 2007.

Tables
Table 1: Tested impact scenarios. Case no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Panel No. of stiffeners 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Impactor Impact Angle (deg) 45 90 90 90 45 90 45 20 90 45 90 Panel Thickness (mm) 6 12 12 12 6 6 12 12 6 12 18 Impact Velocity (m/s) 100 100 160 150 100 90 170 200 80 160 190

small small small small large large large large large large large

Rubber (edge-on) Rubber Cube Slug Rubber Rubber Rubber Cuboid Slug Slug Slug

Table 2: Ply stack sequence for 6mm thick panel. Ply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Orientation (degrees) 45 -45 0 90 0 0 45 -45 0 45 0 90 90 0 45 0 -45 45 0 0 90 0 -45 45

Table 3: Ply stack sequence for 12mm thick panel. Ply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Orientation (degrees) 45 -45 0 45 -45 0 0 90 0 0 45 -45 0 90 0 45 -45 0 45 -45 0 45 0 90 Ply 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Orientation (degrees) 90 0 45 0 -45 45 0 -45 45 0 90 0 -45 45 0 0 90 0 0 -45 45 0 -45 45

Table 4: Ply stack sequence for 18mm thick panel. Ply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Orientation (degrees) 45 -45 0 45 -45 0 0 90 0 0 45 -45 0 90 0 0 45 -45 0 90 0 45 -45 0 Ply 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Orientation (degrees) 0 45 -45 0 90 0 45 -45 0 45 -45 0 0 -45 45 0 -45 45 0 90 0 -45 45 0 Ply 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Orientation (degrees) 0 -45 45 0 90 0 -45 45 0 0 90 0 -45 45 0 0 90 0 0 -45 45 0 -45 45

Table 5: Ply stack sequence for stiffener flanges and webs. Ply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Orientation (degrees) 45 -45 0 0 0 90 0 0 45 -45 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 -45 45 0 0 90 0 0 0 -45 45

Table 6: Summary of shell model results. Case

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Damage
Small region around impact site Small region around impact site Around impact site and panel edges Large area around impact site and panel edges None Impact region and immediately under stiffener webs in the panel centre None Point of impact Around impact region Panel puncture at impact site, damage around this region Around impact region

Dis-bonding
N/A N/A N/A N/A None Flanges at impact site None Flanges at impact site Half of each flange All flanges and some web sections All flanges and some web sections

Damage Depth (plies)

3/24 15/48 48/48 48/48 0/24 11/24 0/48 7/48 24/24 48/48 72/72

Enveloped Damage Area (cm2)

34.25 221.5 421.75 701.5 0 191.5 0 19.75 84.5 210 626.25

Energy Absorbed (kJ)

750 750 1375 1875 600 750 1875 1800 620 2250 3750

Table 7: Summary of continuum shell model results. Case

1 2 3

Damage
Small region around impact site Small region around impact site Small area of panel failure, damage around impact region and panel edges Small areas of panel failure, damage around impact region and panel edges None Impact region and immediately under stiffener webs in the panel centre None Point of impact Around impact region Small areas of panel failure, damage around impact region Small areas of panel failure, damage around impact region

Dis-bonding
N/A N/A N/A

Damage Depth (plies)

1/24 14/48 48/48

Enveloped Damage Area (cm2)

5 164.25 529

Energy Absorbed (kJ)

780 750 1375

N/A

48/48

612.25 1500

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

None All flanges and most of webs None Top and bottom of webs Most of flanges and part of webs All flanges and most of webs All flanges and webs

0/24 10/24 0/48 8/48 24/24 48/48 72/72

0 150.25 0 18.75 91.75 162.25 467.25

600 750 1875 1875 600 2625 3750

Figures

Clamped Region

Exposed Window

Figure 1. Smaller Panel Showing Region in Test Rig and Exposed Window

Clamped Region

Stiffeners

Exposed Window

Figure 2. Larger Panel Showing Region in Test Rig and Exposed Window

Figure 3. Larger Panel and Bonded Stiffeners

Figure 4. Cube Impactor

Figure 5. Slug Impactor

Figure 6. Cuboid Impactor

Steel Shell

Figure 7. Rubber Impactor

Panel Figure 8. Stiffener Dimensions

Stiffener Ls

Figure 9. 50mm Clamped Ends of Smaller Panel

Figure 10. 25mm Guided Sides of Smaller Panel

Damage initiation

Damage evolution

Figure 11. Linear Damage Evolution (Figure 20.3.3-3 from Reference 2)

Figure 12. Shell Model Run 1 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 13. Continuum Shell Model Run 1 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 14. Shell Model Run 2 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 15. Continuum Shell Model Run 2 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 16. Shell Model Run 3 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 17. Continuum Shell Model Run 3 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 18. Shell Model Run 4 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 19. Continuum Shell Model Run 4 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 20. Shell Model Run 5 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 21. Continuum Shell Model Run 5 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 22. Continuum Shell Model Run 5 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 23. Shell Model Run 6 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 24. Continuum Shell Model Run 6 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 25. Continuum Shell Model Run 6 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 26. Shell Model Run 7 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 27. Continuum Shell Model Run 7 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 28. Continuum Shell Model Run 7 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 29. Shell Model Run 8 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 30. Continuum Shell Model Run 8 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 31. Continuum Shell Model Run 8 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 32. Shell Model Run 9 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 33. Continuum Shell Model Run 9 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 34. Continuum Shell Model Run 9 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 35. Shell Model Run 10 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 36. Continuum Shell Model Run 10 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 37. Continuum Shell Model Run 10 Dis-bonded Areas

Figure 38. Shell Model Run 11 Matrix Tensile Damage and dis-bonded areas

Figure 39. Continuum Shell Model Run 11 Matrix Tensile Damage

Figure 40. Continuum Shell Model Run 11 Dis-bonded Areas

4000 3500 3000 Energy Absorbed (kJ) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100 200

Shell Element Models

2 Stiff ener 6mm 2 Stiff ener 12/18mm 0 Stiff ener

300 400 500 Damaged Panel Area (cm 2 )

600

700

800

Figure 41. Energy Absorption vs. Damaged Panel Area for Shell Element Models

4000 3500 3000 Energy Absorbed (kJ) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 100 200

Continuum Shell Element Models

2 Stiffener 6mm 2 Stiffener 12/18mm 0 Stiffener

300 400 500 Damaged Panel Area (cm 2 )

600

700

800

Figure 42. Energy Absorption vs. Damaged Panel Area for Continuum Shell Element Models

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 7 8 9 10 11

Conventional Shell Continuum Shell

Figure 43. Comparison of Energy Absorption Between Conventional and Continuum Shells
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case 7 8 9 10 11 Conventional Shell Continuum Shell

Figure 44. Comparison of Delamination Area Between Conventional and Continuum Shells

Delamination Area (cm^2)

Energy Absorbed (kJ)

Figure 45. Pressure Wave in a Contained Fluid, Caused by Impact

Figure 46. Damage in Composite Materials Caused by Impact and Fluid Pressure Wave