146

CHAPTER 7

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Engineering Analysis and Simulation of complex mechanical

systems has been evolving for the last few decades. The advent of digital
computers has influenced all fields of science and engineering. Engineering
Simulations are not left behind. The widespread use of digital computers for
these engineering simulations is essential. Engineering Analysis and
Simulation helps to change the tedious manual calculations by automation
which speed up the computation process. With the further development of
computer programs and hardwares, the Finite Element Method (FEM) along
with dynamic analysis program has been developed. The incorporation of
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) process enables engineers to make their
designs more efficient, durable and even aesthetically pleasing. This chapter
describes the finite element analysis procedures and results of finite element
investigations of thin-walled shell made out of aluminum, glass fabric/epoxy
composite material and carbon fabric/epoxy composite material using Finite
Element Method in order to study the response of the shell structures under
static axial compression and axial impact loading.

7.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

7.2.1 Materials

The finite element analyse using commercially available FEA

softwares were carried out in the present research for the following thin-
walled shell structure under static and impact loading conditions,
 147

 Aluminum shell

 Glass fabric/epoxy composite shell

 Carbon fabric/epoxy composite shell

In the present work, the material properties of Glass fabric/epoxy

composite and Carbon fabric/epoxy composite estimated through
experimental material characterization were incorporated in the finite element
analysis so that the finite element software simulate the actual behavior of the
shell structure under static and impact loading conditions.

7.2.2 Finite Element Method

Among the various approximate methods available, finite element

method (FEM) is most popular and widely used in many engineering
applications. It is perhaps the most sophisticated tool for solving complex
engineering problems. With the introduction of new materials, viz.
composites, fabric composites, shape memory alloy etc., the conventional
approximate method fails to give solutions in many cases. Any structure
having any complex shape, made of any material, subjected to complex
loading and boundary conditions can be analysed is the striking feature of
finite element method.

Figure 7.1 Discretization

In finite element method the solid continuum is divided into a

number of elements as shown in Figure 7.1. Each element is free to deform
 148

and can have different material and geometrical properties. The shape of the
element is decided by the type of the problem. The basis of the finite element
method can be explained as follows,

1. Discretization of the actual structure into finite number of

subdivisions so called elements.

2. Computation of Element Stiffness matrix[Ke]

3. Assembly of Global Stiffness matrix[KG]

4. Solution of governing equations of the entire system given in

Equation (7.1)

{ } [ ]{ } (7.1)

where { } – Global force vector

{ } – Global Stiffness matrix

{ } – Global displacement vector

5. Incorporation of Boundary Conditions into the governing

equations.

6. Solve for the unknown displacements,{ }

7. Computation of Elemental Strains, { }

8. Computation of Elemental Stresses, { }

Now-a-days due the advent of advanced digital computing several

commercial finite element analysis software packages such as ANSYS®, LS-
DYNA® are available that can solve variety of engineering problems. These
packages have a dedicated pre-processor, solver and post-processor as shown
 149

in Figure 7.2 that gives graphical pictures of the structure before and after
loading process.
Finite Element Analysis

Pre- Post-
Processor Solver Processor

Figure 7.2 Steps in FE Modeling

The principal objectives of pre-processor software program is,

 Defining the Geometry

 Specifying Element types

 Defining material properties

 Creating meshes and nodes with numbering

The principal objectives of a solver program is,

 To solve the finite element equations using numerical

technique.

The principal objectives of post-processor software program is,

 To extract results such as displacements, stresses etc.,

 To plot the time-history relations

 Graphical representation of the results

 Animation of the deformed shape

The entire finite element calculations were performed in the present

work using ANSYS® for modeling static analysis and LS-DYNA® FEA
software for modeling impact analysis.
 150

7.3 FE ANALYSIS OF THIN-WALLED ALUMINUM SHELLS

In the present research, the feasibility of using commercially

available FEA softwares like ANSYS® and LS-DYNA® for simulating the
progressive buckling of thin-walled shell structures under static and impact
loads was numerically studied with aluminum material before testing with the
fabric composite structure.

7.3.1 Static Analysis of Aluminum Shells

7.3.1.1 FEModeling using ANSYS®-LSDYNA®

ANSYS®-LS-DYNA® which combines the LS-DYNA® explicit

finite element program with the powerful pre & post processing capabilities
of the ANSYS® program has been used for the finite element modeling and
simulation of thin-walled aluminum shell under static axial compression. The
finite element model of the static setup is indicated in Figure 7.3 and the
analysis assumptions taken into account for building the FEModel of the
static analysis of aluminum shells under axial compression is represented in
Table 7.1.

Figure 7.3 FE Model-aluminum shells under static compression

 151

Table 7.1 FEA Description-aluminum shells under static compression

 Software package Used  Analysis Type

Simulation Environment: STRUCTURAL – LSDYNA
ANSYS 11.0® EXPLICIT
License : ANSYS
Mechanical/ LSDYNA®
 Material Model  Element Type
For Aluminum Shell: For Aluminum Shell :
Linear- Elastic - Isotropic Thin shell 143
For Top Plate: Rigid For Top Plate: SOLID
 Material Properties  Material Properties
For Top Plate: For Aluminum Shell Specimen:
Density = 7.83e-6 kg / mm3 Young‟s Modulus 70000MPa
Young‟s Modulus 210000MPa Poisson‟s Ratio 0.33
Poisson‟s Ratio= 0.3
 Boundary Conditions  Loading:
For Aluminum Shell: Static load (0- 4.5k.N)
Ux, Uy = 0 Load Steps: 27 (magnitudes
For Top Plate: selected as per experiment load
Ux, Uz , θx , θy ,θz 0 data)

 Contact
Single Surface Eroding (ESS) -
Between aluminum Shell and Top
plate

7.3.1.2 FE analysis results

The finite element analysis results were generated using the software
post-processing facilities and represented in Figure 7.4, Figure 7.5.
 152

Figure 7.4 Deformed shape Figure 7.5 Von mises stress plot

7.3.1.3 Comparison of experimental and FEA results

The numerical Load-Deflection values were recorded for the same

27 load readings as considered in static experiments, cross-plotted and
compared with the experimental load-deflection curve as shown as shown in
Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6 Load-deformation plot-aluminum shell

The experimental and finite element result shows that, thin walled
aluminum shells buckles non-linearly under static compression. Initially the
top spherical shell fractures under axial compression and then the buckling
starts from the conical shell.
 153

7.3.2 Impact Analysis of Aluminum Shells

The FE simulation has also been carried out for the impact loading
of aluminum shells so as to predict the buckling of thin-walled metallic shells
under axial impact loading.

7.3.2.1 FEModeling using LSDYNA®

ANSYS®-LS-DYNA® explicit finite element program with the

powerful pre & post processing capabilities of the ANSYS® program has also
been used for the finite element modeling and simulation of thin-walled
aluminum shell under axial impact compression. The finite element model of
the impact setup (drop plate, aluminum shell & base plate) is represented in
Figure 7.7 and the analysis assumptions taken into account for building the
FEModel of the impact analysis of aluminum shells under low velocity axial
impact is denoted in Table 7.2.

Figure 7.7 FE Model-aluminum shells under axial impact

 154

Table 7.2 FEA Description-Aluminum shells under axial impact

 Software package Used  Analysis Type

Simulation Environment: ANSYS
12.0®
License : ANSYS Mechanical/
LSDYNA®
Post Processor : LSPOST®
 Material Model
For Aluminum Shell:
Non-Linear- Plastic - Isotropic
For Drop Plate& Base Plate: Rigid
 Material Properties
For Drop Plate & Base Plate:
Density = 7.83e-6 kg / mm3
Young‟s Modulus 210000 MPa
Poisson‟s Ratio = 0.3
 Boundary Conditions
For Aluminum Shell:
Ux, Uy, θx , θy = 0 (bottom nodes)
For Drop Plate:
Ux, Uy , θx , θy ,θz = 0
For Base Plate:
Ux, Uy , Uz , θx , θy ,θz = 0
 Loading:
Dynamic Load (As per the
Experimental Load Data from 2m/s
to 6 m/s)
STRUCTURAL – LSDYNA
EXPLICIT
 Element Type
For Aluminum Shell :
Thin shell 163
Element Size: 4 mm
For Top Plate: SOLID
 Material Properties
For Aluminum Shell Specimen:
Young‟s Modulus 70000MPa
Poisson‟s Ratio 0.33
 Contact
CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_
SURFACE_TO_SURFACE
For drop plate and aluminum
shell and for aluminum shell
and base plate.

7.3.2.2 FE analysis results

The finite element analysis results were generated using the

software LS-POST and represented in Figure 7.8(a) to 7.8(f) and
Figure 7.9(a) to 7.9(f).
 155

(a) Impact Velocity 2m/s

(b) Impact Velocity 2.5m/s

(c) Impact Velocity 3m/s

(d) Impact Velocity 3.5m/s

Figure 7.8 Deformed shapes- aluminum shells (Continued)

 156

(e) Impact Velocity 4m/s

(f) Impact Velocity 6m/s

Figure 7.8 Deformed Shapes- Aluminum Shells

(a) Impact Velocity 2m/s

(b) Impact Velocity 2.5m/s

Figure 7.9 Von mises stress plot-aluminum shell (Continued)
 157

(c) Impact Velocity 3m/s

(d) Impact Velocity 3.5m/s

(e) Impact Velocity 4m/s

(f) Impact Velocity 6m/s

Figure 7.9 Von mises stress plot-aluminum shell

 158

7.3.2.3 Comparison of experimental and FEA results

In the finite element simulation, the aluminum specimens were

compressed to the value equal to the same velocity and drop height that
occurred in the experiments.

Velocity
Experimental FEA
(m/s)

V=2

V=3.5

V=4

V=6

Figure 7.10 Modes of collapse-experimental & FEM

 159

The modes of collapse for the thin-walled aluminum shells were

investigated experimentally, numerically and compared in Figure 7.10. The
predicted deformed shape obtained by finite element analysis at different
stages of compression viz, local flattening, inward dimpling, formation of
concentric circles and formation of multiple numbers of folds are found in
good agreement with the experimental deformed shapes.

7.4 FE ANALYSIS OF GLASS FABRIC/EPOXY COMPOSITE

SHELLS

Having studied and validated the FEA results with experimental

modes of collapse for thin-walled aluminum shells, the feasibility study of
using commercially available FEA softwares ANSYS® and LS-DYNA® for
simulating the collapse behavior of glass fabric/epoxy shell structures under
static and impact loads was carried out. Due to the cheap cost of glass fabric,
feasibility studies with glass fabric composite material were conducted before
testing with the carbon fabric composite material.

7.4.1 Static Analysis

The FE analysis has been carried out for the static loading of glass
fabric/epoxy shell so as to predict the static response of thin-walled glass
fabric/epoxy shells under axial compression loads.

7.4.1.1 FEModeling using ANSYS®-LSDYNA®

The finite element model of the static setup is indicated in

Figure 7.11 and the analysis assumptions taken into account for building the
FEModel of the static analysis of glass fabric/epoxy shells under axial
compression is represented in Table 7.3.
 160

Table 7.3 FEA description-glass fabric/epoxy shells under static

compression

 Software package Used  Analysis Type

Simulation Environment: STRUCTURAL – LSDYNA
ANSYS 11.0® EXPLICIT
License : ANSYS
Mechanical/ LSDYNA®
 Material Model
For GFRP Shell:  Element Type
LS - DYNA- Non Linear- For GFRP Shell :
Inelastic- Damage - Thin Shell 163
Composite For Top Plate: SOLID
For Top Plate: Rigid
 Material Properties  Material Properties
For Top Plate: For GFRP Shell Specimen:
3
Density = 7.83e-6 kg / mm Density (RO) =2.16e-6 kg / mm3
Young‟s Modulus 210000 Young‟s Modulus*
MPa E1= 7272.2 MPa
Poisson‟s Ratio 0.3 E2 =7272.2 MPa
 Contact Poisson‟s Ratio*
Single Surface Eroding (ESS) υ12 = 0.341
- Between GFRP Shell and
Top plate
*Experimentally estimated material property
 Boundary Conditions  Loading:
For GFRP Shell: Static load (0- 4.5k.N)Load Steps:
Ux, Uy = 0 5 (magnitudes selected as per
For Top Plate: experiment load data)

Ux, Uz , θx , θy ,θz = 0
 161

Figure 7.11 FE Model-glass fabric/epoxy shell under static compression

7.4.1.2 FE analysis results

The deformed configuration using the software post-processing

facilities are represented in Figure 7.12 which indicates the contour plot for
the distribution of Y-displacement.

Figure 7.12 Deformed configuration-GFRP shell

7.4.1.3 Comparison of experimental and FEA results

The numerical modes of collapse were recorded for the same load
steps as considered in static experiments and compared with the experimental
counterpart. Figure 7.13 shows better agreement between the numerical &
experimental results for glass fabric/epoxy composite shells.
 162

Figure 7.13 Modes of collapse-experimental & FEM

7.4.2 Impact Analysis

The study undertaken uses the LSDYNA® Finite Element software

for simulating the post-buckling responses of the glass fabric/epoxy
composite shells under axial impact.

7.4.2.1 FEModeling using LSDYNA®

The FEModel of the impact setup (Figure 7.14 (a &b)) is developed

with a drop plate, base plate with rigid material model and a glass
fabric/epoxy composite shell structure with composite damage material
model. The rigid steel drop plate (mass 70kg, initially at rest condition) and
the glass fabric/epoxy composite shell structure with single layer has been
modeled with the axis of the drop plate collinear with the axis of the glass
fabric/epoxy composite shell structure. The contact between the two
dissimilar materials viz. drop plate and composite shell structural model are
assigned to Automatic Surface to Surface in the LSDYNA®. For the drop
plate all the degrees of freedom except the vertical movement are arrested
whereas for the base plate all the degrees of freedom are arrested. Only Y-
direction rotation is allowed for the bottom nodes of the GFRP shell. The
average uniaxial test results of glass fabric/epoxy composite (E1= 7272.2
MPa; υ12 = 0.341) estimated through experimental material characterization
 163

(a) Before Impact

(b) After Impact

Figure 7.14 FE Model-glass fabric/epoxy shell under axial impact

were given input into the FEModel in the pre-processor, LS-Prepost of

LSDYNA® software. These experimentally observed material properties of
glass fabric/epoxy composite were prerequisite in building the material model
of actual glass fabric/epoxy composite structure in the pre-processing step of
finite element analysis. The details of the Analysis type, material model,
material properties, Element type, Mesh size and boundary conditions are
presented in Table 7.4.
 164

Table 7.4 FEA Description-glass fabric/epoxy shells under axial impact

 Software package Used:  Analysis Type:

Simulation Environment:
LSDYNA®
Pre & Post Processor : LS –
PrePost
 Material Model
For GFRP Shell: Composite
Damage
For Drop & Base Plate: Rigid
 Material Properties
For Drop & Base Plate:
Density= 7.83e-6 kg / mm3
Young‟s Modulus 210 GPa
Poisson‟s Ratio= 0.3
 Element Type
For GFRP Shell: SHELL
For Drop & Base Plate: SOLID
 Loading
 Low velocity Axial Impact
Load(drop height range of h =
459 mm to 1835mm)
 Contact
Automatic Surface to Surface
(Between GFRP Shell and
Drop plate)
 Mesh Size = 2 mm
 No.of fabric layer = 1
STRUCTURAL – LS DYNA
EXPLICIT
 Material Properties
For GFRP Shell Specimen:
Density (RO) =2.16e-6 kg / mm3
Young‟s Modulus*
E1= 7272.2 MPa
E2 =7272.2 MPa
Poisson‟s Ratio
υ12 = 0.341*
*Experimentally estimated material property
 Boundary Conditions
GFRP Shell (Bottom Nodes)
x = 1, y = 1, z = 1,
θx = 1, θy = 0, θz = 1
Drop plate: x = 1, y = 0, z = 1,
θx 1, θy 1, θz = 1
Base plate: x = 1, y = 1, z = 1,
θx 1, θy 1, θz = 1

7.4.2.2 FE analysis results

A convergence study is also being carried out in the present

numerical analysis. The element choice and its size decide the accuracy of the
 165

FEModel. Initially the GFRP shell model was discretized with coarse mesh
and then the mesh refinement process is carried out based upon the
experimental observations. It is observed from Figure 7.15 for an impact
velocity of 3m/s that, the mesh size of 2mm is optimum for the present study.
It is also observed that the accuracy of the results is not altered by reducing
the size of the mesh further. As the element size becomes smaller and smaller,
the element approaches that of 3-D solid. However, from the geometric
parameters of shell models it is clear that the physical models are to be
characterized as “thin shells”. Hence the nature of stress field will be 2-D
matching with the assumptions associated with shell FE formulation. In fact,
the state of stress near the impact point is truly 3-D, with the stress in
thickness direction matching with the intensity of impact loads. In Figure 7.15
the Y axis indicates the negative shell compression heights.

Figure 7.15 Convergence study

By keeping the mesh size as 2x2 mm a total of 26993 elements

were generated for the finite element analysis. The impact behavior of glass
fabric/epoxy composite shell structure under low velocity impact (v =3m/s)
using LSDYNA® software package is given in Figure 7.16 which includes
FEModel of the composite shell structure (Figure7.16 (a)), deformed shape of
 166

the composite shell structure (Figure 7.16 (b)) and stress plot (Figure7.16 (c))
along Y direction. Based upon the numerical predictions obtained
experimental impact testing of glass fabric/epoxy composite shell structures
are carried out. The displacement plot, velocity plot, acceleration plot and
stress plot can be recorded for any node and element of interest at any impact
velocity using the LS-Prepost software capabilities.

(c) Stress Plot

(a) FEModel (b) Deformed shape
Figure 7.16 FE results for impact loading

The Finite Element analysis are further carried out for the impact
behavior of glass fabric/epoxy composite shell structure under a drop height
range of h = 459 mm to 1835 mm (low velocity impact) using LSDYNA®
software package. In every impact analysis, the maximum vertical
displacement at the mid node (Node no.187) of the top shell structure is
recorded and plotted.

Figure 7.17 Displacement-drop height plot

 167

It can be generally concluded from Figure 7.17 that the

displacement increases nearly in a linear manner with the increase in drop
height for the impact testing of glass fabric/epoxy composite shells. The
present analysis emphasis only on downward displacement at the mid node of
the nose cone. Using the LS-Prepost software capabilities the history of
displacement for any X-Section of interest at different height of the GFRP
shell can be recorded.

7.4.2.3 Comparison of experimental and FEA results

The FE analysis was carried out using the same drop height, impact
velocity as that of the experiments. Visual inspections were carried out for the
observation of the damage pattern of the glass/fabric epoxy composite shell
experimentally tested under axial impact and compared with the numerical
counterparts. The experimental deformed shape for a sample of glass/fabric
epoxy composite shell tested at an impact velocity of 3 m/s is represented in
Figure 7.18 (a) which showed similarities with the respective numerical
deformed shape (Figure 7.18 (b)). The fringe levels in Figure 7.18 (b) indicate
the values of displacement in intermediate shell compression stage.

(a) (b)

Figure 7.18 Deformation- experimental and FE analysis

 168

7.5 FE ANALYSIS OF THIN-WALLED CARBON FABRIC /

EPOXY COMPOSITE SHELLS

Having studied that the commercial FEA software packages

ANSYS® and LS-DYNA® is capable of simulating the progressive buckling
of thin-walled metallic aluminum shells and glass fabric reinforced epoxy
composite shells under static and dynamic loading conditions, the finite
element analysis of the actual carbon fabric reinforced epoxy composite shells
under static and impact loading conditions were carried out in this work. Due
to the extremely expensive costs of carbon fabric, it has been selected only
after completing the FEA works with aluminum and glass fabric.

7.5.1 Static Analysis

The FE analysis has been carried out for the static loading of
carbon fabric/epoxy shell so as to predict the static behavior of thin-walled
carbon fabric/epoxy shells under axial static compression loads.

7.5.1.1 FE Modeling using ANSYS®-LSDYNA®

The FE model of the static setup is shown in Figure 7.19 and the
FEAnalysis assumptions taken into account for building the FEModel of the
static analysis of carbon fabric/epoxy shells under static axial compression is
denoted in Table 7.5.

Figure 7.19 FE Model-CFRP shell under static compression

 169

Table 7.5 FEA description-CFRP shells under static compression

 Software package Used  Analysis Type

Simulation Environment: STRUCTURAL – LSDYNA
ANSYS 12.0® EXPLICIT
License : ANSYS
Mechanical/ LSDYNA®
 Material Model
 Element Type
For CFRP Shell:
For CFRP Shell :
LSDYNA- Non Linear-
Thin Shell 163
Inelastic- Damage -
Mesh Size: 4 mm
Composite
For Top Plate: SOLID
For Top Plate: Rigid
 Material Properties  Material Properties
For Top Plate: For CFRP Shell Specimen:
Density= 7.83e-6 kg / mm3 Density (RO) =1.60e-6 kg / mm3
Young‟s Modulus 210000 Young‟s Modulus*
MPa E1= 27.168 GPa
Poisson‟s Ratio = 0.3 E2 =27.168 GPa
Poisson‟s Ratio*
 Contact
υ12 = 0.302
Single Surface Eroding (ESS)
Shear Modulus*
- Between GFRP Shell and
G12 = 7.899 GPa
Top plate
*Experimentally estimated material property
 Boundary Conditions  Loading:
For CFRP Shell: Static load (0- 4.5k.N)Load Steps:
Ux, Uy = 0 5 (magnitudes selected as per
For Top Plate: experiment load data)

Ux, Uz , θx , θy ,θz = 0
 170

7.5.1.2 FE analysis results

The deformed shape of the CFRP shells under static compression

loads are obtained using the software postprocessor and represented in
Figure 7.20.

Figure 7.20 Deformed shape-CFRP shell

The finite element perspectives reveals that during static loading

the carbon fabric/ epoxy composite shell deform in a different manner when
comparing buckling of Aluminum shells in terms of formation of multiple
lobes, concentric circles and inward dimpling etc.,

7.5.1.3 Comparison of experimental and FE results

The numerical Load-Deflection values were recorded for the same

load steps that have been considered in static experiments and cross-plotted as
shown in Figure 7.21. The Numerical and experimental results shows that,
Carbon fabric shells buckles approximately in a non-linear fashion under
static compression. In Figure 7.21the variation is found to be minimum in
initial and final stages. In the mid region, the variation is high and it may be
due to the variation in thickness of the shell. However, the collapse load is 1.8
k.N which is found same for both Experimental and FEA results.
 171

Figure 7.21 Load-deflection plot-CFRP shell

7.5.2 Static Analysis using ACP

7.5.2.1 ANSYS composite PrePost

ANSYS Composite PrepPost is a powerful ANSYS® and ANSYS®

Workbench™ integrated software package designed for efficient composites
engineering. ANSYS Composite PrepPost provides all necessary
functionalities for the analysis of layered composite structures. ANSYS
Composite PrepPost (ACP) is an add-in to ANSYS Workbench and is
integrated with the standard analysis features. The entire workflow for
composite structure can be completed from design to final information
production as a result as shown in Figure 7.22.

Figure 7.22 Workflow in ANSYS Composite PrePost (ACP)

 172

7.5.2.2 ANSYS workbench mechanical work flow for FE Modelling

The procedure for building an analysis model is illustrated with a

Static Structural Analysis System as an example.

Step 1: Connecting the ACP solid model to the Static Structural

component.

The sequence of connecting models to the Static Structural

component is shown in Figure 7.23: Firstly, a stand-alone Static Structural
Analysis System is dragged into the project schematic. Secondly, the ACP
(Pre) Setup cell is dragged into the Model cell of the Static Structural
analysis. The Engineering Data and Geometry cells disappear as a result of
the connection. Once the ACP Setup has been connected multiple other
components can be attached to the Model component of the Static Structural
analysis as shown in Figure 7.23.

Figure 7.23 Connecting ACP solid model to static structural component

Step 2: Drag-and-drop an ACP (Post) system on to an ACP (Pre)

system

The post-processing functionality for Solid Models of ACP allows

the mapping of ply wise results on to the reference surface of the solid model.
The connection between an Analysis System and ACP (Post) always requires
the same two steps regardless of whether the Analysis System is Workbench
 173

Mechanical or Mechanical APDL. First of all, the ACP (Post) system has to
be associated with an ACP (Pre) system. Subsequently, a solution from an
Analysis System can be linked with the ACP (Post) Results as shown in
Figure 7.24.

Figure 7.24 Connecting ACP (Post) with ACP (Pre)

Step 3: Drag-and-drop the Static Structural Solution cell onto the ACP
(Post) Results cell

Figure 7.25 illustrates Inter connection of Static Structural

solutions with ACP prepost.
 174

Figure 7.25 Inter-connecting static structural solutions with ACP

7.5.2.3 ACP step by step procedure

The step by step FEA procedure incorporated for the analysis of

carbon/fabric epoxy composite shell under static axial compression using
ACP software are:

1. Specify material data

(a) Fabrics

The fabric material class has been assigned for the shell structure
using ANSYS Composite PrepPost as shown in Figure 7.26.
 175

Figure 7.26 Creating fabric for shell structure

The polar plot shown in Figure 7.27displays the in-plane laminate

engineering constants of the laminate (E1 and G12) rotated by 0 to 360
degree. This plot highlights the anisotropy of the laminate and the influence
of the orientation. From the polar plot the in-plane properties of the composite
can be calculated according to the draped fabric direction as the fabric
orientation varies when the reinforcement is draped over a conical surface.

Figure 7.27 Polar properties of the fabric for the CFRP shell structure

(b) Stackups

A stackup is a non-crimp fabric with a defined stacking sequence.

For every ply of the stackup, the Fabric and its orientation along with the
 176

polar properties which define the in-plane properties of the composite are
defined as shown in Figure 7.28.

Figure 7.28 Stackup properties of the shell structure

2. Rosettes

Rosettes are coordinate systems that are used to set the reference
direction of Oriented Element Sets. In other words, Rosettes define the 0°
direction for the composite layup. The origin and directions of the rosettes are
given by global coordinates. The yellow arrows in Figure 7.29 indicate the
reference direction of each element. The draping capabilities of ANSYS
Composite PrepPost software allows to correctly identify the exact orientation
of each layer of the composite.

Figure 7.29 Oriented element set with a spherical rosette

 177

The Spherical Rosette is based on a spherical coordinate system

and the reference direction runs circumferentially around the Z axis of the
Rosette.

3. Oriented Element Sets

An Oriented Element Set (Figure 7.30) is an Element Set with

additional information about the element orientations. The orientation
direction of an Element Set is responsible for setting the stacking direction of
the associated layup. The reference direction on the other hand is responsible
for setting the 0° direction of the associated layup. These directions must be
defined while parameters like Rules and Draping (Figure 7.31) are optional.

Figure 7.30 Creating oriented element set & orientation point

Figure 7.31 Creating draping properties for oriented element set

 178

(a) Seed Point

The Seed Point is the starting point where the ply is laid into the
mold. At this location the fiber direction is unchanged and the draped fiber
direction is equal to the theoretical one.

(b) Draping

The ply application (draping) on any doubly curved surfaces

changes the theoretical fiber orientations as represented in Figure 7.32. In
many cases the effect is small and can be neglected. On the other side it is
essential to identify how big this effect can be and if it has to be considered.
In that case ACP allows estimating the draped fiber directions. These angles
can be visualized and are considered in all analysis resulting in more accurate
evaluations. After the first point is applied on the mold, the Draping Direction
defines along which route the ply is laid into the mold.

Figure 7.32 Woven fabric wrapped to form a shell structure

4. Modeling Ply Groups

In the section Modeling Ply Group, the desired composite lay-up

can be defined. The ply definition can be organized into Ply Groups.
 179

The Ply Group node has three sub-levels:

Modeling Ply (MP): the ACP lay-up is defined at this level.

Production Ply (PP): the no.of Layers option is defined at this

level.

Analysis Ply (AP): the analysis plies describe the plies used in the
section definition for the ANSYS solver.

7.5.2.4 FEA Results using ANSYS Composite PrePost

Figure 7.33 illustrates the fiber direction whereas Figure 7.34

represents the element normal along with fibre direction using ACP prepost.

Figure 7.33 Fibre direction

Figure 7.34 Element normal &fibre direction

 180

The Contour plot for the resultant deformation of the CFRP shell
structure has been represented in Figure 7.35.

Figure 7.35 Contour plot for total deformation of shell structure

Sampling Elements are very useful in the post mode to access to

ply-wise results which provides layup plots, through-the-thickness post-
processing plots, laminate engineering constants and much more. The Stress
plot for various sampling elements has been plotted in Figure 7.36(a to f).

(a)
Figure 7.36 Stress plot for various sampling elements (Continued)
 181

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 7.36 Stress plot for various sampling elements (Continued)
 182

(f)

Figure 7.36 Stress plot for various sampling elements

7.5.3 Impact Analysis

Similar to the finite element investigations done with glass

fabric/epoxy composite shells under axial impact, the LSDYNA® Finite
Element software is used for simulating the responses of the carbon
fabric/epoxy composite shells under axial impact loading condition.

7.5.3.1 FEModeling using LSDYNA®

In this work for the experimental and numerical investigations, the

structural configuration has been considered as a scaled model of a space
capsule structure, which is a combination of thin conical shell and shallow
spherical shell at the top with a single semi-cone angle.

The description of the impact finite element analysis such as

Analysis type, material model, material properties, Element type, Mesh size
and boundary conditions are presented in Table 7.6. The drop heights chosen
for conducting experiments and finite element impact analysis of carbon
fabric composite shells structure are 459mm, 624mm, 815mm, 1032mm,
1274mm, 1542mm, 1835mm so as to examine thin-walled CFRP shells under
 183

low velocity impact phenomenon. The finite element simulations are set up
and controlled in LSDYNA® environment using the function,

a) SPC (single point constraints)

b) SETD
c) CONTACT
d) DATABASE

a) SPC (single point constraints)

This function defines nodal constraints for using nodes and node
sets. The boundary conditions on the desired nodes are specified using their
SPC code.

b) SETD

The parts which are in contact during the impact analysis are
selected by using SET PART function.

c) CONTACT

The contact between the bodies undergoing impact is specified by

“Automatic surface to surface contact”.

d) DATABASE

The D3PLOT file contain the plotting information to plot data over
the three dimensional geometry of the model.

Table 7.6 FEA Description-CFRP shells under axial impact
 Software package Used:
Simulation Environment:
LSDYNA®
License : Network
Post Processor : LS – PrePost
 Material Model
For CFRP Shell: Composite
Damage
For Drop Plate: Rigid
 Material Properties:
For Drop Plate& Base Plate:
Density =7.83e-6kg/mm3
Young‟s Modulus 210000
MPa
Poisson‟s Ratio 0.3
 Element Type
For CFRP Specimen:
Shell
For drop plate& Base Plate:
Solid (Thatte 2008)
 Contact
Automatic Surface to Surface
 Control
Termination time
 Loading
Low velocity impact : 3-6 m/s
Drop Height :459 mm –1835
mm
 Average Mesh Size = 3.2 mm
 Mesh Type:
Automatic Topology Mesh
No.of Nodes : 4353
No.of Elements : 3974
 No.of carbon fabric layer = 1
184
 Analysis Type:
STRUCTURAL – LS DYNA
EXPLICIT
 Material Properties:
The Material Properties are
estimated by material
characterization at COMPTEC/
IITMadras, Chennai using ASTM
Standard Test coupons.
For CFRP Shell Specimen:
Density (RO) =1.60e-6 kg/ mm3
Young‟s Modulus*
E1= 27.168 GPa
E2 = 27.168 GPa
Poisson‟s Ratio*
υ12= 0.302
Shear Modulus*
G12= 7.899 GPa
*Experimentally estimated material property
 Output Frequency
D3plot
 Boundary Conditions
Specimen: (bottom nodes)
x=1, y=1, z=1,
θx = 1, θy = 0, θz = 1
Top plate: x=1, y=0, z=1,
θx 1, θy 1, θz = 1
Bottom plate: x=1, y=1, z=1,
θx 1, θy 1, θz = 1
 185

For modeling the shell structure PRO E software is used and the
ProE model has been given in Figure 7.37 and Figure 7.38.

Figure 7.37 Axi-symmetric modeling using PRO E ®

Figure 7.38 Shell specimen modeling using PRO E ®

These PRO E model file has been exported to LS-PrePost

environment for creating the finite element model.
 186

Figure 7.39 Incorporation of boundary conditions

Figure 7.40 Incorporation of impact load

 187

Rigid Drop
Plate

Surface To Surface
Contact between
Drop Plate and CFRP
Shell
CFRP Shell

Rigid Base
Plate

Figure 7.41 FEModel of the impact setup

The FEModel of the impact setup is being developed with a drop

plate, base plate with rigid material model and a carbon fabric/epoxy
composite shell structure with composite damage material model. Figure 7.41
shows the FEModel of the actual drop mass set up, wherein the top plate is
axially dropped over the carbon/fabric shell element (Yokoyama 2010) due to
gravity whereas the bottom plate is fixed. The rigid steel drop plate (mass
70kg, initially at rest condition) and the carbon fabric/epoxy composite shell
structure with single layer has been modeled with the axis of the drop plate
collinear with the axis of the shell structure. The contact between the drop
plate and composite shell structural model are assigned to Automatic Surface
to Surface (Thatte 2008) in the LS-DYNA® so as to accommodate the impact
initiation and the impact progress. For the drop plate all the degrees of
freedom except the vertical movement (Figure 7.40) are arrested whereas for
the base plate all the degrees of freedom are arrested (Figure 7.39). Only Y-
 188

direction rotation is allowed for the bottom nodes of the carbon fabric/epoxy
composite shell. The material properties of carbon fabric/epoxy composite
listed in Table 7.6were given input into the FEModel in the pre-processor,
LS-Prepost of LS-DYNA® software. It has been also assumed that the elastic
modulus along the longitudinal direction is equal to the elastic modulus along
the transverse direction in the present FE analysis. Hence only the
unidirectional material properties along the longitudinal direction are
experimentally estimated in the present research.

The Table 7.6 illustrates the Finite Element Analysis descriptions

which are given as input into the FEModel using LS-DYNA®. The number
assigned to both translational and rotational dof indicates, 0 – Free; 1 –
Arrested. The impact time duration, that is the termination time and output
time step were specified in LS-DYNA® for controlling the computational run
and to get the results at desired time interval. The output file was stored in the
form of d3plot which can be analysed using LS-Prepost postprocessor.

7.5.3.2 Modes of collapse

The Finite Element Analysis results for various low velocity impact
loading are obtained through LS-Prepost. In every impact analysis, the
maximum vertical displacement at the mid node (Node no.161) of the top
shell structure and element stresses (Element No.867) are recorded and
plotted.

The present finite element analysis emphasis only on vertical

displacement at the mid node (Figure 7.42) of the nose cone. The modes of
collapse for every impact analysis are detailed in Figure 7.43 (a to g).
 189

(a) Node Numbering

(b) Element Numbering

(c) Multiple Element Numbering

Figure 7.42 Shell node & element numbering

 190

(a) 3m/s

(b) 3.5 m/s

(c) 4 m/s

Figure 7.43 Modes of collapse-FEA results (Continued)

 191

(d) 4.5 m/s

(e) 5 m/s

(f) 5.5 m/s

(g) 6 m/s
Figure 7.43 Modes of collapse-FEA results
 192

7.5.3.3 Stress plot

The Y-stress plot for every impact tests are detailed in Figure
7.44(a to g). The fringe levels indicate the stress in MPa.

(a) 3m/s

(b) 3.5 m/s

(c) 4 m/s

Figure 7.44 Stress plot-FEA results (Continued)

 193

(d) 4.5 m/s

(e) 5 m/s

(f) 5.5 m/s

(g) 6 m/s
Figure 7.44 Stress plot-FEA results
 194

7.5.3.4 History of deformation

Using LS-Prepost the history of deformation for every low velocity

impact analysis between 3 m/s to 6 m/s have been generated. The Figure 7.45
(a to c) shows the comparison of Displacement, velocity and acceleration with
reference to time for every impact analysis between 3 m/s to 6 m/s. Figure
7.45(d)shows the energy absorption plot (in Joules) for a sample of impact
analysis of 3.5 m/s low velocity impact.

(a) Y-Displacement Vs time plot

(b) Velocity Vs Time Plot

Figure 7.45 Histories of deformation- LSDYNA® results (Continued)

 195

(c) Acceleration Vs Time Plot

(d) Energy Plot @ 3.5 m/s

Figure 7.45 Histories of deformation- LSDYNA® results

The FEA results shown in Figure 7.45(a) predicts a maximum shell

compression of 54 mm along the negative Y direction for the CFRP shell
specimen under a low velocity impact of 4.5 m/s. It is also clear from
Figure 7.45 (a) that, the CFRP shell compression starts at 190 µs and
continues deformation up to the time of 210 µs at which the maximum shell
compression is attained.
 196

7.5.3.5 Comparison of experimental and FE results

Using finite element analysis, the modes of collapse were recorded

for the same impact loads that have been considered in impact experiments
and compared as shown in Figure 7.46. The comparison of modes of collapse
of carbon fabric/epoxy composite shells under axial impact loading presented
in Figure 7.46 shows good agreement between experimental & FEA results.

Table 7.7 Comparison of impact test results –experiments and FEA

Impact Velocity, Peak Comp.

Drop Energy,J
Mass, m/s Load,kN mm
Specimen height,
kg
mm Measured Intended Exp. FEA Exp. FEA Exp. FEA

CF1 459 70 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.95 14 36.38 694.2 620.12

CF2 624 70 3.2 3.5 2.75 3.14 22.5 42.65 716.4 650.31

CF3 815 70 3.4 4.0 2.8 3.45 31.5 50.74 733.8 651.54

CF4 1032 70 4.3 4.5 2.8 3.5 36 54.13 750.1 671.11

CF5 1274 70 5.6 5.0 4.4 4.92 37.5 44.65 758.0 681.59

CF6 1542 70 6.9 5.5 5.8 7.07 38 52.34 773.1 697.10

CF7 1835 70 7.7 6.0 7.5 9.6 70 51.30 824.8 730.20

The numerical and experimental impact tests were conducted with

velocities ranging from 3 to 6 m/s and the impact test results are given in
Table 7.7.Both experimental and FEA results are compared for the peak load
sustained by the CFRP shell, shell compression and energy absorbed during
the impact loading. The FEA energy value shows a reasonable agreement
with the experimental counterparts with 9-12 % of error.
 197

Specimen,
Experiments FEA
v, m/s

CF1 3

CF2 3.5

CF3 4

CF4 4.5

Figure 7.46 Modes of collapse-experimental & FEA (Continued)

 198

CF5 5

CF6 5.5

CF7 6

Figure 7.46 Modes of collapse-experimental & FEA

 199

7.5.3.6 Level of impact without significant damage-FE predictions

As the CFRP shell configuration used in the present research is a

combination of thin-walled frustum of conical and a hemi-spherical shell at
the top, its purpose is to protect the accommodated instruments without
substantial damage. Figure 7.47 (a to d) represents the Fringe plot for Y-
stress, Y-displacement, Y-velocity, Y-acceleration at an impact time of
147µsec for the CFRP shell under 4m/s drop velocity without any Significant
damage.

(a) Stress Plot

(b) Displacement Plot

(c) Velocity Plot (d) Acceleration Plot

Figure 7.47 Level of impact without significant damage– FEA results

From Figure 7.47, it is clear that there is no significant damage in

the shell specimen except the initial damages in the top spherical shell. Like
 200

4m/s drop velocity FEA results, for the remaining impact velocities also the
level of impact energy without significant damages of the CFRP shell are
generated using LS-PrePost and represented in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8 Impact energy without significant damage– FEA Results

Velocity Energy Impact time

(m/s) (J) (µsec)
3 75 98
3.5 110 124
4 120 148
4.5 152 172
5 198 195
5.5 125 217
6 95 239

7.5.3.7 FE results in local coordinate system

Using LS-PrePost, the results are generated based upon the

elemental local coordinate system for a sample of Element No.755 and
Element No.1371 as shown in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 FEA Results – in Local Coordinate System

Also the history of deflection has been plotted and compared in

Figure 7.48 in elemental coordinate system for the Element No.755 and
Element No.1371.
 201

(a) FEModel (b) Stress Plot

(c) Displacement Plot (d) Velocity Plot

Figure 7.48 History of deformation – in local coordinate system

7.5.3.8 Damage modelling

Typical damages that occurs in impacted laminated composites

consists of a combination of intra laminar damage mechanisms such as matrix
cracking, fiber fracture, fibre/matrix debonding and inter laminar failure such
as delamination. Progressive damage FEModel (Feng 2014) based on
Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) are capable of predicting the
structural response and failure mechanisms of composite laminates subjected
to low velocity impact. Based upon the earlier investigator (Feng 2014) the
following approaches of Damage Modelling are discussed.
 202

The damage in a composite laminate is considered continuously

distributed over the finite element. The ply damage model assumes that the
stiffness degradation may be characterized by a Damage Matrix [D] which is
defined by internal damage variables dij associated with different fiber and
matrix damage modes.

True Stress Tensor is a function of damage matrix and effective

stress tensor which is represented in Equation (7.2),

{σ} [D] [E] {ɛ} (7.2)

where [E] denotes the undamaged material stiffness matrix, ɛ

indicates the stress tensor. Commercially available FE codes implement
material models for defining the post-failure behaviors of the elements.
LSDYNA® has a handful of preexisting composite material models, which is
designed specifically to handle orthotropic materials such as CFRP laminates.
Beyond the elastic region, the following failure criterion (Chang 1987)
represented in Equation (7.3) to Equation (7.6) is used to determine individual
ply failure.

For the tensile fiber mode where σxx ≥ 0:

( ) ( ) , (7.3)

where Xt – fiber tensile strength

Xc– fiber compressive strength
Sc– Shear strength of unidirectional ply
For the compressive fiber mode where σxx< 0:

( ) , (7.4)
 203

For the tensile matrix mode where σyy ≥ 0:

( ) ( ) , (7.5)

For the compressive matrix mode where σyy< 0:

( ) [( ) ] ( ) , (7.6)

In the Equation (7.3) to Equation (8.6), ef, ec, em and ed are called history
variables and they are failure flags which represent tension and compression
for the fiber direction, and the matrix direction respectively.

7.6 SUMMARY

A finite element analysis procedure which describes the response of

thin-walled aluminum, glass fabric/epoxy composite shell, carbon
fabric/epoxy composite shell structures under axial compression due to static
compression and low velocity axial impact loading is presented in this
chapter. The entire finite element computations were investigated by
ANSYS® and LSDYNA® software. It is also found that LSDYNA® seems to
be a powerful tool in simulation of low velocity phenomenon for the fabric
composite structures. The experimentally obtained mechanical properties of
glass fabric/epoxy composite and carbon fabric/epoxy composite estimated
through material characterization were incorporated into the respective
FEModel under static axial compression and low velocity impact loading
using ANSYS® and LSDYNA® software. The finite element studies under
static and impact loading presented in this chapter is based upon the
respective experimental load data.
 204

It has been studied that the commercial FE software packages is

capable of simulating the progressive buckling of glass fabric/epoxy
composite shell structure and carbon fabric/epoxy composite shell structure,
only if the experimental material properties of the concern fabric composite
were given as input in the material model of pre-processor program of the
finite element software. Draping software ANSYS Composite PrePost (ACP)
has been used for the FE Simulation of carbon/fabric epoxy composite shells
under static axial compression. The draped fiber directions are numerically
observed using ANSYS ACP.

The investigations carried out for the finite element analysis of the
buckling behavior of aluminum and glass fabric/epoxy composite shells had
given ample information for the study of the behavior of a carbon
fabric/epoxy composite shell which is a scaled-down model of a space
capsule, when it is impacted with the maximum free fall velocity of 6 m/s on
a rigid surface. Further, many trials were carried out in this study with
aluminum and glass fabric material to determine the appropriate mesh density
for convergence.

The FEA results were compared with the respective experimental

test results. In the case of aluminum shells, FEA results of modes of collapse
agreed well with the experimental results, however in the case of glass
fabric/epoxy composite shells & carbon fabric/epoxy composite shells, FEA
results of modes of collapse showed slight deviations with the experimental
counterparts. It has been numerically found that a maximum of 54 mm CFRP
shell compression, maximum energy absorption of 730.20J and a maximum
peak load of 9.6 kN was recorded using the FEA software. The history of
deformation for carbon fabric/epoxy composite shells under impact loading in
elemental local coordinate system has been also generated using LS-PrePost.
The Level of impact energy without significant damages in the CFRP shell is
 205

predicted using FEA simulations. FEA results shows that at 195 µsec, a
maximum of 198 J of energy has been absorbed without causing a significant
damages in the CFRP shell specimen under 5m/s low-velocity impact. Using
LS-PrePost, the impact results are generated based upon the elemental local
coordinate system also. During static/impact loading the fabric reinforced
epoxy composite shells deform in a different fashion when comparing thin
shells with isotropic materials like Aluminum. In general, the damage modes
which occur in a fabric composite structure subjected to axial compression are
matrix crack, delamination, debonding, and fiber breakage which can be
identified using Scanning Electron Microscope or Optical Microscope which
are represented in chapter 8.

In general for finite element analysis, a 3D stress problem could be

solved by using any one of the following plane (2D) problem,

• Plane Stress

• Plane Strain

• Axi-Symmetry

The present research doesn‟t use the above described simplification

of the 3D FEModel with the aid of plane problem approximations. Plane
stress approximation suits only for in-plane forces whereas the present
research focus on out of plane forces viz. static axial compression, axial
impact. Plane strain approximation suits only for long prismatic structures.