IMPACT AND CRASH MODELLING OF COMPOSITE STRUCTURES:

A CHALLENGE FOR DAMAGE MECHANICS

Alastair F. Johnson

German Aerospace Center (DLR)

Institute of Structures and Design, Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: alastair.johnson@dlr.de

Anthony K. Pickett

Engineering Systems International GmbH

Eschborn, Germany
e-mail: akp@esigmbh.de

Key words: composites materials, damage mechanics, delamination, impact, crash modelling

___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: The paper describes recent progress on the materials modelling and numerical
simulation of the impact and crash response of fibre reinforced composite structures. The
work is based on the application of explicit finite element (FE) analysis codes to composite
aircraft structures under both low velocity crash and high velocity impact conditions.
Detailed results are presented for the crash response of helicopter subfloor box structures
using a strain based damage and failure criterion for fabric reinforced composites. In order
to obtain better agreement with measured impact response, an improved composites damage
mechanics model with damage parameters as internal state variables is presented. Improved
models for predicting delamination are also considered and a novel approach is presented in
which a composite laminate is modelled numerically by stacked shell elements with contact
interfaces whose delamination is controlled by fracture mechanics criteria.
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction

Composite materials are now being used in primary aircraft structures, particularly in
helicopters, light aircraft, commuter planes and sailplanes, because of numerous advantages
including low weight, high static and fatigue strength and the possibility to manufacture large
integral shell structures. Future transport aircraft will contain composites for primary and
secondary wing and fuselage components. Materials such as carbon fibre/epoxy are inherently
brittle and usually exhibit a linear elastic response up to failure with little or no plasticity.
Thus composite structures are vulnerable to impact damage and have to satisfy certification
procedures for high velocity impact from runway debris or bird strike. When suitably
triggered to fail by delamination and compression crushing, composites may exhibit high
energy absorption and are of interest for light weight energy absorbing structural elements
such as subfloors in helicopters and transport aircraft. Thus for the further development of
composite aircraft structures, especially in safety critical components, it is important to
understand the mechanisms of energy absorption and failure, and to have predictive design
tools for simulating the response of composite structures under impact and crash loads. This
paper describes current research aimed at the development and validation of FE simulation
methods for composites, and their application in impact and crashworthiness studies on
composite aircraft structures.

Conventional metallic structures absorb impact and crash energy through plastic deformation
and mechanisms such as geometric folding. Modern explicit FE codes are able to model these
effects and are being successfully applied to simulate the collapse of metallic aircraft and
automotive structures. This paper is concerned with the validity of such codes for modelling
the response of composite structures under low and high velocity impact. Emphasis is given to
composite materials models suitable for implementation into FE codes, which can adequately
characterise the nonlinear damage progression and different failure modes that occur in
composites [1]. Such effects are now included in recent mathematical theories of composites
damage mechanics [2]. The challenge for the damage mechanics approach is to implement
these models into commercial FE codes and to develop procedures for experimentally
determining the many materials parameters required from manageable test programmes.
Section 2 summarises some of the models available for composites in-plane properties. In the
paper measured stress-strain data were used to calibrate the 'degenerate bi-phase model' in the
explicit code PAM-CRASH [1] and to determine the appropriate damage parameters as
functions of the strains.

Examples of FE simulations for the impact response of helicopter subfloor structural elements
based on this materials model were described in [3]. This work is extended here in Section 3
to include hybrid carbon/aramid fabric/epoxy subfloor boxes which are designed to absorb
crash energy by both folding and crushing modes. The results of the dynamic simulations of
vertical impacts on the subfloor elements showed excellent agreement between the predicted
modes of failure and those observed in tests, however simulated load levels, and hence the
total energy absorbed in the structure, is often found to be below test results.

2
Thus improvements to the models are required for better agreement with the measured
dynamic response and to extend the simulation capability to high velocity impacts. An
improved composites damage mechanics model with damage parameters as internal state
variables is under development, based on [2]. This model has a number of features not
included in the simpler 'degenerate bi-phase' model. It allows damage parameters for in-plane
and through-thickness shear failure modes, as well as failures along and transverse to the fibre
directions. Delamination models and strain rate dependence may also be incorporated in the
damage mechanics framework. Some of this ongoing work is presented in Section 4. Here a
novel numerical approach for delamination modelling is presented using stacked shell
elements with a contact interface condition based on fracture mechanics principles. With this
approach the delamination energy is included in the crash or impact simulation. Examples are
given in which the delamination model is calibrated for a double cantilever beam specimen.
Comparison of these simulations with the simpler modelling approaches above and test data,
will show whether damage and fracture mechanics are viable in practice as a basis for more
accurate impact simulations and crashworthiness studies on composite structures.

2. Modelling composites properties

For metals there is extensive information in the literature on dynamic materials properties at
large strains and high strain rates, and appropriate constitutive equations have been
implemented into FE codes for structural impact simulations. For composite materials
dynamic failure behaviour is very complex due to the different fibres and matrices available,
the different fibre reinforcement types such as unidirectional (UD) fibres and fabrics, the
possibility of both fibre dominated or matrix dominated failure modes, and the rate
dependence of the polymer resin properties. Thus at present there are no universally accepted
materials laws for crash and impact simulations with composites. It was considered that a
homogeneous orthotropic elastic damaging material was an appropriate model for UD and
fabric laminates, as this is applicable to brittle materials whose properties are degraded by
microcracking. Constitutive laws for orthotropic elastic materials with internal damage
parameters are described in [2] and [4], and take the general form

ε = Sσ (1)

where σ and ε are vectors of stress and strain and S the elastic compliance matrix. In the
plane stress case required here to characterise the properties of composite plies or shell
elements with orthotropic symmetry axes (x1, x2), the in-plane stress and strain components
are

σ = ( σ11, σ22, σ12 )T ε = ( ε11, ε22, 2ε12 )T. (2)

Using a strain equivalent damage mechanics formulation, the elastic compliance matrix S may
then be written :

3
  1 / E 1(1 − d 1) − ν 12 / E 1 0 
 
S =  − ν 12 / E 1 1 / E 2 (1 − d 2 ) 0  (3)
 
 0 0 1 / G12 (1 − d 12 )

where ν12 is the principal Poisson's ratio, which for simplicity is assumed not to be degraded.

This general plane stress form for an orthotropic elastic material with damage has 3 scalar
damage parameters d1, d2, d12 and 4 'undamaged ' elastic constants: the Young's moduli in the
principal orthotropy directions E1, E2, the in-plane shear modulus G12, and the principal
Poisson's ratio ν12. The damage parameters have values 0 ≤ di ≤ 1 and represent modulus
reductions under different loading conditions due to progressive damage in the material. Thus
for unidirectional (UD) plies with fibres in the x1 direction, d1 is associated with damage or
failure in the fibres, d2 transverse to the fibres, and d12 with in-plane shear failure. For fabric
reinforcements then d2 is associated with the second fibre direction.

In [2] conjugate forces Y1, Y2, Y12 are introduced corresponding to driving mechanisms for the
damage parameters. It can be shown that with the compliance matrix chosen in (3) that for
elastic damaging materials:

Y1 = σ112 / (2E1(1-d1)2), Y2 = σ222 / (2E2(1-d2)2), Y12 = σ122 / (2G12(1-d12)2) (4)

and it is assumed that the damage evolution equations have the general form:

d1 = f1 (Y1, Y2, Y12), d2 = f2 (Y1, Y2, Y12), d12 = f12 (Y1, Y2, Y12). (5)

Multiaxial failure, or interaction between damage states, can be included in the model
depending on the complexity of the form assumed for the evolution functions f1, f2, f12. These
are determined from experimental test data. In [2] the theory is developed in detail for UD
plies in which it is assumed that the ply is undamaged in the fibre direction in tension thus d1
= 0, and a coupling is assumed between transverse fibre damage and in-plane shear damage.
Specific models are developed for f2 and f12 and appropriate parameters determined from test
data. In ongoing work under the EU funded HICAS project [5] a test programme on fabric
reinforced composite laminates is being carried out and specific forms of the evolution
functions are being determined.

PAM-CRASH [6] contains several materials models and special elements for laminated
composite materials, which are summarised in [1]. A general materials law as in (1) - (5) will
be implemented, but at present only the special form from [2] for UD plies with 2 damage
functions is available. Thus the damage mechanics formulation suitable for fabric laminates,
which are the reinforcements of interest here, is not yet available. Thus the crash simulations
of composite aircraft floor structures reported in Section 3 are based on an alternative
composites models available in PAM-CRASH. It is supposed that the damage parameters are
functions of the strain invariants, which can be determined by modelling measured stress-
strain curves. The elastic damaging materials law for fabric reinforcements is currently

4
modelled in PAM-CRASH as a 'degenerate bi-phase’ model in which the UD fibre phase is
omitted, and the 'matrix' phase is assumed to be orthotropic. In the current version of the code
the simplifying assumption is made that d1 = d2 = d12 = d, thus the composite fabric ply has
orthotropic stiffness properties, but a single 'isotropic' damage function d which degrades all
the stiffness constants equally. The code does however allow different damage functions in
tension and compression. Despite the approximations this model has been used successfully to
simulate the crash response of a quasi-isotropic carbon fabric/epoxy airframe structure in [7].
In this paper it is applied in a pragmatic way to a number of orthotropic and quasi-isotropic
fabric composite laminated structures.

Fig. 1 Schematic fracturing damage function and corresponding stress-strain curve.

The composites structures studied in the paper have been designed for high energy absorption
(EA), and consist of hybrid laminates of carbon and aramid fabric/epoxy for the subfloor
elements of Section 3. A materials specimen test programme has been carried out to determine
the basic mechanical properties of the aramid, and carbon fabric/epoxy ply materials used.
Uniaxial stress-strain curves for fabric reinforced composites are modelled by a bilinear
damage function, in which there are two damage constants d1 and du to be determined, (note
d1 here should not be confused with the damage parameter d1 .) Typical uniaxial stress-strain
curves have the general form shown in Fig. 1, where εi is strain at the onset of initial damage,
ε1 is the strain at the peak failure stress, and εu is a limiting strain above which the stress is
assumed to take a constant value σu. Measured test data for fabric composites are used to
calibrate the materials model and to determine the damage parameters d1 and du for the
analysis. The parameter d1 measures the departure from linearity at the first 'knee' in the
stress-strain curves, and is thus small in tension, whilst the parameter du determines the
residual value σu. For the FE analysis it is not good practice to reduce the material stresses
directly to zero at material fracture, as this may lead to numerical instabilities. Thus under
tensile stresses typically du ≅ 0.9, indicating that the element is nearly fully damaged, whilst in
compression du ≅ 0.5 to model the residual compression crushing stress. Materials rate
dependence is not included in the modelling presented here.

5
3. Crash response of helicopter subfloor beams
A helicopter design concept which meets the structural and crashworthiness requirements
should provide a protective shell for the occupants, with energy absorbing elements
incorporated in the landing gear, the subfloor and the seats. The subfloor typically consists of a
framework of longitudinal beams and lateral bulkheads covered by the outer skin and cabin
floor. The total structural height is often only about 200 mm. The design of intersections
(cruciforms) of beams and bulkheads, the beam webs, outer skins, and floor sections (boxes)
all contribute to the overall crash response of a helicopter subfloor assemblage. A versatile FE
model has been developed which allows different beam and cruciform elements to be used
within a subfloor box, so that both the static structural integrity and the dynamic crush response
of a range of different boxes may be simulated. In this section the dynamic crush response of
some typical composite subfloor elements are simulated with PAM-CRASH as part of the
design validation process using the degenerate bi-phase model outlined above.

Fig. 2 Cruciform element: comparison of FE simulation with impacted element

The FE model of the cruciform intersection element contained about 5200 4-node orthotropic
layered shell elements to simulate the hybrid composite laminates, together with 22 rigid body
elements which simulated the rivets in the structure. A rivet failure model was not used, since
in tests rivet failures never occurred. Structural tests on the cruciforms are carried out in a drop
weight tower where the upper edges are embedded in an aluminium plate, which is impacted at
about 10 m/s by a 100 kg mass. In the model the nodes of the upper edges form a rigid body
with an added mass of 100 kg at the centre of gravity, and the base plate was modelled as a
rigid wall. The cruciform element is designed to absorb energy under vertical impact loads,
thus the composite materials selected are hybrid laminates of carbon and aramid fabric/epoxy.
The laminate construction varied between different plate elements in the cruciform, for
example in the transverse floor beam direction the laminate construction is a symmetric hybrid
8 ply layup [A45/A45/C45/C0]S, where A and C refer to aramid and carbon fabric prepregs and
the subscript is the fabric angle relative to the vertical direction.

The results of the dynamic simulations of vertical impacts on the cruciform elements showed
excellent agreement between the predicted modes of failure and those observed in tests. In tests

6
the element fails by regular folding of the vertical webs in contact with the base plate, initiated
by the J-trigger at this position. This is clearly seen in Fig. 2 in the FE simulation after 12 ms.
Folding failures occur because of the hybrid laminate chosen, in which the more ductile aramid
fabric plies are on the outer faces where the bending stresses are higher, which seems to inhibit
brittle failures associated with carbon fibre composites.

As a further example of the design procedure, a helicopter subfloor box was simulated
dynamically. The box consisted of 4 cruciform elements, connected by 4 sikken stiffened web
elements and fabricated from hybrid carbon/aramid fabric laminates. The simulation conditions
of vertical impact at 10 m/s and the materials modelling were as described above for the
cruciform element. Simulation results for the quarter deformed box after 8 ms are shown in
Fig. 3. It is seen that the cruciform element fails again in the local progressive folding mode,
whilst the stiffened beam elements fail in single fold with some local crushing of the stiffeners.
Simulations of helicopter subfloor boxes with other beam configurations showed different
failure modes, such as local crushing in sine-wave webs, with higher EA properties. PAM-
CRASH simulations could thus be used as a design tool for the selection of suitable elements
in the subfloor structure.
700 kN

600

500 Test dlr_r1: Z-Load/ Deformation

Simul. dlr_r1_v3a: Z_load/ Deformation

400

300

200

100

0 mm
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135

Fig. 3 Subfloor box: simulated deformation with predicted and measured load-deflections

Fig. 3 also compares the predicted load-deflection response under impact compared with test
data on the rib-stiffened boxes. After decay of the initial numerical peak, there is general
agreement in the shape of the load-deflection curves between test and simulation. However, the
load levels, and hence the total energy absorbed in the simulations, are well below the test
results, which shows that further improvements are required in the dynamic modelling of these
hybrid laminates. Similar results are found in [8] where high velocity impact simulations are
carried out on a quasi-isotropic UD shell structure using the same default bi-phase model. Here
the energy absorbed at impact was seriously underestimated. In ongoing work these crash and
impact simulations will be repeated with the improved damage mechanics models outlined in
Section 2, and more extensive materials tests are being carried out to determine appropriate
materials parameters. However, it is clear from the observed failure modes in the subfloor
structure tests that the approach being adopted with layered shell elements is limited. Fig. 2
shows that the failure process includes progressive folding of the laminate, delamination
between aramid and carbon plies and crushing of interior carbon plies. The crush stress can be
included in the shell model by suitable choice of the residual compression strength, but not

7
delamination. Thus attention is being turned in the next section to new approaches for
delamination modelling in shell structures.

4. Interlaminar failure modelling

A review of the literature shows that extensive research work has investigated the numerical
analysis of interlaminar failure in composite laminates. Most of this work has used finite
element techniques to model the plies and ply interfaces giving an accurate description of
local stress distribution; the propagation of a delamination crack can then be described using
various techniques. In general failure criteria and damage mechanics (stress degradation)
methods have been preferred for problems involving multiple delamination fronts, whereas
fracture mechanics approaches have mostly been used to predict the propagation of a single
crack emanating from an initial flaw.

An example of delamination modelling using damage mechanics is shown in Fig. 4 for the
crushing of a laminated composite tube. A fine mesh of solid elements represent both the plies
and inter-ply resin. The ‘bi-phase’ orthotropic elastic damage model is used for the
unidirectional plies and an elasto-plastic damage model for the resin rich interface layers. This
approach can capture both ply and inter-ply failure but has the obvious disadvantage that a
large number of elements are needed limiting the method to small scale structures.

Interlaminar 5mm
Matrix – 0° and
90° plies

Rigid
15mm wall

Fig 4 Composite tube crushing: Simulation model and example results

The application of fracture mechanics approaches to practical structures has so far been
limited due to computational difficulties of handling a 'softening' structural response [9] and
predicting the growth of multiple fracture cracks. However, these difficulties may be
overcome using an ‘explicit’ finite element formulation in which an element-by-element
scheme and explicit integration solution is used to solve the structural dynamic equations.
These codes are generally preferred for dynamic impact and crashworthiness analysis. A new
technique for laminate and delamination modelling is proposed here that is specifically suited
for explicit FE codes.

The laminate is modelled using one shell element per ply and the ply elements are then
mechanically tied together via contact interfaces and nodal constraints. Failure at the interface
is imposed by monitoring and degrading stresses using damage mechanics once a critical

8
value of strain is reached. Fracture mechanics concepts are indirectly introduced by relating
the energy absorbed in the damaging process to the material fracture energy (Gc). One
advantage of this modelling approach, compared to that used in Fig. 4, is that far fewer
elements are needed and the computationally expensive interface solids are eliminated.

The contact interface first identifies adjacent elements and then imposes traction forces
between corresponding slave nodes (upper ply nodes) and master segments (lower ply
elements) using a constitutive law, Fig. 5. The first requirement of this modelling approach is
to ensure that the simplified stacked shell representation has the same kinematic behaviour as
the laminate. This has been verified by comparing results with equivalent solid finite element
models of a laminate for a number of loading cases. Example results are given in Fig. 6 for the
case where the upper and lower plies are loaded to impose high interply shear forces. The
overall deformations, force-deflections response and deformations within the plies all show a
good agreement.

Slave segment Deformed position

Slave node δ II δI Undeformed position EI GII

LO
Master
segment σ I = EI * δI / LO
τ II = GS * δII / LO

EI is the equivalent ply and resin tensile modulus (mode I)

GS is the equivalent ply and resin shear modulus (mode II)

Fig. 5 Main features of the interface contact and interface constitutive law

For the interply failure the interface energy (nodal force * displacement) is monitored and, if
this is found to exceed the limiting value GC, then the crack is advanced. More correctly
mixed mode loading exists and both mode 1 (GC) and mode II (GII) must be monitored with
fracture depending on an interaction criteria [10] of the form:
m n
 GI  G 
  +  II  = eD (6)
 GIC   GIIC 

where GI and GII are the monitored interface strain energy in modes 1 and 2 respectively, GIC
and GIIC are the corresponding critical fracture energies and constants m and n are chosen to
fit
the test data. Delamination is assumed to extend if eD ≥ 1.

9
 Fig. 6 Comparison of the stacked shell and solid approaches to modelling composite laminates

Crisfield [9] has proposed a delamination model for interface elements within an implicit
finite element code. These ideas are used here for the explicit FE code with contact interface
treatment. Briefly a softening traction/relative displacement relationship is assumed as shown
in Fig. 7. This curve is typical of damage mechanics methods, however fracture mechanics is
indirectly introduced by relating the energy absorption (area under the stress-strain curve) to
Gc. As in damage mechanics any unloading in the failure zone uses the partially damaged
modulus and is therefore directed toward the origin.

σ (stress) GC
σ t

unload/
reload
δmax max

δO δ (crack opening)

Fig. 6 Assumed interface stress -displacement relation

For material with known delamination stress σt, and critical fracture energy Gc the required
crack opening displacement δmax may be computed. These arguments are applied to determine
the required crack opening for δI,max (mode1) and δII,max (mode 2). Summarising the
expressions derived by Crisfield we have:

σ  ε   κ  εI 
σ =  I  = [I − D ]EO  I  =  I − F EO   (7)
σ II  ε II   1−κ   ε II 

10
Where I is an identity matrix, EO is the diagonal matrix of inter-ply mechanical properties. F
and κ are terms defining the strain and interaction damage model given by,

2m 2n
 ε max  ε  ε 
FII =   κ =  I  +  II  −1 (8)
 ε max − ε O  I , II  ε OI   ε OII 

where m and n are as defined in Equation 6.

Fig. 8 shows an example analysis for a Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test under mode 1
loading. A 50mm initial flaw is present in the 125mm long specimen. In this example solid
elements have been used in the study. The model predicts well the crack propagation
emanating from the initial flaw and gives a sensible load-time response consistent with test
data. This is encouraging for the extension of the method to delamination in composite
laminates.

Fig. 8 Example of mode 1 delamination for a composite DCB specimen

5. Conclusions

The paper discusses damage mechanics models for composite shell elements with fibre fabric
reinforcement, as a framework for dynamic simulations on composite structures in explicit FE
codes. A simplified form of the general in-plane model is implemented in PAM-CRASH.

11
Simulation of composite helicopter subfloor beam structures under low velocity crash loading
conditions were performed to assess the code and materials models. Structural failure modes
were well modelled in a quasi-isotropic carbon/aramid hybrid laminate but predicted loads and
energy absorption were too low. Thus improvements are required in order to predict accurately
energy absorption and peak crushing loads in more complex structures. These should result
from implementation into FE codes of damage mechanics failure models, and improvements in
the measurement of dynamic composites properties at large strains. Both these aspects are
being addressed in ongoing work. There are additional failure situations dominated by
delamination when single shell elements will not be appropriate, and where solid models are
too time consuming. A new numerical approach for modelling composites delamination based
on stacked shell elements with sliding interfaces whose failure properties are consistent with
fracture mechanics principles looks promising in simple test cases and is being extended to full
shell structures. The dynamic properties and failure behaviour of composites are complex and
materials test programmes are very expensive for industry. The challenge for damage
mechanics is to develop tractable models, implemented into commercial FE codes, which are
stable to compute and whose parameters may be determined experimentally.

Acknowledgements: Part of the work presented here was developed in the EU project HICAS
[5]. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial contribution of the CEC, and the HICAS
partners for valuable discussions.

References

[1] E. Haug, A. de Rouvray, Crash response of composite structures, Ch. 7 "Structural Crash-
worthiness and Failure" (ed) N. Jones and T. Wierzbicki, Elsevier, London (1993).
[2] P. Ladeveze, E. Le Dantec, Damage modelling of the elementary ply for laminated
composites, Composites Science and Technology, 43, 257-267 (1992).
[3] A.F. Johnson, D. Kohlgrüber, Modelling the crash response of composite aircraft
structures, 8th European Conf. on Composite Materials (ECCM-8), Naples (1998).
[4] A. Matzenmiller, J. Lubliner, R.L. Taylor, A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in
fiber composites, Mech. Materials, Vol. 20, 125-152, 1995.
[5] HICAS High Velocity Impact of Composite Aircraft Structures, CEC DG XII BRITE-
EURAM Project BE 96-4238 (1998).
[6] PAM-CRASH™ FE Code, Engineering Systems International, 20 Rue Saarinen, Silic
270, 94578 Rungis-Cedex, France.
[7] A.F. Johnson, Modelling the crash response of a composite aircraft section, ICCM-10, Whistler,
Canada, 1995.
[8] A.F. Johnson, G. Kempe, J. Simon, Design of composite wing access cover under impact
loads, ICCM-12, Paris, 1999.
[9] M.A. Crisfeld, Y. Mi, G.A.O. Davies, H.B. Hellweg, Finite Element Methods and the
Progressive Failure Modelling of Composite Structures, Computational Plasticity –
Fundamentals and Applications’, ed DRJ Owen et al., CIMNE Bacelona, Part 1, pp 239-
254, 1997.
[10] Serge Abrate, Impact on Composite Structures, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

12