Article

Influence of Failure Criteria and Intralaminar Damage

Progression Numerical Models on the Prediction of the
Mechanical Behavior of Composite Laminates
Aniello Riccio , Concetta Palumbo *, Valerio Acanfora , Andrea Sellitto and Angela Russo

Department of Engineering, University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, Via Roma, 29, 81031 Aversa, CE, Italy;
[email protected] (A.R.); [email protected] (V.A.);
[email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (A.R.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This work evaluates the effectiveness of commonly adopted local damage evolution
methods and failure criteria in finite element analysis for the simulation of intralaminar damage
propagation in composites under static loading conditions. The proposed numerical model is based
on a User Defined Material subroutine (USERMAT) implemented in Ansys. This model is used to
predict the evolution of damage within each specific lamina of a composite laminate by introducing
both sudden and gradual degradation rules. The main purpose of the simulations is to quantitatively



assess the influence of the adopted failure criteria in conjunction with degradation laws on the


accuracy of the numerical predictions in terms of damage evolution and failure load. The mechanical
Citation: Riccio, A.; Palumbo, C.;
behavior of an open hole tension specimen and of a notched stiffened composite panel under shear
Acanfora, V.; Sellitto, A.; Russo, A.
loading conditions have been numerically simulated by Progressive Damage Models (PDM). Different
Influence of Failure Criteria and
failure criteria have been implemented in the developed Ansys USERMAT, together with sudden and
Intralaminar Damage Progression
gradual degradation rules based on the Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) approach. Numerical
Numerical Models on the Prediction
of the Mechanical Behavior of
results have been validated against experimental data to assess the effects of the different failure
Composite Laminates. J. Compos. Sci. criteria and damage evolution law on the global mechanical response and local damage predictions
2021, 5, 310. https://doi.org/ in composite laminates.
10.3390/jcs5120310
Keywords: composite materials; finite element models; intralaminar damage; progressive degrada-
Academic Editors: tion models
Francesco Tornabene and
Thanasis Triantafillou

Received: 13 October 2021 1. Introduction

Accepted: 18 November 2021
The adoption of composite materials for aerospace structures is continuously increas-
Published: 26 November 2021
ing among industries; however, the methodologies developed so far for the definition of the
mechanical response of these materials have not yet achieved a satisfactory level of robust-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
ness and reliability. Indeed, the low impact resistance of composites can be very limiting for
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
the effectiveness and weight saving of composite designs. Low velocity impact damage can
published maps and institutional affil-
be very hard to detect, and numerical analyses during the design phase can strongly help in
iations.
predicting the real impact behavior of composite laminates [1]. Numerical techniques based
on Progressive Damage Models (PDM) enable consideration of the presence of an initial
damage and stiffness degradation [2]. The degradation of stiffness is usually evaluated
at element and lamina level [3]. Furthermore, the material degradation models are called
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. “instantaneous” where the properties are suddenly degraded, and “gradual” [4] when the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
properties are gradually degraded, according to linear or exponential laws.
This article is an open access article
The onset of the damage mechanisms in composites, in a Progressive Damage Model,
distributed under the terms and
is evaluated by adopting proper failure criteria. Failure criteria can be split into two general
conditions of the Creative Commons
groups: non-interactive criteria and interactive criteria [5]. Maximum stress and strain
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
criteria do not include interaction between stress components to estimate fiber damage
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
and matrix damage. Interactive failure criteria, on the other hand, use separate expressions

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5120310 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcs

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 2 of 19

to identify fiber and matrix failure under tensile and compression loading conditions.
Examples of interactive criteria are the Hashin [6], Chang–Chang [7] and Hou [8] criteria.
Puck and Schürmann [9], subsequently, modified the Hashin criteria by introducing a
model of a fracture plane for matrix damage to simulate the “low” fracture behavior.
Previous studies, e.g., in [10] have compared the effectiveness of damage model and failure
criteria. These failure criteria are commonly applied within Progressive Damage Models in
industrial Finite Element (FE) codes.
Many examples can be found in literature, e.g., in [11] where the instantaneous
methodology in Progressive Damage Models has been implemented using Hashin failure
criterion. Other works have improved the reliability of Progressive Damage Models and
their use in the numerical approaches [12–14], or, e.g., in [15] the damage model has been
implemented as code in the FE software. In the present works two numerical test-cases are
introduced: an open hole panel under tensile load by Chen at al. [16] and a stiffened panel
subjected to static shear loading conditions by Ambur et al. [17]. Experimental data are
available from literature for both these numerical models [16,17]. The scope of this paper is
to assess how the effectiveness of the numerical model is influenced by the failure criteria
and the Progressive Damage Model adopted for simulations.
Starting from the numerical model developed by Riccio et al. in [18], different three-
dimensional failure criteria (maximum stress, Hashin, and Puck criteria) and “instanta-
neous” and “gradual” progressive damage models with suitable degradation rules have
been implemented in the Ansys FE code USERMAT. This has been undertaken in order to
compare the failure criteria together with Sudden and Gradual Progressive Degradation
Models [19]. To assess the influence of the adopted numerical model on the accuracy
of the numerical prediction, the numerical results have been compared with literature
experimental data for the analyzed test cases.
In Section 2, the theory behind the Sudden and Gradual Progressive Degradation
Models is presented. The adopted failure criteria and the Finite Element Method (FEM)
implementation in the software ANSYS© as User Defined Material Subroutine (USERMAT)
are also described. In Section 3, the two analyzed test-cases are presented together with
a mesh convergence study performed for the Open Hole Tensile specimen. Finally, in
Section 4, the results in terms of matrix and fiber failure are shown. The experimental
literature data [17,20] and the numerical outputs from Sudden and Gradual Degradation
Models are compared to assess the reliability of the methods applied for intralaminar
damage prediction [21].

2. Theoretical Background and Finite Element Implementation

2.1. Progressive Damage Models
The intralaminar damage models implemented are based on the following assump-
tions: the damage process is supposed to take place in one finite element at a time, internal
damage variables dij , assembled in a damage matrix D, are introduced to measure damage
extent and stiffness degradation associated to specific fiber or matrix damage mode, stress-
strain based initiation criteria and fracture energy-based evolution laws are defined for
each specific failure mode. Each of damage parameters dij is a component of the damage
matrix D associated to a specific component of the undamaged stress tensor σ (effective
stress tensor), which can be related to the true stress tensor σ by the following relation:

σ = Dσ = DEε (1)

where D indicates the undamaged material stiffness matrix. The behavior of the material at
a specific location, during its degradation, is correlated to the stress/strain at that location.
In particular, when considering “gradual” degradation laws, the material behavior is first
assumed as linear up to the damage onset; then, in the degradation phase, a linear of
parabolic constitutive law is considered. In the degradation phase, the original undamaged
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 3 of 19

stiffness matrix of the material is replaced by a new matrix known as the damaged stiffness
matrix [22].
C11 C12 C13 0 0 0
 
 C12 C22 C23 0 0 0 
 
 C13 C23 C33 0 0 0 
[Cd ] = 
  (2)
 0 0 0 C44 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 C55 0 
0 0 0 0 0 C66
With
 
E1 3 E2 1 − df E2 − E3 (1 − dm )2 ν13 2
C11 = (3)
A
E1 E2 3 (1 − dm ) E1 − E3 (1 − dm ) 1 − df ν13 2



C22 = (4)
A
E1 E2 E1 (1 − dm ) E1 − E2 1 − df (1 − dm )ν12 2
2



C33 = (5)
A
2 2


E1 E2 1 − df (1 − dm )(E2 ν12 − E3 (1 − dm )ν13 ν23 )
C12 = (6)
A
2


E1 E2 E3 1 − df (1 − dm )(E2 ν13 + E2 (1 − dm )ν12 ν23 )
C13 = (7)
A
2
E2 2 E1 E3 (1 − dm ) E1 ν23 + E2 1 − df ν12 ν23



C23 = (8)
A
C44 = G12 (1 − ds ) C55 = G23 (1 − ds ) C66 = G13 (1 − ds ) (9)
where

A = E1 2 E2 2 (1 − (1 − df )(1 − dm )ν12 ν21 − (1 − df )(1 − dm )ν13 ν31 − (1 − dm )2 ν32 ν23 − 2(1 − df )(1 − dm )2 ν31 ν23 ν12 ) (10)

df , dm and ds are, respectively, damage variables for fiber, matrix, and shear damage. These damage
variables can depend on the compression or tension loading modes. Hence, the damage variables dft ,
dfc , dmt and dmc correlating to distinct failure modes (fiber failure related to tension and compression,
matrix failure—tension and compression) can be introduced. The following relations hold:

dft σ1 ≥ 0

dmt σ2 ≥ 0
df = dm = (11)
dfc σ1 < 0 dmc σ2 < 0
  
ds = 1 − 1 − dft 1 − dfc (1 − dmt )(1 − dmc ) (12)
The damage variables range from 0 (undamaged status) to 1 (complete damage status). The
strength criteria are evaluated according to the effective stress, σ
e. σe can be derived from the nominal
stress by using a damage operator, [M]. The relation between the effective stress σ e and the nominal
stress σ can be written as:
{gσ} = [M]{σ} (13)
1
 
 (1−df ) 1

 
 ( 1−df ) 
1
 
 
where [M]=  ( 1 − dm )  (14)
 1 
 (1−ds ) 
1
 
 
 (1−ds ) 
1
( 1 − ds )
Complete failure is reached in a localized area at the end of the softening phase where the
deformation is the maximum possible. This approach is mesh dependent because the dissipated
energy reduces for increased mesh refinements.
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 4 of 19

In order to reduce effects related to mesh dependence, the equivalent strain and stress can be
introduced. These quantities, according to each damage mode, can be formulated in terms of effective
strain and stress components as:
σ11 ≥ 0)
Fiber tension failure (e
q
εft,eq = hε11 i2 + γ12 2 + γ13 2 (15)

hσ11 ihε11 i + τ13 γ13

σft,eq = ft
(16)
εeq
σ11 < 0)
Fiber compression failure (e
εfc,eq = −hε11 i (17)
−hσ11 ihε11 i
σfc,eq = fc
(18)
εeq
σ22 ≥ 0)
Matrix tension failure (e
q
εmt,eq = hε22 i2 + hε33 i2 + γ12 2 + γ23 2 + γ13 2 (19)

hσ22 ihε22 i + hσ33 ihε33 i + τ12 γ12 + τ23 γ23 + τ13 γ13
σmt,eq = (20)
εmt
eq

σ22 < 0)
Matrix compression failure (e
q
εmc,eq = h−ε22 i2 + h−ε33 i2 + γ12 2 + γ23 2 + γ13 2 (21)

h−σ22 ih−ε22 i + h−σ33 ih−ε33 i + τ12 γ12 + τ23 γ23 + τ13 γ13
σmc,eq = (22)
εmc
eq

where the symbol, hi, denotes the Macaulay Operator, defined ∀ω∈<, as hωi = (ω+|ω|)/2.
The equivalent displacements can be found from the resulting relation:

δi,eq = Lc εi,eq i ∈ {ft , fc , mt , mc } (23)

The final failure equivalent displacement δf,i,eq for each failure mode is evaluated as a multiple
of the equivalent displacement at failure initiation δ0,,i,eq which is given by the following relation:
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
δ0,i,eq = Lc ε0,i,eq (24)

where ε0,i,Eq is the equivalent strain at failure initiation for the failure mode i, Lc is the characteristic
According
length to the
introduced Sudden Degradation
to normalize the elementModel,
volumealland
material
remove properties
the meshare instantane-
dependency.
ously reduced. In reality,
This progressive the properties
degradation are degraded
model to a small
can be applied fraction ofand
for “sudden” the“gradual”
undamaged degradation.
properties.
According to the Sudden Degradation Model, all material properties are instantaneously
In Figure
reduced. 1, thethe
In reality, concept of sudden
properties degradation
are degraded is schematized.
to a small 𝛔𝒆𝒒𝟎
fraction of the is the initial
undamaged properties.
equivalent stress and the
In Figure 1, the concept 𝜹 is the initial equivalent displacement which,
𝒆𝒒𝟎 of sudden degradation is schematized. σeq0 is the in sudden
initial equivalent
degradation,
stress and theis δ
equal
eq0 isto
thethe finalequivalent
initial equivalent displacement 𝜹𝒆𝒒𝒇 . in sudden degradation, is equal to
displacement which,
the final equivalent displacement δeqf .

Figure 1. Sudden degradation.

Figure 1. Sudden degradation.

On the other hand, in gradual degradation models, the evolution and damage accu-
mulation for each failure mode is represented by a gradual degradation of material prop-
erties. This requires parameters that are able to follow the damage evolution. A sample
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 Figure 1. Sudden degradation. 5 of 19

On the other hand, in gradual degradation models, the evolution and damage accu-
mulation for each failure mode is represented by a gradual degradation of material prop-
erties.On therequires
This other hand, in gradualthat
parameters degradation
are ablemodels, thethe
to follow evolution
damageandevolution.
damage accumulation
A sample
for each failure mode is represented by a gradual degradation of material properties.
bilinear law representing gradual damage evolution is schematically represented This in
requires
Fig-
parameters that are able to follow the damage evolution. A sample bilinear law representing gradual
ure 2.
damage evolution is schematically represented in Figure 2.

Gradualdegradation.
Figure2.2.Gradual
Figure degradation.

In Figure 2, the area of triangle Gc , is the critical energy value, which is a material characteristic.
InThe
Figure 2, the area
final equivalent displacement 𝑮𝒄 , is the
of trianglesatisfying thecritical energy
comparison value,
between thewhich is aenergy
dissipated material
and
characteristic. C
the intralaminar fracture energy GI (for the I-th fracture mode) can be found from the relation:
The final equivalent displacement satisfying the comparison between the dissipated
C
1 0 f 𝑰 𝑪 (for the2G
energy and the intralaminar fracture σI,eq δeq𝑮→
GI C = energy I-th
I fracture mode) can be found
f
δI,eq = (25)
from the relation: 2 σ0i,eq
𝑪
where GI C is the intralaminar fracture 𝟏 𝒇 material
𝒇 for𝟐𝑮
𝑮𝑰 𝑪 energy
= 𝝈𝟎𝑰,𝒆𝒒
of 𝜹
the
𝒆𝒒 → 𝜹𝑰,𝒆𝒒 = 𝝈𝟎
𝑰
failure mode I. The equivalent stress
(25)
at failure initiation σ0I,eq , for failure mode𝟐I, does not change with 𝒊,𝒆𝒒element size. The final equivalent
where 𝑮𝑰 𝑪 is value
displacement δI,Eq f results are
the intralaminar also unchanged
fracture energy ofwith the the element
material size.
for However,
failure modetheI. initial
The
failure equivalent
equivalent stress displacement δ0i,eq changes
at failure initiation 𝝈𝟎𝑰,𝒆𝒒 ,according to the
for failure characteristic
mode I, does notlength, influencing
change the
with ele-
degradation speed. The damage variable can be evaluated according
𝒇 to the linear
ment size. The final equivalent displacement value 𝜹𝑰,𝑬𝒒 results are also unchanged with relation:
𝟎
the element size. However,δf the δinitial 0failure equivalent displacement 𝜹𝒊,𝒆𝒒 changes
 
i,eq i,eq − δi,eq
dI =   → δ0i,eq ≤ δi,eq ≤ δfi,eq (26)
f
δi,eq δi,eq − δ0i,eq

f
where δ0i,eq is the equivalent displacement evaluated at failure initiation and δi,eq is the final equiva-
lent displacement; this represents the situation when the material is totally damaged (dI = 1). The
damage variables increase step by step with damage evolution and the maximum between the
current and the previously calculated steps is considered for computations. Actually, the damage
variable never decreases.  
f

δi,eq δi,eq − δ0i,eq
dI = maxdI,old 
f
 (27)
δi,eq δi,eq − δ0i,eq

2.2. Failure Criteria

2.2.1. Maximum Stress Criterion
The most adopted non interactive failure criterion is the maximum stress criterion. This criterion
is very simple because it is linear, and one stress component based. The maximum stress approach
can be represented by the following relations:
Fiber
 2
σ11
= 1 (σ11 > 0) tensile damage (28)
Xt
 2
σ11
= 1 (σ11 < 0) compression damage (29)
Xc
Matrix
 2
σ22
= 1 (σ22 > 0) tensile damage (30)
Yt
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 6 of 19

 2
σ22
= 1 (σ22 < 0) compression damage (31)
Yc

2.2.2. Hashin Criterion

The Hashin criterion is an interactive failure criterion. The relations representing this criterion
can be written as:
Fiber
 2  τ 2
σ11 12
+ = 1 (σ11 > 0) tensile damage (32)
Xt S
σ11
= 1 (σ11 < 0) compressive damage (33)
Xc
Matrix
σ22 2  τ12 2

+ = 1 (σ22 > 0) tensile damage (34)
Yt S
" #
σ22 2 Yt 2
    τ 2
σ
+ − 1 22 + 12 = 1 (σ22 < 0) compressive damage (35)
2St 2St Yc S
where
Xt longitudinal tensile strength
Xc longitudinal compressive strength
Yt transverse tensile strength
Yc transverse compressive strength
S out-of-plane shear strength
St in-plane shear strength

2.2.3. Puck Criterion

The Puck criterion is also an interactive failure criterion [23]. The relations representing this
criterion can be written as:
Tensile Fiber Failure
 2  τ 2
σ11 12
FTrac
1 = + = 1 (σ11 > 0) (36)
Xt S
Compressive Fiber Failure
 2
Compr σ11
F1 = = 1 (σ11 < 0) (37)
Xt
Tensile Matrix Failure
Damage initiation and evolution for tensile matrix cracking are defined using the following
failure criteria:
σ22 2 τ12 2 τ23 2
     
Trac
F2 = + + =1 (σ22 > 0) (38)
Yt S12 S23
Compressive Matrix Failure
For a general plane l-n-t with fracture angle θf , as shown (Figure 3), the stresses can be found
according to the transformation from laminate coordinate systems 1-2-3 to x-y-z:

σnn = σy cos2 θf + σz sin2 θf + 2τyz cosθf sinθf




τnl = τyz cosθf + τzx cosθf  (39)
 τ = σ − σ
cosθ sinθ + τ cos2 θ − sin2 θ

nt z y f f yz f f

Puck proposed a criterion for simulating transverse failure in a damage model taking into
account the compressive load. The proposed failure criterion is similar to Hashin’s criteria with two
main variations:
To calculate the failure occurrence, the tractions at the fracture plane σnn , τnl , τnt should not
be associated with the nominal measured strengths from conventional mechanical tests, but with
strengths corresponding to the fracture plane.
J. Compos. Sci.Sci.
J. Compos. 2021, 5, x5,FOR
2021, 310 PEER REVIEW 8 of7 of
2119

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Representation
Representation of of Puck’s
Puck’s coordinate
coordinate system.
system.

Normal compressive stress at the fracture did not cause the failure directly, while contributing
Puck proposed a criterion for simulating transverse failure in a damage model taking
to the increase of shear strength. The criterion is used to define the damage initiation.
into account the compressive load. The proposed failure criterion is similar to Hashin’s
2  2
criteria with two mainComprvariations:τnt

τnl
F2 = + = 1 (σ22 < 0) (40)
To calculate the failureSoccurrence,
23 − µnt σnn the tractions
S12 − µat nn fracture plane 𝝈𝒏𝒏 , 𝝉𝒏𝒍 , 𝝉𝒏𝒕
nl σthe
A

should not be associated with the nominal measured strengths from conventional me-
where Stests,
chanical 12 is the
butlongitudinal
with strengths strength; S23 A istothe
shearcorresponding thetransverse shear strength in the potential
fracture plane.
fracture plane; µnt and µnl are friction coefficients in the transverse and longitudinal directions.
Normal compressive stress at the fracture did not cause the failure directly, while
These parameters are related to the fracture angle:
contributing to the increase of shear strength. The criterion is used to define the damage
initiation. ϕ = 2θf − 90◦ ; µnt = tanϕ (41)
𝝉 𝟐 𝝉 𝟐
𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒓 𝒏𝒕 Y (1 − sinϕ) 𝒏𝒍
𝑭𝟐 = (S23𝑨A = c ) +(
µ𝝈nl𝒏𝒏=) µ=
; 𝒏𝒍 𝟏S12 (𝝈𝟐𝟐 < 𝟎) (40)
(42)
𝑺𝟐𝟑 −𝝁𝒏𝒕 𝝈𝒏𝒏 𝑺𝟏𝟐 −𝝁 nt A
2cosϕ S23
εnt 𝑺
where iscosθ
the longitudinal shear strength; 𝑺𝟐𝟑 𝑨 is the transverse shear strength in the
 
2
=𝟏𝟐γ12 f + γ13 sinθf ; εnl = −ε22 cosθf sinθf + ε33 cosθf sinθf + γ23 sinθf cos θf − 1 (43)
potential fracture plane; 𝝁𝒏𝒕 and 𝝁𝒏𝒍 are friction coefficients in the transverse and longi-
tudinal Yc is the standard
where directions. Thesetransverse
parameters compressive
are relatedstrength.
to the fracture angle:
2.3. Finite Element Implementation:
𝝋 = 𝟐𝜽USERMAT
𝒇 − 𝟗𝟎°; 𝝁𝒏𝒕 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋 (41)
In the frame of simulations, the value of damage variables (Equation (27)) is evaluated and
stored by the USERMAT, which is a user-programmable material (FORTRAN) sub-routine introduced
in the ANSYS FEM [24]. This routine contributes to the description of the material in the frame
𝑨 𝒀 (𝟏−𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋) 𝑺
of FEM analyses, including the = 𝒄
𝑺𝟐𝟑evaluation ;
of stress-strain 𝝁𝒏𝒕 𝟏𝟐𝑨 For every iteration, for(42)
𝝁𝒏𝒍 =relations. each
𝟐𝒄𝒐𝒔𝝋 𝑺𝟐𝟑
integration point the USERMAT subroutine evaluates the stresses and the state (damage) variables,
according to specific user defined 𝜺relations.
𝒏𝒕 = 𝜸𝟏𝟐 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝜽𝒇 + 𝜸𝟏𝟑 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝜽𝒇 ;
In the implemented USERMAT, three different criteria have been introduced: (43)
Hashin, maximum
𝟐
𝜺𝒏𝒍 = −𝜺 𝟐𝟐 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝜽 𝒇 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝜽 𝒇 + 𝜺 𝟑𝟑 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝜽 𝒇 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝜽𝒇 + 𝜸 𝟐𝟑 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝜽 𝒇 (𝒄𝒐𝒔 𝜽𝒇 − 𝟏)
stress, and Puck’s criterion. It is possible to make a choice at the beginning of the analysis among the
failure𝒀criteria
where and the degradation models (sudden or gradual).
𝒄 is the standard transverse compressive strength.
The revised stress and strain variables are computed at integration points and a specific stress-
strain relationship is forced by changing of the stiffness matrix. A schematic representation of the
USERMAT operation is provided in the flow chart of Figure 4.
 In the implemented USERMAT, three different criteria have been introduced:
Hashin, maximum stress, and Puck’s criterion. It is possible to make a choice at the begin-
ning of the analysis among the failure criteria and the degradation models (sudden or
gradual).
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 The revised stress and strain variables are computed at integration points and a8 spe-
of 19
cific stress-strain relationship is forced by changing of the stiffness matrix. A schematic
representation of the USERMAT operation is provided in the flow chart of Figure 4.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Flow
Flow chart
chart of
of USERMAT.
USERMAT.

3. Numerical
Numerical Applications
Applications
As already
alreadyremarked,
remarked, the
thenumerical
numericalsimulations
simulationshavehave
beenbeen
performed on twoon
performed literature test
two litera-
cases: an open hole tensile specimen (OHT) and a notched stiffened panel
ture test cases: an open hole tensile specimen (OHT) and a notched stiffened panel under under shear loading
conditions.
shear To verify
loading the effectiveness
conditions. andeffectiveness
To verify the accuracy of the intralaminar
and accuracy of criteria and degradation
the intralaminar cri-
models, the USERMAT is used to reproduce the mechanical response of these specimens. A pre-
teria and degradation models, the USERMAT is used to reproduce the mechanical re-
liminary description of the test cases with some considerations on the mesh convergence analysis,
sponse of these specimens. A preliminary description of the test cases with some consid-
performed to reduce the computational time without compromises on accuracy of results, is also
erations
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW on section.
given in this the mesh convergence analysis, performed to reduce the computational 10 time
of 21
without compromises
For the on accuracy
first application, ofconsidered
it has been results, is an
also given(Figure
element in this5)section.
with a single ply at 0◦ (in
For direction
the same the first of
application, it has been
fiber) characterized considered
by AS4/PEEK an element
material (Figure 5) with a single
(Table 1).
ply at 0° (in the same direction of fiber) characterized by AS4/PEEK material (Table 1).

◦
Figure 5. Single
Figure5. Single Element
Element at
at 00°..

Table 1. Properties AS4/PEEK.

Property Value
𝑬𝟏 (longitudinal Young’s modulus) 127.6 GPa
𝑬𝟐 (transverse Young’s modulus) 10.3 GPa
𝑬𝟑 (transverse Young’s modulus) 10.3 GPa
𝝂𝟏𝟐 = 𝝂𝟏𝟑 = 𝝂𝟐𝟑 (Poisson’ s ratio) 0.32
𝑮𝟏𝟐 (In-plane shear modulus) 6.0 GPa
𝑮𝟏𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 6.0 GPa
𝑮𝟐𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 3.0 GPa
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 9 of 19
Figure 5. Single Element at 0°.

Table 1. Properties AS4/PEEK.

Table 1. Properties AS4/PEEK.
Property Value
𝑬𝟏 (longitudinal Property
Young’s modulus) 127.6 Value
GPa
𝑬 (transverse
E1 (longitudinal
𝟐 Young’s modulus)
Young’s modulus) 10.3 GPa
127.6 GPa
E𝑬2𝟑(transverse
(transverseYoung’s
Young’s modulus)
modulus) 10.3 GPa
10.3 GPa
E𝝂3𝟏𝟐(transverse
= 𝝂𝟏𝟑 = 𝝂Young’s modulus)
𝟐𝟑 (Poisson’ s ratio)
10.3
0.32GPa
ν12𝑮= ν(In-plane
13 = ν23 (Poisson’ s ratio)
shear modulus) 0.32
6.0 GPa
𝟏𝟐
G12 (In-plane shear modulus) 6.0 GPa
𝑮𝟏𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 6.0 GPa
G13 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 6.0 GPa
𝑮𝟐𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 3.0 GPa
G23 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 3.0 GPa
X𝑿t𝒕(longitudinal
(longitudinal tensile
tensile strength)
strength) 2023
2023 MPa
MPa
𝑿 (longitudinal compressive
Xc 𝒄(longitudinal compressive strength) strength) 1234
1234 MPa
MPa
Y𝒀t 𝒕(transverse
(transverse tensile strength)
tensile strength) 92.7
92.7MPa
MPa
Y𝒀c𝒄(transverse
(transversecompressive
compressive strength)
strength) 176
176 MPa MPa
S𝑺12 (In-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa
𝟏𝟐 (In-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa
S13 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa
𝑺 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa
S23𝟏𝟑(Out-of-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa
𝑺𝟐𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 82.6 MPa

In
In the
theσ𝜎1111-displacement
-displacementcurve (Figure
curve 6) the
(Figure maximum
6) the value
maximum of stress
value corresponds
of stress to Xt value
corresponds
(longitudinal tensile strength
to 𝑋𝑡 value (longitudinal of material).
tensile strength of material).

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Figure 6. 𝜎11 -displacement curve.

Figure 6. σ11 -displacement curve.
The curves follow the pattern of sudden and gradual degradation. Immediately after
the loadThefalls,
curves follow
there theincrease
is an pattern of
insudden and caused
the curve gradualby
degradation.
the damage Immediately after
variable not the load
being
falls, there is an increase in the curve caused by the damage variable not being
equal to 1, and the elements have a residual stiffness that creates resistance and elasticequal to 1, and the
elements have a residual stiffness that creates resistance and elastic return. This is
return. This is an unreasonable situation, but this part of the curve is not relevant, it is an unreasonable
situation, but this part of the curve is not relevant, it is important that first there is a gradual or
important that first there is a gradual or sudden drop in the curve.
sudden drop in the curve.
3.1. Open Hole Tensile (OHT)—Description of the FEM Model and Mesh Convergency
3.1. Open Hole Tensile (OHT)—Description of the FEM Model and Mesh Convergency
The
The geometry
geometry ofofthe
theopen
open hole
hole tension
tension specimen
specimen model
model is described
is described in Figure
in Figure 7 and
7 and the material
the material
properties of properties of the
the lamina are lamina
listed are 1listed
in Table [25]. in Table 1 [25].

Geometricalmodel
Figure7.7.Geometrical
Figure model Open
Open Hole
Hole Tensile.
Tensile.
The specimen is made with a composite laminate of 16 plies (material—AS4/PEEK) with a
The specimen is made with a composite laminate of 16 plies (material—AS4/PEEK)
quasi-isotropic stacking sequence [0,45,90, −45]2s . The thickness of single ply is 0.125 mm. The
with a quasi-isotropic
laminate stacking
has been modelled withsequence
SOLID186 [0,45,90, −45]elements.
3D layered 2s. The thickness of single ply is 0.125

mm. The laminate has been modelled with SOLID186 3D layered elements.
A mesh convergency analysis has been performed by comparing four configurations,
as showed in Figure 8 with different element sizes (2.5 mm—conf. A, 2 mm—conf. B, 1
mm—conf. C, 0.5 mm—conf. D). The ultimate load with a sudden degradation model and
Hashin failure criteria has been considered as control parameter for convergence.
 Figure 7. Geometrical model Open Hole Tensile.

The specimen is made with a composite laminate of 16 plies (material—AS4/PEEK)

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 with a quasi-isotropic stacking sequence [0,45,90, −45]2s. The thickness of single ply is10 of 19
0.125
mm. The laminate has been modelled with SOLID186 3D layered elements.
A mesh convergency analysis has been performed by comparing four configurations,
as showed in Figure 8 with different element sizes (2.5 mm—conf. A, 2 mm—conf. B, 1
A mesh convergency analysis has been performed by comparing four configurations, as showed
mm—conf. C, 0.5 mm—conf. D). The ultimate load with a sudden degradation model and
in Figure 8 with different element sizes (2.5 mm—conf. A, 2 mm—conf. B, 1 mm—conf. C, 0.5
Hashin failure
mm—conf. criteria
D). The hasload
ultimate been considered
with a sudden as control parameter
degradation model andfor convergence.
Hashin failure criteria has
been considered as control parameter for convergence.

Figure 8. Configuration of four different mesh sizes: (A)—2.5 mm, (B)—2 mm, (C)—1 mm, (D)—0.5 mm.
Figure 8. Configuration of four different mesh sizes: (A)—2.5 mm, (B)—2 mm, (C)—1 mm, (D)—0.5 mm.
By performing this limited mesh sensitivity analysis, in Figure 9, where the load-displacement
curvesByareperforming
introduced, itthis
canlimited
be notedmesh sensitivity
that the analysis,
convergence of thein Figure
mesh 9, where
is reached theelement
for an load-
size of 1 mm. Indeed,
displacement curvesa are
further decrease it
introduced, in can
the element
be notedsize does
that thenot lead to an increase
convergence in accu-
of the mesh is
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER racy
REVIEW
(in terms of failure load). 12 of 21the
reached for an element size The
of 1choice of 1 mmaelement
mm. Indeed, furthersize is more
decrease insuitable and reduces
the element size does
computational
not lead to ancost.
increase in accuracy (in terms of failure load). The choice of 1 mm element
size is more suitable and reduces the computational cost.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 9. 9. Meshsensitivity:(a)
Mesh sensitivity:(a)Load
Loaddisplacement
displacement curves;
curves; (b)
(b) Failure
Failureload
loadvalues
valuesversus
versusElement size.
Element size.

3.2. Notched Stiffened Panel under Shear Loading—Description of the FEM Model
A stiffened panel with a notch along its diagonal under shear loading condition has
been taken as second test case to test the influence of failure criteria and Progressive Dam-
 J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 11 of 19

3.2. Notched Stiffened Panel under Shear Loading—Description of the FEM Model
A stiffened panel with a notch along its diagonal under shear loading condition has been taken
as second test case to test the influence of failure criteria and Progressive Damage Models on the
prediction of the mechanical behavior of composite laminates with evolving intralaminar damage.
The geometry is shown in Figure 10 [26]. The material adopted for the manufacturing of skin and
Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW
stiffeners is the AS4/3501-6 graphite-epoxy material system whose properties are shown in Table 2. 13
The stacking sequence of the skin is [45/ − 45/0/90]s , while the stacking sequence of the stiffener
flanges and blades are [(45/ − 45/0/90)2]s and [(45/ − 45/0/90)3]s , respectively.

Figure
Figure 10.10. Geometrical model
Geometrical modelofof
Stiffened Panel.
Stiffened Panel.
Table 2. Property of AS4-3501/6.
Table 2. Property of AS4-3501/6.
Property Value
Property
E1 (longitudinal Young’s modulus) 112.2 GPa
Value
𝑬𝟏 (longitudinal
E2 (transverse Young’s modulus) Young’s modulus) 11.0 GPa 112.2 GPa
E3 (transverse Young’s modulus) 11.0 GPa
𝑬𝟐 ν(transverse
ν12 = ν13 =
Young’s modulus) 11.0 GPa
23 (Poisson’ s ratio) 0.34
𝑬𝟑 (transverse
G12 (In-plane shear modulus) Young’s modulus) 5.5 GPa 11.0 GPa
G13 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 5.5 GPa
𝝂𝟏𝟐 = 𝝂shear
G23 (Out-of-plane 𝟏𝟑 =modulus)
𝝂𝟐𝟑 (Poisson’ s ratio) 2.7 GPa
0.34
𝑮𝟏𝟐 tensile
Xt (longitudinal (In-plane shear modulus)
strength) 1422 MPa 5.5 GPa
Xc (longitudinal compressive strength) 1034 MPa
𝑮𝟏𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear modulus) 5.5 GPa
Yt (transverse tensile strength) 34.5 MPa
𝑮𝟐𝟑 compressive
Yc (transverse (Out-of-plane shear modulus)
strength) 213.7 MPa 2.7 GPa
S12 (In-plane shear strength)
𝑿𝒕 (longitudinal tensile strength) 120.6 MPa 1422 MPa
S13 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 33.1 MPa
𝑿𝒄 (longitudinal
S23 (Out-of-plane compressive strength) 33.1 MPa
shear strength) 1034 MPa
𝒀𝒕 (transverse tensile strength) 34.5 MPa
𝒀𝒄 (transverse compressive strength)
The thickness of single ply is 0.182 mm. The panel has been modelled with SOLID186 3D 213.7 MPa
layered
elements. A limited mesh sensitivity analysis has been carried out similar to the one performed for
𝑺𝟏𝟐 (In-plane
the open tensile specimen.
shear strength) 120.6 MPa
In the frame of this analysis, which is not reported here for the sake of
brevity, an optimal𝑺𝟏𝟑 (Out-of-plane
element size of 1 mm hasshear strength)
been found 33.1
and adopted for the rest of the analyses (seeMPa
Figure 11). 𝑺𝟐𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 33.1 MPa

The thickness of single ply is 0.182 mm. The panel has been modelled with SOLID
3D layered elements. A limited mesh sensitivity analysis has been carried out simil
the one performed for the open tensile specimen. In the frame of this analysis, whi
not reported here for the sake of brevity, an optimal element size of 1 mm has been fo
and adopted for the rest of the analyses (see Figure 11).
 𝑺𝟐𝟑 (Out-of-plane shear strength) 33.1 MPa

The thickness of single ply is 0.182 mm. The panel has been modelled with SOLID186
3D layered elements. A limited mesh sensitivity analysis has been carried out similar to
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 the one performed for the open tensile specimen. In the frame of this analysis, which is
12 of 19
not reported here for the sake of brevity, an optimal element size of 1 mm has been found
and adopted for the rest of the analyses (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. FEM model: stiffened panel.

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, the numerical results obtained for the two analyzed test cases are illustrated and
examined. The scope is to assess the influence of Progressive Degradation Models and failure criteria
on accuracy in predicting the intralaminar damage evolution in composite laminates. The results
obtained for the two test cases are presented in the next subsections.

4.1. Numerical Results—Open Hole Tension Specimen

4.1.1. Instantaneous (Sudden) Progressive Degradation Model
First, a non-linear static finite element simulation has been performed on the Open Hole Tension
test case by adopting an Instantaneous Progressive Degradation Model. In Figure 11, the load
displacement curves obtained by adopting the three analyzed different criteria are presented. In
reality, the numerical results obtained, in terms of maximum load to failure, are not in good agreement
with each other and with the experimental failure load of 15 kN found by Maa et al. [27]. As shown
in Table 3, all the failure criteria underestimate the experimental failure load. Indeed, the maximum
stress criterion provides numerical results very close to the ones obtained with the numerical model
introduced in [21].

Table 3. Comparison of maximum load: sudden degradation.

Sudden Degradation Law

Evaluated Cases Value of Maximum Load
Experimental 15.1 kN
Fem Maa et al. 12 kN
Maximum Stress Criterion 12.176 kN
Puck’s Criterion 11.16 kN
Hashin Criterion 8.49 kN

As expected, the maximum stress criterion provides a higher failure load if compared with
Hashin and Puck criterion. This can be simply explained by comparing Equations (32) and (36) to
Equation (28) due to the introduction of the contribution of shear stress for fiber tensile damage. In
Reddy and Reddy [28], it is shown that that the maximum stress criterion overestimates failure loads
for composites under axial tension.
When adopting Instantaneous Progressive Degradation Models, a sudden drop in the load–
displacement curve can be appreciated, which reflects the sudden degradation of material properties
in terms of axial stiffness, as shown in Figure 12. It can be observed that Puck’s criterion considers all
failure modes and their interaction, while maximum stress is a mode separate criterion.
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 13 of 19

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure 12. Load displacement curves for different criteria in Sudden Degradation Model.

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Load As can be appreciated
Load displacement
displacement curves for
curves in Figure
for different
different 11, the
criteria
criteria Hashin
in Sudden
in Sudden and maximum
Degradation
Degradation stress criteria have a
Model.
Model.
similar trend in terms of damaged area shape at failure both for fiber and matrix damage.
As
Ascan
For matrix canbe beappreciated
at 45°inoriented
appreciated
damage Figure 11,plies,
in Figure the11,
Hashin and maximum
themaximum
the Hashin and stress
maximum
stress criteria
criterion havecriteria
stress a similar
underestimates trend
have a
the
in terms
similar
damaged of damaged
trend in area
terms shape
of at
damaged failure
area both for
shape fiber
at and
failure matrix
both damage.
for fiber
area as an envelope of completely failed elements (which is plotted in red in For
and matrix
matrix damage
damage.at
45 ◦ oriented plies, the maximum stress criterion underestimates the damaged area as an envelope of
For
Figurematrix damage
13, being theatblue
45°region
oriented plies, the maximum
representative stress criterion
of undamaged elements)underestimates
when compared the
completely failed elements (which is plotted in red in Figure 13, being the blue region representative
damaged
to the area failure
Hashin as an envelope
criteria. of completely
For all the failed
other layerselements
and (which
failure is plotted
modes, the in red in
maximum
of undamaged elements) when compared to the Hashin failure criteria. For all the other layers and
Figure
failure
13, being
stress modes,
criterion the blue region
theoverestimates
maximum stress the representative
damaged
criterion areaof undamaged
when
overestimates thecompared
elements)
to the
damaged area when
when
Hashin compared
failure
compared to cri-
the
to the
Hashin Hashin
teria. The trend
failure failure
obtained
criteria. criteria. For
withobtained
The trend all the
Puck criterion other layers
seems
with Puck not to
criterion and failure modes,
be completely
seems the maximum
physically
not to be completely based,
physically
stress
based, criterion
especially
especially overestimates
for matrix damage
for matrix damagethe damaged
in plies
in areaatat
oriented
plies oriented when
45◦ . compared to the Hashin failure cri-
45°.
teria. The trend obtained with Puck criterion seems not to be completely physically based,
especially for matrix
LAYER 0°- damage in plies oriented at 45°.
FIBRE BREAKAGE

LAYER 0°- FIBRE BREAKAGE

PRESENT WORK
LAYER 45°- MATRIX BREAKAGE
PRESENT WORK
LAYER 45°- MATRIX BREAKAGE

LAYER 90°- MATRIX BREAKAGE

LAYER 90°- MATRIX BREAKAGE

Maa et al. Present work

Maa et al. Present work

Undamaged
HASHIN MAX
PUCK Damaged
STRESS
Undamaged
FigureHASHIN MAX
13. Fiber and matrix failure in each lamina forPUCK
OHT (sudden degradation).
Figure 13. Fiber and matrix failure Damaged
in each lamina for OHT (sudden degradation).
STRESS

Figure 13. Fiber and matrix failure in each lamina for OHT (sudden degradation).
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 14 of 19

4.1.2. Gradual Degradation Model—OHT
A non-linear static finite element simulation was then performed on the Open Hole
Tension test case by adopting a Gradual Progressive Degradation Model. In Figure 14, the
4.1.2.
load Gradual Degradation
displacement curves obtained Model—OHT
by adopting the three different analyzed criteria are
presented. The numerical
A non-linear results
static finite obtained,
element in terms
simulation of maximum
was then performed load
on thetoOpen
failure,
Holeare in
Tension
excellent
test caseagreement
by adopting with each other
a Gradual and with
Progressive the experimental
Degradation Model. In failure load
Figure 14, theofload
15 kN found
displacement
by curves
Maa etobtained
al. [27].byAsadopting
shownthe three different
in Table 4, all theanalyzed
failurecriteria
criteriaareare
presented.
very close Thetonumerical results
the experi-
obtained, in terms of maximum load to failure, are in excellent agreement
mental failure load. Indeed, the Hashin stress criterion provide the best numerical results with each other and with
the experimental failure load of 15 kN found by Maa et al. [27]. As shown
which are closest to the experimental data. On the contrary, the maximum stress overes- in Table 4, all the failure
criteria are very close to the experimental failure load. Indeed, the Hashin stress criterion provide the
timates the maximum load since this criterion belongs to the family of separate modes
best numerical results which are closest to the experimental data. On the contrary, the maximum
criteria. Hence, the failure in one direction is only related to the stress state in that partic-
stress overestimates the maximum load since this criterion belongs to the family of separate modes
ular direction,
criteria. Hence,which can result
the failure in one in an underestimation
direction is only related toof the
the failure
stress stateand,
in thatconsequently, in
particular direction,
an which
overestimation
can result inofan
theunderestimation
failure load. However, thisand,
of the failure criterion has been
consequently, in considered
an overestimationsuitableof the
to the application
failure presented
load. However, in this work
this criterion has beendue to the specific
considered suitableboundary conditions
to the application that pro-
presented in this
duce
worka quasi-one-dimensional
due to the specific boundary stress state. that produce a quasi-one-dimensional stress state.
conditions

LOAD - DISPLACEMENT
18.0000

16.0000

14.0000

12.0000
LOAD [kN]

10.0000

8.0000
GRADUAL DEGRADATION - HASHIN
6.0000 GRADUAL DEGRADATION - MAX STRESS
GRADUAL DEGRADATION - PUCK
4.0000
FEM [Chen et al.]
2.0000 EXPERIMENTAL [Maa et al.]
FEM [Maa et al.]
0.0000
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
DISPLACEMENT [mm]

Figure 14. 14.

Figure Load displacement
Load curves
displacement for for
curves different criteria
different in Gradual
criteria Degradation
in Gradual Model.
Degradation Model.

Table 4. Comparison
Table of maximum
4. Comparison load:
of maximum gradual
load: degradation.
gradual degradation.

Gradual Degradation
Gradual Law
Degradation Law
Evaluated Cases
Evaluated Cases Value of Maximum
Value of Maximum Load
Load
Experimental 15.1 kN
Experimental 15.1 kN
FemFem
Maa et al.
Maa et al. 12 kN
12 kN
FemFem
Chen et al.
Chen et al. 15.038 kNkN
15.038
Maximum
Maximum Stress
Stress Criterion
Criterion 16.416.4
kNkN
Puck’s Criterion
Puck’s Criterion 15.515.5
kNkN
Hashin Criterion 15 kN
Hashin Criterion 15 kN

In In Figure15,
Figure 15,the
thenumerical
numerical results
resultsobtained
obtained with the the
with Gradual Progressive
Gradual Damage
Progressive Model, in
Damage
terms of damaged area at failure for the different failure modes for the laminae of the quasi-isotropic
Model, in terms of damaged area at failure for the different failure modes for the laminae
laminate, are compared with numerical results from Chen et al. [16]. The numerical results obtained
of the quasi-isotropic laminate, are compared with numerical results from Chen et al. [16].
applying the maximum stress, Hashin, and Puck criteria are compared.
The numerical results obtained applying the maximum stress, Hashin, and Puck criteria
are compared.
All the criteria provide very similar numerical results which are in agreement with
literature numerical results of [16].
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

In particular, for laminae oriented at 0° (with fibers oriented along the load direction),
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 15 of 19
as expected, the predictions, with all the investigated failure criteria, show that the dam-
aged zone is smaller than the one of the other plies.

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Fiber
Fiberand
andmatrix
matrixfailure
failure in
in each
each lamina
lamina for
for OHT
OHT (Gradual
(Gradual degradation).
degradation).

All the criteria

Hence, provide very
when adopting similar
Gradual numerical results
Progressive Damagewhich are in all
Models, agreement with literature
the investigated fail-
numerical results of [16].
ure criteria are suitable for calculating the◦global mechanical response of composite lami-
In particular, for laminae oriented at 0 (with fibers oriented along the load direction), as
nates undergoing intralaminar damage evolution under static loading conditions.
expected, the predictions, with all the investigated failure criteria, show that the damaged zone is
However, since the Hashin failure criterion is capable of guaranteeing the best results
smaller than the one of the other plies.
even Hence,
when Instantaneous Progressive
when adopting Gradual Degradation
Progressive Modelsall
Damage Models, are
theadopted, only
investigated this criteria
failure crite-
rion will be used
are suitable for the next
for calculating the test case.
global mechanical response of composite laminates undergoing
intralaminar damage evolution under static loading conditions.
4.2. Notched
However,Stiffened Panel
since the underfailure
Hashin Shearcriterion
Loading is capable of guaranteeing the best results even
whenAs Instantaneous Progressive Degradation
a second test case, a notched stiffenedModelspanel
are adopted,
underonly thisloading
shear criterionhas
will been
be used for
ana-
the next test case.
lyzed. The mechanical behavior, including intralaminar damage onset and evolution, has
been simulated
4.2. Notched by adopting
Stiffened the Hashin
Panel under failure criteria to predict the damage onset. The
Shear Loading
evolution of the intralaminar damage, in terms of fiber and matrix failures, has then been
As a second test case, a notched stiffened panel under shear loading has been analyzed. The
simulated by adopting an Instantaneous Progressive Damage Model and a Gradual Pro-
mechanical behavior, including intralaminar damage onset and evolution, has been simulated by
gressive Damage
adopting the Hashin Model.
failureThe numerical
criteria results
to predict obtained
the damage with
onset. these
The two Progressive
evolution Dam-
of the intralaminar
age Models have been compared with literature experimental data to assess their
damage, in terms of fiber and matrix failures, has then been simulated by adopting an Instantaneous effec-
tiveness in predicting the shear mechanical behavior of the investigated stiffened
Progressive Damage Model and a Gradual Progressive Damage Model. The numerical results ob- panel.
tainedInwith
the Figure 16,Progressive
these two the load displacement
Damage Models curves obtained
have been withwith
compared the Instantaneous (Sud-
literature experimental
data to assess their effectiveness in predicting the shear mechanical
den) Progressive Degradation Model and the Gradual Progressive Degradation behavior of the investigated
Model are
stiffened panel.
compared with the literature experimental data from [26]. As can be appreciated in the
In the Figure 16, the load displacement curves obtained with the Instantaneous (Sudden)
figure, the Sudden Model is not able to mimic the trend of the experimental curve. In
Progressive Degradation Model and the Gradual Progressive Degradation Model are compared with
particular, the predicted maximum load (145 kN) is substantially lower when compared
the literature experimental data from [26]. As can be appreciated in the figure, the Sudden Model is
to
notthe experimental
able to mimic theone
trend(170 kN).
of the On the other
experimental hand,
curve. the trend obtained
In particular, with
the predicted the Gradual
maximum load
(145 kN) is substantially lower when compared to the experimental one (170 kN). On the other hand,
the trend obtained with the Gradual Model is in excellent agreement with the experimental one, with
a predicted maximum load (173 kN), which is very close to the experimental one. Both the curves are
characterized by a persistent constant trend after failure that is related to the presence of a residual
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Model is in excellent agreement with the experimental one, with a predicted maximum
load (173 kN), which is very close to the experimental one. Both the curves are character-
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 Model
ized byisa in excellentconstant
persistent agreement with
trend the
after experimental
failure one, with
that is related to thea presence
predictedofmaximum
a residual
16 of 19
load (173 kN), which is very close to the experimental one. Both the curves
strength, due to residual low material properties introduced after the damage events ac- are character-
ized by ato
cording persistent
both the constant trendThese
formulations. after failure that is material
low residual related toproperties
the presence
haveofbeen
a residual
intro-
strength, due to residual low material properties introduced
duced for convergence purposes, but actually they have no physical meaning.after the damage events ac-
strength, due to residual low material properties introduced after the damage events
cording to both the formulations. These low residual material properties have been intro- according to
both the formulations. These low residual material properties have
duced for convergence purposes, but actually they have no physical meaning.been introduced for convergence
purposes, but actually they have no physical meaning.

Figure 16. Sudden and Gradual Degradation Models with Hashin failure criteria: comparison with experimental data [26].

Figure 16.
16. Sudden
Sudden and
and Gradual
Gradual Degradation
In Figures Models
Degradation 17 andwith
Models Hashin
18, the
with fiberfailure
Hashin criteria:
and matrix
failure comparison
criteria:damage with
with experimental
distributions
comparison in the data
experimental panel[26].
(at fail-
ure), found with sudden and gradual models are compared with literature numerical re-
In
sultsIn Figures
Figures
from 17
[26]. and
17For
and 18,18,
the the fiber
the
sudden and
fiber matrix
and damage
matrix
propagation, distributions
damage
the damaged in thewith
distributions
area panel
in the(atpanel
failure),
completely (atfound
fail-
failed
with
ure), sudden
found and
with gradual
sudden models
and are compared
gradual models with
are literature
compared numerical
with results
literature from [26].
numerical For re-
the
elements is colored in red, while for the gradual propagation, a contour plot of the damage
sudden propagation, the damaged area with completely failed elements is colored in red, while
sults fromis [26].
variable For theAssudden
presented. already propagation, the damaged area with completely failed
for the gradual propagation, a contourseen plot for thedamage
of the open hole tension
variable specimen,
is presented. As the damage
already seen
elements
area is coloredobtained
distributions in red, while for notched
for the the gradual propagation, a contour plot of thepropaga-
damage
for the open hole tension specimen, the damage panel with the sudden
area distributions obtained and forgradual
the notched panel
variable
tion model
with is presented.
the suddenare almost As same
the
and gradual already andseen
propagation for theare
in agreement
model openwithhole
almost thetension
the numerical
same and specimen,
literature
in agreementthe damage
results
withandthe
area distributions
the macroscopic
numerical obtained
literaturecracks for
resultsobserved the notched panel
during thecracks
and the macroscopic with
experiment. the sudden
observedObviously, and gradual propaga-
according Obviously,
during the experiment. to Figure
tion model
16, the
according toare
damage almost
Figurestatus the
16, the same and
atdamage
failure inatagreement
of Figures
status 17 and
failure with the
18 occurs
of Figures numerical
17 and occursliterature
at18different atload results
levels
different load and
inlevels
sim-
the
in macroscopic
simulations
ulations withwith cracks
sudden
sudden andobserved
and during
gradual
gradual the experiment.
progression
progression models. Obviously, according to Figure
models.
16, the damage status at failure of Figures 17 and 18 occurs at different load levels in sim-
ulations with sudden and gradual progression models.

(a) (b)
Analytical damage plot by AMBUR (c)
Figure 17. Fiber
Fiber failure:
failure:(a) Sudden Degradation Model; (b)(b) Gradual Degradation Model; (c) Literature numerical results
Figure (a) (a) Sudden Degradation Model; (b) Gradual Degradation Model; (c) Literature
(c) numerical re-
[26].
sults [26].
Figure 17. Fiber failure: (a) Sudden Degradation Model; (b) Gradual Degradation Model; (c) Literature numerical results
[26].
Analytical
If all the damaged elements (with fiber and matrix damage
failure) plot by AMBUR
are represented in a single view, a
useful overview of the panel damage status can be obtained. In Figure 19, an example of this damage
representation is given. Actually, in Figure 19, the damage status at failure obtained with Sudden and
Gradual Progressive Degradation Models is compared with the damage status of the failed notched
panel taken from [26]. As can be appreciated, the numerical prediction of the crack direction is in
excellent agreement with the experimental observed failure path arising from the notch edge and
propagating along the direction of the applied shear load.
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, x310
FOR PEER REVIEW 1917of
of 21
19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 18. Matrix failure: (a) Sudden Degradation Model; (b) Gradual Degradation Model; (c) Literature numerical results
[26].

If all the damaged elements (with fiber and matrix failure) are represented in a single
view, a useful overview of the panel damage status can be obtained. In Figure 19, an ex-
ample of this damage representation is given. Actually, in Figure 19, the damage status at
failure obtained with Sudden and Gradual Progressive Degradation Models is compared
with the damage status of the failed notched panel taken from [26]. As can be appreciated,
(a) the numerical prediction (b) (c) agreement with the experi-
of the crack direction is in excellent
Figure
Figure 18.
18. Matrix
Matrixfailure:
failure: mental
(a)(a)
Sudden
Suddenobserved failure
Degradation Model;
Degradation path arising
(b) Gradual
Model; fromDegradation
the notch
Degradation
(b) Gradual edge
Model; and(c)propagating
(c) Literature
Model; numerical
Literature along the di-
results
numerical
[26].
results [26]. rection of the applied shear load.

If all the damaged elements (with fiber and matrix failure) are represented in a single
view, a useful overview of the panel damage status can be obtained. In Figure 19, an ex-
ample of this damage representation is given. Actually, in Figure 19, the damage status at
failure obtained with Sudden and Gradual Progressive Degradation Models is compared
with the damage status of the failed notched panel taken from [26]. As can be appreciated,
the numerical prediction of the crack direction is in excellent agreement with the experi-
mental observed failure path arising from the notch edge and propagating along the di-
rection of the applied shear load.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure19.
Figure 19.Failure
FailureEnvelope:
Envelope:(a)
(a)Sudden
Sudden Degradation
Degradation Model,
Model, (b)(b) Gradual
Gradual Degradation
Degradation Model,
Model, andand (c) Literature
(c) Literature experi-
experimen-
mental
tal data [26].
data [26].
In Figure 19 it is also possible to notice that the damage at boundaries, when the shear load is
In Figure 19 it is also possible to notice that the damage at boundaries, when the shear
applied, is very well predicted by both the numerical degradation models.
load is applied, is very well predicted by both the numerical degradation models.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a study on the influence of numerical models on the simulation of the mechanical
In this
behavior paper, a laminates
of composite study on with the influence
intralaminar of damage
numerical models onInthe
is introduced. simulation
particular, of the
the effects
(a) of failure criteria
mechanical and Sudden
behavior (b)and Gradual
of composite Progressive
laminates with intralaminar (c) Models
Degradation damageon is the accuracy of
introduced. In
Figure 19. Failure Envelope:numerical
particular,
(a) Sudden predictions,
the effectsinofterms
Degradation failure
Model, of (b)
failure
criteriaload
Gradual andand damage
Sudden
Degradation distributions,
and Gradual
Model, areLiterature
investigated.
and Progressive
(c) Degradation
experi-
mental data [26]. Twoon
Models numerical test cases,
the accuracy of an open holepredictions,
numerical tension specimen and a of
in terms notched
failurestiffened
load and panel under
damage
shear loading, have been modeled and numerically tested by adopting a USERMAT subroutine
distributions, are investigated.
implemented in FE code ANSYS. The numerical results obtained have been compared with literature
In Figure
Two 19 it is also
numerical testpossible
cases, an toopen
noticeholethat tension
the damage at boundaries,
specimen and a notchedwhen the shear
stiffened
experimental data.
load
panelis applied,
under is very
shear well predicted
loading, have by both the numerical degradation models.
The open hole specimen has beenbeen
used modeled
to compareand numerically
the numerical tested
results by adopting
obtained with threea
USERMAT subroutine implemented in FE code ANSYS. The numerical
different failure criteria (maximum stress, Hashin, and Puck criteria). The Hashin failure results obtained
criteria
5.
hasConclusions
have been
been compared
found to providewiththe literature experimental
more reliable result withdata.
both sudden and gradual progressive
damage The
In thisopen
paper,
models. hole specimen
a study on the hasinfluence
been used to comparemodels
of numerical the numerical results obtained
on the simulation of the
withHowever,
mechanical for the open
three behavior
different of hole criteria
failure
compositetension specimen,
(maximum
laminates the Sudden
with stress, Progressive
Hashin,
intralaminar and
damageDegradation
Puck Model The
criteria).
is introduced. has
In
been proventhe
particular, to effects
underestimate
of failure thecriteria
failure load. This trend
and Sudden andhas been confirmed
Gradual by the
Progressive simulations
Degradation
performed
Models onforthethe more complex
accuracy second test
of numerical case. On the
predictions, other hand,
in terms the Gradual
of failure load and Progressive
damage
Degradation Model has been found able to correctly mimic the experimental trends, in terms of
distributions, are investigated.
load-displacement curve for the analyzed test cases.
Two
Finally,numerical test cases, performed
from the simulations an open hole tension
on both specimen
the test cases, theand a notched
Hashin stiffened
failure criteria has
panel under shear loading, have been modeled and numerically tested
been found able to correctly determine the damage distributions in terms of fiber and matrix failure by adopting a
USERMAT subroutine implemented in FE code
and to correctly follow the experimental damage propagation path. ANSYS. The numerical results obtained
have At beenthiscompared
stage, the with
focus literature
was on findingexperimental
differencesdata.
between the failure criteria and the two
The open hole specimen has been used to compare
degradation models in order to obtain more readable results. the sake
For the numerical
of brevity,results
futureobtained
work can
be carried out following the study comparing different degradation
with three different failure criteria (maximum stress, Hashin, and Puck criteria). The laws.
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 18 of 19

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. (Aniello Riccio), C.P., V.A., A.S. and A.R. (Angela
Russo); Data curation, A.R. (Aniello Riccio), C.P., V.A., A.S. and A.R. (Angela Russo); Formal analysis,
C.P.; Funding acquisition, A.R. (Aniello Riccio); Investigation, C.P.; Methodology, A.R. (Aniello
Riccio), C.P., A.S. and A.R. (Angela Russo); Supervision, A.R. (Aniello Riccio) and A.S.; Validation,
A.R. (Angela Russo). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Office of Naval Research, grant number (N62902-20-1-2042)
and supervised by Anisur Rahman (Office of Naval Research) and William Nickerson (Office of
Naval Research Global, Tokyo).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sellitto, A.; Riccio, A.; Russo, A.; Zarrelli, M.; Toscano, C.; Lopresto, V. Compressive behaviour of a damaged omega stiffened
panel: Damage detection and numerical analysis. Compos. Struct. 2019, 209, 300–316. [CrossRef]
2. Russo, A.; Sellitto, A.; Saputo, S.; Acanfora, V.; Riccio, A. Cross-influence between intra-laminar damages and fibre bridging at
the skin-stringer interface in stiffened composite panels under compression. Materials 2019, 12, 1856. [CrossRef]
3. Sleight, D.W.; Knight, N.F., Jr.; Wang, J.T. Evaluation of a progressive failure analysis methodology for laminated composite
structures. In 38th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Kissimmee, FL, USA, 7–10 April 1997; American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 1997. [CrossRef]
4. Lapczyk, I.; Hurtado, J.A. Progressive damage modeling in fiber-reinforced materials. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. 2007, 38,
2333–2341. [CrossRef]
5. Sleight, D.W. Progressive Failure Analysis Methodology for Laminated Composite Structures; Technical Report for NASA; NASA:
Hampton, VA, USA, 1 March 1999.
6. Hashin, Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J. Appl. Mech. 1980, 47, 329–334. [CrossRef]
7. Chang, F.K.; Chang, K.Y. A progressive damage model for laminated composites containing stress concentrations. J. Compos.
Mater. 1988, 21, 834–855. [CrossRef]
8. Hou, J.P.; Petrinic, N.; Ruiz, C. A delamination criterion for laminated composites under low-velocity impact. Compos. Sci. Technol.
2001, 61, 2069–2074. [CrossRef]
9. Puck, A.; Schürmann, H. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2002, 62, 1633–1662. [CrossRef]
10. De Luca, A.; Caputo, F. A review on analytical failure criteria for composite materials. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2017, 4, 1165–1185.
[CrossRef]
11. Almeida, J.H.S., Jr.; Bittrich, L.; Spickenheuer, A. Improving the open-hole tension characteristics with variable-axial composite
laminates: Optimization, progressive damage modeling and experimental observations. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2020, 185, 107889.
[CrossRef]
12. Almeida, J.H.S., Jr.; Ribeiro, M.L.; Tita, V.; Campos Amico, S.C. Damage and failure in carbon/epoxy filament wound composite
tubes under external pressure: Experimental and numerical approaches. Mater. Des. 2016, 96, 431–438. [CrossRef]
13. Almeida, J.H.S., Jr.; Ribeiro, M.L.; Tita, V.; Campos Amico, S.C. Damage modeling for carbon fiber/epoxy filament wound
composite tubes under radial compression. Compos. Struct. 2017, 160, 204–210. [CrossRef]
14. Almeida, J.H.S., Jr.; Maikson, L.P.; Tonatto; Ribeiro, M.L.; Tita, V.; Amico, S.C. Buckling and post-buckling of filament wound
composite tubes under axial compression: Linear, nonlinear, damage and experimental analyses. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018,
149, 227–239. [CrossRef]
15. Almeida, J.H.S., Jr.; Ribeiro, M.L.; Tita, V.; Amico, S.C. Stacking sequence optimization in composite tubes under internal pressure
based on genetic algorithm accounting for progressive damage. Compos. Struct. 2017, 178, 20–26. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, J.-F.; Morozov, E.V.; Shankar, K. Simulating progressive failure of composite laminates including in-ply and delamination
damage effects. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. 2014, 61, 185–200. [CrossRef]
17. Ambur, D.R.; Jaunky, N.; Hilburger, M.W. Progressive failure studies of stiffened panels subjected to shear loading. Compos.
Struct. 2004, 65, 129–142. [CrossRef]
18. Riccio, A.; Di Costanzo, C.; Di Gennaro, P.; Sellitto, A.; Raimondo, A. Intra-laminar progressive failure analysis of composite
laminates with a large notch damage. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 73, 97–112. [CrossRef]
19. Camanho, P.P.; Dávila, C.G. Mixed Mode Decohesion Finite Elements for the Simulation of Delamination in Composite Materials; Technical
Report for NASA; NASA: Hampton, VA, USA, 1 June 2002.
20. Chang, K.-Y.; Liu, S.; Chang, F.-K. Damage Tolerance of Laminated Composites Containing an Open Hole and Subjected to
Tensile Loadings. J. Compos. Mater. 1991, 25, 274–301. [CrossRef]
21. Rohwer, K. Models for Intralaminar damage and failure of fiber composites—A review. Facta Univ. Ser. Mech. Eng. 2016, 14, 1–19.
[CrossRef]
22. Bažant, Z.P.; Oh, B.H. Crack-band theory for fracture of concrete. Mat. Constr. 1983, 16, 155–177. [CrossRef]
23. Puck, A.; Deuschle, H.M. Progress in the Puck failure theory for fibre reinforced composites: Analytical solutions for 3D-stress. J.
Compos. Mater. 2013, 47, 827–846. [CrossRef]
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 310 19 of 19

24. Lin, G. ANSYS USER Material Subroutine USERMAT; ANSYS, Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, November 1999.
25. Chen, D.L.; Weiss, B.; Stickler, R. A new geometric factor formula for a center cracked plate tensile specimen of finite width. Int. J.
Fract. 1992, 55, R3–R8. [CrossRef]
26. Ambur, D.R.; Jaunky, N.; Davila, C.G.; Hilburger, M.W. Progressive Failure Studies of Composite Panels with and without Cutouts;
Technical Report for NASA; NASA: Hampton, VA, USA, 1 September 2001.
27. Maa, R.-H.; Cheng, J.-H. A CDM-based failure model for predicting strength of notched composite laminates. Compos. Part B Eng.
2002, 33, 479–489. [CrossRef]
28. Pandey, A.; Reddy, J.A. Post First-Ply Failure Analysis of Composite Laminates. In 28th Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 6–8 April 1987; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA,
USA, 1987. [CrossRef]