0
Research Papers

Spectral Stiffness Microplane Model for Quasibrittle Composite Laminates—Part II: Calibration and Validation

[+] Author and Article Information
Alessandro Beghini

 Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604alessandro.beghini@som.com

Gianluca Cusatis

Civil Engineering Department,  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180cusatg@rpi.edu

Zdeněk P. Bažant1

Walter P. Murphy Professor and McCormick School Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, CEE Department, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208z-bazant@northwestern.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Appl. Mech 75(2), 021010 (Feb 25, 2008) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2744037 History: Received November 15, 2005; Revised February 07, 2007; Published February 25, 2008

The spectral stiffness microplane (SSM) model developed in the preceding Part I of this study is verified by comparisons with experimental data for uniaxial and biaxial tests of unidirectional and multidirectional laminates. The model is calibrated by simulating the experimental data on failure stress envelopes analyzed in the recent so-called “World Wide Failure Exercise,” in which various existing theories were compared. The present theory fits the experiments as well as the theories that were best in the exercise. In addition, it can simulate the post-peak softening behavior and fracture, which is important for evaluating the energy-dissipation capability of composite laminate structures. The post-peak softening behavior and fracture are simulated by means of the crack band approach which involves a material characteristic length.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Stress-strain boundary for the microplane normal component of: (a) Mode I; (b) Mode III; (c) Mode II; and (d) Mode IV

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Uniaxial stress-strain curves. Comparison between numerical simulations (solid line) and experimental results (points) from Soden (4-5)) for: (a) tension in fiber direction; (b) compression in fiber direction; (c) tension in transverse direction; and (d) compression in transverse direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison between numerical simulations (solid line) and experimental results (points) from Soden (4-5) for shear loading

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison between numerical simulations (solid line), Tsai–Wu criterion (dashed line), and experimental results (points) from Soden (4-5) for multiaxial failure envelope with: (a) no interaction of modes; and (b) with interaction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison between numerical simulations (solid line) and experimental results (points) from Soden (4-5) for uniaxial loading in fiber direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison between numerical simulations (solid line), Tsai–Wu criterion (dashed line), and experimental results (points) from Soden (4-5) for multiaxial failure envelope with: (a) no interaction of modes; and (b) with interaction

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In