multi-scale material modeling and progressive failure...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Cody Godines Marc Villa Montero
F. Abdi (Ph.D) Harsh Baid (Ph. D)
S. DorMohammadi (Ph.D) M. Lee (Ph.D)
AlphaSTAR Corporation, Long Beach, CA 90804
ADVANCES IN REINFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
SPE Automotive Composites Conference & Exhibition (ACCE),
6-8 September 2017 Detroit, Michigan
Multi-Scale Material Modeling and Progressive Failure Analysis of a Hybrid Composite Bumper
2
Agenda • Motivation • Methodology:
• Continuous Fiber, Chopped Fiber, FE Analysis Process Flowchart • De-Homogenized vs. Homogenized Approach
• Case Study: US Car FBCC Crush Test and Blind Prediction
• Multi-Scale Material Modeling SMC, Continuous, and Weave Architectures • Validation with Hat Crush Tubes
• Multi-Scale Progressive Failure Dynamic Analysis (MS-PFDA) L-D curve, contributing failure mechanisms
• Conclusion
3
AlphaSTAR Corporation Founded in 1989
Mission: Provide physics based composites simulation solutions and software Service industry and government for advanced composite parts/systems
Focus: Structural design using advanced simulation for Composites, Metals, Ceramics, Polymer, Hybrid
Industry Validated Software: Aerospace: Commercial Aircraft Certification by Analysis with Reduced Tests Automotive: Racing Industry, Composite Over-wrapped Pressure Vessels (COPV),
Hydrogen Tanks Infrastructure: Bridge, Wind & Energy, Oil & Gas 3-D Printing: Large Scale Additive Manufacturing
Awards & Publications: 2015 - R&D 100 Award, 204-NASA CAIB Award; 2001-US Senate/Tibbetts (SBA) Award; 2000 - R&D 100 Award; 2000-NASA Best of the 90’s Awar; 2000-NASA Turning Goals Into Reality; 1999-NASA Software of the Year Award; 230+ published papers and 4 Books
Located in: Long Beach, CA
4
ASC family of tools provide advanced material modeling and structural analysis capability that is founded on multi-scale progressive failure analysis. All ASC products share a common GUI framework for seamless user interactivity.
ASC
ASC Products
5
AlphaSTAR takes on customers toughest challenges. Most projects are confidential. Those published include: Certification by Analysis Supplemented by Test Manufacturing Process Simulation
• 3D Printing/Additive Manufacturing Simulation • Filament Winding - COPV • Autoclave, RTM, VRTM
Advanced Design • Impact, Crash and / or Crush • Composite Fatigue • Residual Strength Determination • D&DT Analysis
Composite Analysis and Design • Material Characterization • A- & B-Basis Allowables (reduced tests) • Advanced Materials (ceramic, chopped, nano, polymer, hybrid) • Effect of Defects (tape layup, fiber placement, etc.)
AlphaSTAR’s Services & Expertise
6
Executive Summary • Complete CAE Integration for both Material and Structure • Dehomogenized, Analytical Approach of Material Scales up to FE models • Test Verified Cases, Tutorials, Ready for CAE Users to make Quick Top Decisions
Continuous Fiber Static, LMA/AFRL
Fatigue, Void, 3d Architecture
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Cycles to failure, Nf
Max
imum
Stre
ss L
evel
(ksi
)
high void content - DION 9800 resin with clay fillerlow void content - DION 9800 resin no clay fillerlow void content - Reichold 31638/31100 blendGENOA - 2% void contentGENOA - 10% void content
runout
Chopped, IM, CM, SMC Damage Mechanisms Tracked
3D Printed Structural Thermal Simulation
Creep Rupture Crack Growth
Web Based Structural Health Monitoring
Human Tissue Regeneration Modeling
A-B Basis Allowables
Ceramic/Engine Blade FOD Fatigue, Creep Environment (Humidity, Salt-Fog)
Complete Multi Scale Modeling
Certification By Analysis
7
Flow Process for MS-PFDA* Calibration, Verification, Validation, Predictions (Accreditation)
Objective: Match 4 Point Bend Test using lessons learn from previous steps Tests • Flexural 4 Point Bending test:
(1) 0/90-Weave (2) QI-Weave (3) Mix (UD-QI)
Outputs • Load-Displacement curves • Damage mechanisms • Stress and displacements
Objective: Match Crush test at two different energy levels and different layup configurations Layups
(1) 0/90 (2) QI (3) Mix (UD-QI)
Energies •0.715 kJ •2.27 kJ Outputs • Load-Time curves •Damage mechanisms •Deformed shape
Objective: Compare Un-notched MCQ with FEM Results and Test using 1-Element model FEM • LS-DYNA UMAT Compare • Un-notched MCQ Vs. FEM • FEM Vs. Test •Damage progression through the thickness Select FE • CPU • Less Mesh
MCQ Calibration
FEM Verification
Quasi Static MS-PFA
Validation
Dynamic MS-PFA Validation
Objective: Predict Resin, Fiber effective Properties, predict LMC Layups, Effect of defects
Tests Used Longitudinal Tension and
Compression, Transverse Tension and Compression, In-plane shear
1. UD 0°: 2. Cross Ply (UD 0/90) 3. Cross Ply Weave (PW 0/90) 4. QI Weave Predict Stress-Strain Curves, and Strain
limit for use in Validation
LS-DYNA UMAT
*Multi-Scale Progressive Failure Dynamic Analysis
8
Building Block Approach Application to the Present Problem
Coupon Level
LS-DYNA UMAT
Material ModelingAnalytical: Calibration/Validation
FEM:Verification
5 ASTM Test
Simple Loading Component
FEM:Test Comparison
Static Test –4 Point Bending
Complex Loading Component
FEM:Test Comparison
Dynamic TestCrush Tube
Full Scale Testing (FST) – Structural
LevelFEM: Blind Prediction
9
Methodology: De-Homogenized vs. Homogenized
Ref: Andrew Ritchey, Joshua Dustin, Jonathan Gosse and R. Byron Pipes, “Self-Consistent Micromechanical Enhancement of Continuous Fiber Composites”. Book Chapter ISBN 978-953-7619-X-X published by INTECH, Feb-2011.
Schematic View of De-Homogenized vs. Homogenized
• Multi-Scale Modeling of composite constituents • fiber, matrix, and interphase
• Manufacturing Effect of Defects • fiber waviness, agglomeration, interphase, • resin rich, void shape/size
• Fiber angle orientation Through-thickness • Design Parameters Saturation on stiffness/ strength :
•fiber length (limitation using homogenized method) •fiber shape
• Multi-Scale Nano-micro macro Damage evolution •Load re-distribution at every scale •Damage of individual constituents
De-homogenization Modeling Approach De-Homogenization Homogenization
* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com
Architecture Homogenized
De-Homogenization Homogenization
* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com
Architecture Homogenized
De-Homogenization Homogenization
* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com* Courtesy of www.mscsoftware.com
Architecture Homogenized
Homogenization
Numerical Approach Analytical Approach
10
PFA takes full-scale FEM and breaks material properties down to microscopic level. Material properties are updated, reflecting any changes resulting from damage or crack
In-Depth Evaluation of Multi-scale Process
Vehicle Component Laminate 3D Fiber, Weave, Stitch
Lamina 2D Woven
Decomposition Traditional FEM Stops Here GENOA goes down to micro scale
Unit cell At node or element depending on solver
Sliced Unit Cell Micro Scale
FEM results decomposed to micro scale
Reduced properties propagate up to vehicle scale
11
Technical Approach: Modeling Composite Failure Process Manufacturing Defects • Matrix Void Shape/Size/Distribution • Thickness Effect • Residual Stress • Fiber Waviness • Resin Rich
As-Build/As-Is Part
Manufacturing Cure Distortion • Matrix Shrinkage Vs. Temp/Pressure • Modulus/CTE Vs. Temp • Viscosity Vs. Temp
• Fiber Volume Vs. Temp • Thickness Vs. Temp
• Residual Stress
Residual Stress Distortion
Trans Laminar (σ or ε) • Matrix Crack Density • Matrix Failure (L/T)
• Tension • Compression • Shear
• Inter Phase • Fiber Failure (L/T)
• Long Compression • F/Matrix Delamination • Fiber Micro Buckling • Fiber Compression • Shear Kink Band
• Ply Failure • Tension • Compression • Shear
Damage Evolution
Propagation • Crack Path
•2-d •3-d
Interlaminar • Interlaminar Shear • Interlaminar Tension • Relative Rotation • Edge Delamination Combined*, HC**, Env***
Fracture Initiation • 0.005 inch • Requirement Size
Fracture Propagation • Gic • GIIc • Mixed Mode
Fracture Evolution
Residual Strength
Load
Displacement
GENOA
TEST
* Combined: Tsai-Wu, Tsai-Hill, Hashin, User defined criteria, Puck, SIFT, ** Honeycomb: Wrinkling, Crimpling, Dimpling, Intra-cell buckling, Core crushing. *** Environmental: Recession, Oxidation (Global, Discrete), aging, creep
12
12
Material Characterization & Qualification (MCQ) Composites
MCQ Composites
Fiber Architecture
Manufacturing Defects, As-Built
Fiber Waviness Void Shape
In Plane Shear [0]
0102030405060708090
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Shear Strain [mm/mm]
Shea
r Stre
ss [M
Pa]
TestMCQ
Material Non Linearity Input
A- & B-Basis Allowables Design Failure
Envelope
10
100
1,000
10,000
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
90T
90S
45T
45S
30T
30S
15T
15S
10T
10S
0T
0S
Stre
ngth
Cycles to Failure
Fatigue Life
VVR
FVR
WAVINESS THICKNESS
FMB_D11C
S 1 1
Test Data
Unnotched Compression [Ply-Level Scaling]
0100200300400500600700800900
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Strain [mm/mm]
Str
ess
[MP
a]
t = 2mmt = 4mmt = 8mm
Parametric Carpet Plots
Thickness Effect
Probabilistic Sensitivity
13
MCQ Chopped Fiber Flow Process
Particle Shape & Aspect Ratio
Matrix/Ply Nonlinearity Obtained from Material and Aligned layer non-linearity Input
Test Validation: Progressive Failure Design Failure Envelope Material Uncertainty
Chopped Mechanics
Tensor Orientation Through Thickness
Manufacturing Defects
Fiber Waviness Void Shape
Agglomeration Interphase
Vendor provided constituent Material Properties
Elastic Properties (1) Stiffness (2) Strength
0102030405060708090
100
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Stre
ss [M
Pa]
Strain [mm/mm]
Test-Flow Test-45-Deg Test-Cross-FlowMCQ-Flow MCQ-45-Deg MCQ-Cross-Flow
SIG
YY
SIGXX
5 ASTM Tests Results In – Non Linearity Out
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Orie
ntat
ion
Normalized Thickness [z/H]
Test-A11 Test-A22 Test-A33MCQ-A11 MCQ-A22 MCQ-A33
14
Summary of Cases
Crash Mode Mass (kg) Impact Velocity (m/s)
(S.D.) 1 Full Frontal 300.00 15.30 (0.24) 2 Frontal Offset 323.00 9.16 (1.98) 3 Frontal Pole 306.00 2.54 (0.16) 6 Frontal Angular 323.00 5.19 4 Low Speed Midpoint 302.30 4.56 (0.02) 5 Low Speed Quarter 326.40 4.21 (0.26)
Composite Layups Details Simulation Guidelines
-Six Models received with estimated mass and impact velocity -Models were almost ready to run and easy to use -Composite and SMC parts were identified
15
Material Characterization and Qualification
16
UD Material Calibration - Properties UD
Material Carbon/Epoxy Property Units Test MCQ % Error
E11 [GPa] 116 113.38 -2.26 E22 [GPa] 8.3 8.29 -0.12 E33 [GPa] 8.29 - G12 [GPa] 5.37 6.47 20.48 G13 [GPa] 6.47 - G23 [GPa] 2.5 - v12 [-] 0.324 0.323 -0.31 v13 [-] 0.32 - v23 [-] 0.56 -
S11T [MPa] 1683 1730.6 2.83 S11C [MPa] 687 698.5 1.67 S22T [MPa] 22.8 25.58 12.19 S22C [MPa] 113 135.8 20.18 S33T [MPa] - S33C [MPa] -
S12S (5%) [MPa] 83.9 73.8 -12.04 S13S [MPa] - S23S [MPa] - -
Effective Epoxy Matrix Material Properties Symbol Effective Units
Young's Modulus Em 4.698 [GPa] Poisson's Ratio νm 0.361 [-] Tension Strength SmT 32 [MPa] Compression Strength SmC 170 [MPa] Shear Strength SmS 100 [MPa]
Effective Fiber (Graphite) Fiber Material Properties Symbol Effective Units
Longitudinal Young's Modulus Ef11 210 [GPa] Transverse Young's Modulus Ef22 10.77 [GPa] Poisson's Ratio νf12 0.298 [-] Poisson's Ratio νf23 0.48 [-] Shear Modulus Gf12 36.98 [GPa] Shear Modulus Gf23 3.645 [GPa] Longitudinal Tension Strength Sf11T 2900 [MPa] Longitudinal Compression Strength Sf11C 1063.5 [MPa]
17
UD Material Calibration - Assumptions Layup Definition
Post-Damage Degradation Factors (Default)
Damage and Fracture Criteria
18
Uni Characterization Results ASTM Test MCQ-Composites Verification for UD layup
19
Plain Weave (PW) Material Calibration - Properties
Effective Fiber (Graphite) Fiber Material Properties Symbol Effective Units
Longitudinal Young's Modulus Ef11 218.05 [GPa] Transverse Young's Modulus Ef22 10.83 [GPa] Poisson's Ratio νf12 0.298 [-] Poisson's Ratio νf23 0.48 [-] Shear Modulus Gf12 36.67 [GPa] Shear Modulus Gf23 3.64 [GPa] Longitudinal Tension Strength Sf11T 4880.6 [MPa] Longitudinal Compression Strength Sf11C 2073.7 [MPa]
Effective Epoxy Matrix Material Properties Symbol Effective Units
Young's Modulus Em 3.758 [GPa] Poisson's Ratio νm 0.36 [-] Tension Strength SmT 33.76 [MPa] Compression Strength SmC 113.2 [MPa] Shear Strength SmS 104.76 [MPa]
Woven 0/90 Material Carbon/Epoxy
Property Units Test MCQ % Error E11 [GPa] 53.3 56.01 5.08 E22 [GPa] 53.1 55.7 4.90 E33 [GPa] 9.97 - G12 [GPa] 4.5 4.53 0.67 G13 [GPa] 3.3 - G23 [GPa] 3.39 - v12 [-] 0.055 0.041 -25.45 v13 [-] 0.54 - v23 [-] 0.55 -
S11T [MPa] 598 640.6 7.12 S11C [MPa] 619 587.1 -5.15 S22T [MPa] 764 705.8 -7.62 S22C [MPa] 415 486 17.11 S33T [MPa] - S33C [MPa] -
S12S (5%) [MPa] 110 71.97 -34.57 S13S [MPa] - S23S [MPa] - -
20
Quasi Isotropic Weave Material Calibration - Assumptions
Braid 90
Braid 0
Layup Definition
Post-Damage Degradation Factors (Default)
Damage and Fracture Criteria *strain limit cuttoff for 11T (1.5e-2mm/mm)
Braid Card Definition
Braid 45 and -45
21
LS-DYNA UMAT Verification – UMAT Card Details LS-DYNA UMAT Couples MCQ-Composites/GENOA micro-mechanics formulation
with FE Code
Laminate Definition same way as in LS-DYNA standalone
Fiber and Matrix mechanical properties and strain limits if needed
IPTYPE – Stress Redistribution Formulation control and Material Type (UD or Braid) ElemRm – Element Removal control by integration point failure IFAIL_D – GENOA Damage Criteria IFAIL_F – GENOA Fracture Criteria
Defects and post damage degradation factors
Fiber Waviness
Matrix Stress-Strain curve
22
LS-DYNA UMAT Verification – Plain Weave (0/90) Single Shell Element Verification using LS-DYNA/GENOA UMAT
23
SMC Material Modeling MCQ-Chopped inputs based on vendor’s and ASC’s databank
Calibrated Value for TR50S Properties
Chopped Composite Properties
Calibrated Value for Matrix Properties
MCQ-Chopped specific properties
24
SMC Material Modeling – MCQ Chopped to Composites Equivalent Continuous Fiber/Matrix from Chopped Fiber Data (Orientation and
Thickness) in order to model it in FEM
Step 1Test Validation using ply properties
Software: MCQ-ChoppedInput: Vendor provided fiber/matrix properties, fibergeometry and content, flow/cross-flow stress straincurves
Output: Aligned layer non linear ply properties,orientation angle through thickness andlongitudinal/transverse/shear stress-strain curves forvalidation
Step 2Test Validation using effective fiber/matrix
properties
Software: MCQ-CompositeInput: Aligned layer ply properties from MCQ-Chopped, fiber/matrix modulus, flow stress straincurves
Output: effective fiber/matrix non-linear propertiesand longitudinal/transverse/shear stress-straincurves for validation
MCQ-Chopped MCQ-Composites
Assumption: Same Damage/Fracture Criteria used MCQ-Composites effective properties
MCQ-Composites fictitious layup
25
Validation
26
GM Test - Simulation Results – QI Bolted Simulation shows comparable behavior with test data
Load vs. Time and integral of Load vs. Time Intrusion distance in simulation is 51.3 mm (~55mm in test) Energy absorption has good agreement with test Peak load 120kN simulation (90kN test)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-0.002 0.008 0.018 0.028 0.038
Load
(kN
)
Time (s)
QI - 2 Bolts Load vs. Time
QI 2 Bolts
ASC (LS-Dyna/GENOA)
Deformation Simulation <-> Test
Damage Genoa <-> Test
27
GM - Simulation vs. Test After Impact Through-the-thickness damages (Ply damages)
S11T S11C
S22T S22C
S12S S23S
S13S
0°
0°
0°
0°
0°
0°
90°
90°
90°
90°
90°
Damage Through the thickness at the Hat
S11T S11C
S22T S22C
S12S S23S
S13S
0°
0°
0°
0°
90°
90°
90°
90°
Damage Through the thickness at the Plate
28
Predictions
29
Blind Prediction Results for USAMP VMM Crush Cases Frontal Rigid
Frontal Offset Frontal Angular
Low Speed Quarter Load vs Displacment
Simulatin (Red) Test (Blue)
Simulation Curves have Shift in initial load due to Extraction Time
30
FBCC Crash Case Damage Investigation Results Load – Displacement and Damage Predictions – Full Frontal
All Damages Fiber Damage
Matrix Damage Delamination
Damages in Bumper
Fiber Damage Matrix Damage
Delamination
Damages in SMC
31
Conclusions •De-Homogenized Multi-Scale Modeling Methodology (Analytical)
• Effect of Defects: void shape/size/distribution, fiber waviness, resin rich • Fiber architecture • Failure Mechanisms: Translaminar, Interlaminar
•Conform to FE Standards
• Integrated with ABAQUS (Implicit, Explicit), LS-DYNA •Continuous Fiber
• Architecture Analytically Modeled
•Chopped Fiber • Material characterized Vs. limited Coupon tests • Fiber Content Vs. Fiber Length • Manufacturing Process: Injection Molding, Compression Molding, SMC, Mu Cell
•Service Loading Validation
• Static, Fatigue, Impact, Crush
• Methodology Allows Simulation of Entire Manufacturing Process, • Residual stress, Deformation • Delamination lamination initiation location • Contributing failure type • Location of damage and fracture