Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates

This paper provides overall comparisons of the static results of an Air Force Research Laboratory exploration into the state of the art of existing technology in composite progressive damage analysis. In this study, blind and re-calibration bench-marking exercises were performed using nine different...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of composite materials 2017-05, Vol.51 (10), p.1493-1524
Hauptverfasser: Engelstad, Stephen P, Clay, Stephen B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1524
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1493
container_title Journal of composite materials
container_volume 51
creator Engelstad, Stephen P
Clay, Stephen B
description This paper provides overall comparisons of the static results of an Air Force Research Laboratory exploration into the state of the art of existing technology in composite progressive damage analysis. In this study, blind and re-calibration bench-marking exercises were performed using nine different composite progressive damage analysis codes on unnotched and notched (open-hole) composite coupons under both static and fatigue loading. This paper summarizes the results of the static portion of this program. Comparisons are made herein of specimen stiffness and strength predictions against each other and the test data. Overall percent error data is presented, as well as a list of observations and lessons learned during this year-long effort.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0021998316675945
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0021998316675945</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0021998316675945</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_0021998316675945</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-609d6b4859c5ed152a280f970cbee918bbb779846bd7d91b9ff08220cdeff4b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLxDAUhYMoOI7uXeYPRG_SR5KlFF8w4EbBlSXPaYe2GZKo-O9tGRciuLoczv0u9xyELilcUcr5NQCjUoqC1jWvZFkdoRWtCiBcFq_HaLXYZPFP0VlKOwDgtKxX6K0J417FPoUJB4_NrELqs8NWjWrr8DaGz9zhHMKQsA8Rp6xyb7B2nfroZz1DU8imc_YXPKixn1R26RydeDUkd_Ez1-jl7va5eSCbp_vH5mZDDBM0kxqkrXUpKmkqZ2nFFBPgJQejnZNUaK05l6KsteVWUi29B8EYGOu8LzUr1ggOd00MKUXn233sRxW_Wgrt0k_7t58ZIQckzTnbXXiP0_zh__vffh5nYg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Engelstad, Stephen P ; Clay, Stephen B</creator><creatorcontrib>Engelstad, Stephen P ; Clay, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><description>This paper provides overall comparisons of the static results of an Air Force Research Laboratory exploration into the state of the art of existing technology in composite progressive damage analysis. In this study, blind and re-calibration bench-marking exercises were performed using nine different composite progressive damage analysis codes on unnotched and notched (open-hole) composite coupons under both static and fatigue loading. This paper summarizes the results of the static portion of this program. Comparisons are made herein of specimen stiffness and strength predictions against each other and the test data. Overall percent error data is presented, as well as a list of observations and lessons learned during this year-long effort.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-793X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0021998316675945</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Journal of composite materials, 2017-05, Vol.51 (10), p.1493-1524</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-609d6b4859c5ed152a280f970cbee918bbb779846bd7d91b9ff08220cdeff4b23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-609d6b4859c5ed152a280f970cbee918bbb779846bd7d91b9ff08220cdeff4b23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021998316675945$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021998316675945$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21817,27922,27923,43619,43620</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Engelstad, Stephen P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clay, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates</title><title>Journal of composite materials</title><description>This paper provides overall comparisons of the static results of an Air Force Research Laboratory exploration into the state of the art of existing technology in composite progressive damage analysis. In this study, blind and re-calibration bench-marking exercises were performed using nine different composite progressive damage analysis codes on unnotched and notched (open-hole) composite coupons under both static and fatigue loading. This paper summarizes the results of the static portion of this program. Comparisons are made herein of specimen stiffness and strength predictions against each other and the test data. Overall percent error data is presented, as well as a list of observations and lessons learned during this year-long effort.</description><issn>0021-9983</issn><issn>1530-793X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtLxDAUhYMoOI7uXeYPRG_SR5KlFF8w4EbBlSXPaYe2GZKo-O9tGRciuLoczv0u9xyELilcUcr5NQCjUoqC1jWvZFkdoRWtCiBcFq_HaLXYZPFP0VlKOwDgtKxX6K0J417FPoUJB4_NrELqs8NWjWrr8DaGz9zhHMKQsA8Rp6xyb7B2nfroZz1DU8imc_YXPKixn1R26RydeDUkd_Ez1-jl7va5eSCbp_vH5mZDDBM0kxqkrXUpKmkqZ2nFFBPgJQejnZNUaK05l6KsteVWUi29B8EYGOu8LzUr1ggOd00MKUXn233sRxW_Wgrt0k_7t58ZIQckzTnbXXiP0_zh__vffh5nYg</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>Engelstad, Stephen P</creator><creator>Clay, Stephen B</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates</title><author>Engelstad, Stephen P ; Clay, Stephen B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-609d6b4859c5ed152a280f970cbee918bbb779846bd7d91b9ff08220cdeff4b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Engelstad, Stephen P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clay, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of composite materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Engelstad, Stephen P</au><au>Clay, Stephen B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates</atitle><jtitle>Journal of composite materials</jtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1493</spage><epage>1524</epage><pages>1493-1524</pages><issn>0021-9983</issn><eissn>1530-793X</eissn><abstract>This paper provides overall comparisons of the static results of an Air Force Research Laboratory exploration into the state of the art of existing technology in composite progressive damage analysis. In this study, blind and re-calibration bench-marking exercises were performed using nine different composite progressive damage analysis codes on unnotched and notched (open-hole) composite coupons under both static and fatigue loading. This paper summarizes the results of the static portion of this program. Comparisons are made herein of specimen stiffness and strength predictions against each other and the test data. Overall percent error data is presented, as well as a list of observations and lessons learned during this year-long effort.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0021998316675945</doi><tpages>32</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9983
ispartof Journal of composite materials, 2017-05, Vol.51 (10), p.1493-1524
issn 0021-9983
1530-793X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_0021998316675945
source SAGE Complete A-Z List
title Comparison of composite damage growth tools for static behavior of notched composite laminates
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T10%3A47%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20composite%20damage%20growth%20tools%20for%20static%20behavior%20of%20notched%20composite%20laminates&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20composite%20materials&rft.au=Engelstad,%20Stephen%20P&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1493&rft.epage=1524&rft.pages=1493-1524&rft.issn=0021-9983&rft.eissn=1530-793X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0021998316675945&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_0021998316675945%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0021998316675945&rfr_iscdi=true