Paper 77 CEAS2015 v2

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320710415
Multiscale Virtual Testing: The Roadmap to

Efficient Design of Composites for Damage
Resistance and Tolerance
Conference Paper · September 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 24
6 authors, including:
C.s. Lopes Caroline Gonzalez

IMDEA Materials Institute Florida International University
85 PUBLICATIONS 865 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 1,477 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Fernando Naya Jose luis Llorca

Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies University of Valencia
15 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS 214 PUBLICATIONS 4,923 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Concept Design of an Enhanced Radiation Cooling Thermal Protection System View project
Prediction of mechanical properties of unidirectional FRP plies at different environmental conditions by

means of computational micromechanics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by C.s. Lopes on 30 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Multiscale Virtual Testing
The Roadmap to Efficient Design of Composites for Damage Resistance and Tolerance
C. S. Lopes
IMDEA Materials Institute
Researcher
c/ Eric Kandel 2, 28906, Getafe, Madrid, Spain
claudiosaul.lopes@imdea.org
C. González (IMDEA), O. Falcó (IMDEA), F. Naya (IMDEA), J. LLorca (IMDEA)

and B. Tijs (Fokker Aerostructures B.V., The Netherlands),
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes a systematic strategy to determine the mechanical behaviour of composite materials
up to failure using numerical and experimental approaches in parallel. A multiscale virtual design/testing
strategy is presented that takes into account the physical mechanisms of damage at the different length
scales, so the influence of the microstructure and loading conditions can be taken into account rigorously.
The multiscale approach describes systematically the material behaviour at different length scales from ply
to laminate to component level. One additional advantage of this bottom-up multiscale approach is that
changes in the properties of the constituents (fibre, matrices), the fibre architecture or laminate lay-up can
be easily incorporated to provide new predictions of the macroscopic behaviour of the composite under
impact. This approach is suitable for simulations of composite aircraft structures under general loading
conditions, and is expected to have a large impact on the design, testing and certification of aerospace
composite structures for damage resistance and tolerance.
1 GENERAL VIRTUAL TESTING STRATEGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
Laminated Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) are nowadays extensively used in applications where
outstanding mechanical properties are necessary in combination with weight savings. Good examples can
be found in the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350 that are the first airliners with fully composite fuselages,
manufactured with advanced automated technologies, and overall employ more than 50% of composites
by weight. Such materials are inherently brittle and usually exhibit a linear elastic response up to failure
with little or no plasticity. Thus, composite structures are vulnerable to damage and have to satisfy severe
certification procedures regarding damage resistance as well as damage tolerance. When suitably triggered
to fail by delamination and compression crushing, composites may exhibit high energy absorption and are
of interest for lightweight energy absorbing structural elements such as in the automotive industry.
However, the increased replacement of metals, which deform by means of relatively simple isotropic elasto-
plastic mechanisms, by composite materials has presented new challenges to aeronautical engineers. The
reasons for this are firstly related to the highly complex failure mechanisms of composite materials, but
also to the uncertainties introduced in the material properties by the manufacturing process. Due to this
lack of knowledge of the mechanical behaviour of these materials, the traditional way to tackle the problem
is through a combination of extensive and costly experimental campaigns and advanced computational
methods which involve mechanical characterization and ‘virtual testing’ throughout different levels of
details, from small coupons to panels, subcomponents up to the final global structure [1]. Nonlinear
numerical analysis based on the Finite Element (FE) method have been employed with great effect to
CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 1

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). Copyright © 2015 by author(s).
increase confidence in the large-scale and expensive structural tests that are required before certification,
as well as to understand in more detail the likelihood, causes and consequences of structural failure [2].
The advanced computational tools currently used by the industry to predict the performance of aeronautical
structures allow for a wide range of nonlinear FE analysis, which means that simulations can include
nonlinear material responses (plasticity, damage and failure), nonlinear boundary conditions (contact), and
nonlinear geometric effects. The majority of analyses are carried out using the implicit FE method, but
there are some applications where explicit solutions are appropriate such as transient dynamic events
including aircraft crash-landing, ditching, bird strike, ice impact and Foreign Object Damage (FOD) in
general. FE models used for virtual integrity testing of aircraft structures can be extremely complex.
Confidence in the results is supported by following a policy of ‘best practices’. Additionally, it is required
that the analysis methods and processes have been fully validated against experimental data from actual
aircraft structures and materials [3]. In other words, it has to be demonstrated that they provide accurate
predictions of actual behaviour for various levels of structural testing, from component or system level (e.g.
wing or fuselage sections), to detailed coupon level (e.g. material specimens and fasteners), i.e. at all levels
of the testing pyramid (Figure 3). By validating the fundamental modelling and analysis methods, these
‘building blocks’ can be used to construct full models of most types of aircraft structures. This means that
less validation against actual experimental data will be required at complex and large-scale structural level.
The advantage is that the validation of numerical models of materials and structures at detailed structural
levels is more efficient and less costly than validating against more complex structural tests.
2 TRADITIONAL TOP-DOWN MULTISCALE ANALYSIS APPROACH
The process of coupling different FE analyses at different scales is commonly referred to by the term
‘multiscale analyses’. The traditional multiscale approach requires a prediction of the behaviour of a
complete structure (e.g. a wing or a fuselage) through a nonlinear FE model. This is then used to define
the driving boundary conditions for the next models at the more refined modelling scales [2], as shown in
Figure 1. Modelling detail is increased as successive analyses ‘zoom in’ on structural regions, identified as
being potentially strength-critical. The underlying principle is to maintain a consistent interface and link
between the different modelling scales used. In this global-to-local multiscale analysis approach, the high
level analysis results are used to predict zones of interest for more detailed analysis, so that at each
modelling scale the results are screened in order to identify regions for subsequent strength analysis in
more detail at a lower scale.
Figure 1. Traditional top-down multiscale analysis strategy adopted at the aerospace industry [2].

The purpose of the multiscale virtual testing process is to enable reliable strength assessments to be made,
and this requires accurate, reliable and robust material models which, in the case of composite materials,
are still under investigation. The initiation and evolution of damage in laminated composites depends not
only on the behaviour of the individual constituents but also on the interfaces between them. Damage can
occur in the fibres themselves, either in a compressive buckling mode or as a tensile failure. Compressive
or tensile damage can also occur in the matrix surrounding the fibres, leaving the fibres intact and able to
carry tensile load, but likely to buckle under compression. Additional failure mechanisms include the fracture
of the interface between the fibre and the matrix, as well as the delamination of adjacent plies.
Furthermore, it is relevant to consider the uncertainties introduced in composite structures as a result of
manufacturing processes which introduce variability in the composite lay-ups in terms of resin/fibre volume
fractions, ply waviness, resin pockets, porosity, inconsistent adhesive layer thicknesses, etc.
On the one hand, the complexity and uncertainty of these failure mechanisms hampers the accurate
prediction of the failure of composite materials and structures. Due to this lack of knowledge on the
mechanical behaviour of these materials, the traditional way to tackle the problem is through costly material
certification which involves extensive experimental campaigns for material characterization. Material testing
at the ply level involves a tremendous effort to test materials under tension, compression, shear, different
directions, interlaminar toughness, etc, in order to fully certify the different ply properties. Moreover,
additional tests should be performed under environmental conditions, different ageing conditions, fluids,
etc., which significantly delay the experimental campaigns in months and years for a fully material
certification.
On the other hand, the advanced material models proposed today [4, 5] are computationally too expensive
to be used at the higher model scales wherein structural models employ plane stress shell theory. Many of
the failure mechanisms that occur in composites are so localised that it is not possible to capture them at
most model scales in this global-local multiscale approach. Nevertheless, physically-based material models
are necessary for the accurate simulation of complex failure modes at lower scale levels.
To solve this bottleneck in the present virtual testing strategy, a new approach is proposed. In this novel
approach the top-down multiscale strategy is complemented with a bottom-up multiscale analysis which
has been recently validated [1].
3 NOVEL BOTTOM-UP MULTISCALE APPROACH
Advanced FRP structural components are made up of laminates which in turn are obtained by stacking
individual plies with different fibre orientation. This leads to three different entities (ply, laminate and
component) with three different characteristic length scales (fibre diameter, ply and laminate thickness,
respectively) arranged in a hierarchical fashion. Fibre diameters are of the order of 5-10 μm, while ply
thicknesses are in the range 100-300 μm and standard laminates are several mm in thickness and above.
Upon mechanical loading, different deformation and failure mechanisms take place simultaneously at the
three length scales. Within each ply, the main damage mechanisms depend on the load orientation with
respect to the fibres. If the ply is subjected to tensile stresses perpendicular to the fibres, matrix failure
leads to the formation of a crack perpendicular to the tensile axis [6], while if the ply is loaded in
compression perpendicular to the fibres, final failure occurs by formation of a shear band of localized plastic
deformation in the matrix across the ply [7]. Tensile loading parallel to the fibres leads to brittle fracture
controlled by the fibres while compression along the fibres induces failure by fibre kinking [8]. These failure
modes control the mechanical behaviour of unidirectional plies but other energy dissipation mechanisms
develop during deformation of multidirectional laminates made up by stacking unidirectional plies in
different orientations. They include multiple cracking of the plies parallel to the fibres as well as fibre
bridging, followed by fibre fracture and pull-out, which increase dramatically the energy dissipated during

fracture of multidirectional laminates. In addition, interply decohesion often develops from the laminate
edges as a result of the stress concentration caused by the mismatch in the elastic properties of adjacent
plies or from the bifurcation along the interply of intraply cracks. Finally, other mechanisms associated with
the structural deformation of the component (buckling, crushing and large deformations) also contribute
to the total energy absorption of composite structures.
The overall multiscale simulation scheme, depicted in Figure 2, takes advantage of the natural separation
of length scales between different entities (ply, laminate and component) found in composite structures.
This allows to carry out multiscale modelling by computing the properties of one entity (e.g. individual
plies) at the relevant length scale, homogenizing the results into a constitutive model, and passing this
information to the simulations at the next length scale to determine the mechanical behaviour of the larger
entity (e.g. laminate) [9]. Thus, multiscale modelling is carried out through the transfer of information
between the three different length scales rather than by coupling different simulation techniques.
Figure 2. Local-to-global multiscale simulation strategy to carry out virtual mechanical tests of composite materials
that explores the hierarchical structure of composite materials [1,9].
The aim of this strategy is to reduce the number of tests necessary to fully characterize composite materials
by experimental campaigns, and provide extended information about their failure mechanisms and
mechanical properties that could be used to build sound constitutive models adequate for higher scales of
analysis. To this end, the test pyramid is extended at the base by including additional testing at the material
constituent level and micromechanical models are used to obtain ply properties used at different scales of
observation, as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, within the micromechanics framework, experimental
conditions rather difficult to impose experimentally in the mechanical test lab, such as biaxial or triaxial
stress states, are possible to be reproduced. This further enhances the development and tuning of physically
sound failure criteria. The relevant features of this strategy, which has been previously validated [1], are
given bellow.

Figure 3: Proposed test pyramid accompanying the Multiscale Virtual Testing strategy: the base is extended to include
experimental and computational micromechanics.
3.1 Computational Micromechanics

Computational micromechanics, the first step in this multiscale modelling approach, is used to predict the
ply properties from the thermo-mechanical properties of the constituents (fibre, matrix and interfaces),
together with the volume fraction and spatial distribution of the fibres within an individual ply. Fibre
properties (stiffness, strength, coefficients of thermal expansion) are normally provided by the fibre
manufacturer. Matrix and interface properties depend, however, on the consolidation process (time,
pressure and temperature, effect of fibre dispersion) and have to be characterized in situ by means of
nanomechanics. It was recently shown that the most relevant matrix mechanical properties (elastic
modulus, flow stress and pressure sensitivity of the flow stress) can be obtained by means of
nanoindentation tests in matrix pockets within the plies [10] (Figure 4). Similarly, push-in tests on individual
fibers carried out with a nanoindentor can be used to measure in situ the matrix/fibre interface properties
[11,12] (Figure 5).

Figure 4: (a) Optical microscopy image of a ply within a cross-ply laminate showing resin pockets inside fibre tows.
(b) Atomic force microscopy image of a matrix of nano-indentations placed in one of the resin pockets and (c) load-
displacement curves corresponding to two of these nano-indentations showing the constraint effect when the
indentation is very close to one of the fibres.
Figure 5: (a) Schematic of the push-in test. (b) Load-displacement curve resulting from a push-in test. The inserts
show the progressive fibre/matrix debonding during the test. (c) Shear stress-displacement curve during the push-
out test showing the different stages: plate bending, elastic fibre deformation and fibre push-out. The inserts show
the front and the back sides of the plate after the test.

The mechanical response of the ply is obtained by means of the FE analysis of a Representative Volume
Element (RVE) of the ply microstructure. It was demonstrated [13] that a periodic RVE containing a random
dispersion of a few dozens of fibres is enough to reproduce accurately the ply behaviour under general
loading conditions in the standard case unidirectional reinforcement. The main deformation and damage
mechanism experimentally observed in the constituents are introduced in the simulations with interface
elements (to model interface decohesion) or the appropriate constitutive models to take into account the
plastic deformation and fracture of matrix and fibres. This strategy has been successfully used to predict
the failure locus of unidirectional plies subjected to various in-plane and out-of-plane loading conditions,
as shown in Figure 6 [14-20].
(a)
(b)
Figure 6: Micromechanical simulation of AS4/8552 ply behaviour. a) Transverse tensile and transverse compressive
behaviour. b) Predicted failure envelope for an AS4/8552 ply subjected to combined transversal tension/compression
and in-plane shear loads. The numerical results are compared with the Puck failure criteria [25].
3.2 Computational Mesomechanics

Computational mesomechanics, the second step in the multiscale modelling strategy (Figure 2), also uses
the finite element method to determine the mechanical response of laminates. The virtual laminate is built
by stacking plies with different fibre orientation, and the geometrical model explicitly includes each ply as
well as the interfaces between plies (Figure 7). Meshing of the laminate is carried out with solid elements
for the plies while cohesive interface elements (or cohesive surfaces) are used to take into account the ply

interfaces. In this way, intraply and interply damage can be introduced separately together with the
complex interaction between them.
Figure 7. Schematic of computational mesomechanics approach to simulate the behaviour of composite laminates.
Damage by interply decohesion in these models is included by means of a cohesive crack model coupled
with interface elements (or surface contacts) between the ply surfaces [21] following a similar approach to
that used to simulate decohesion at the fibre-matrix interface in computational micromechanics [22, 15-
20, 23] (Figure 8). The interply properties (normal and shear interply strength as well as mode I and mode
II fracture toughness) can be obtained from standard mechanical tests [24].
(a)
Figure 8: (a) Interface element notation. (b) Constitutive equation for the cohesive crack under mixed-mode loading.
Intraply damage is more difficult to simulate as the plies are modelled as transversally isotropic,
homogeneous solids but different physical damage modes develop as a function of loading orientation and
sign. The elastic ply properties are easily obtained from the fibre and matrix elastic constants and volume
fraction from standard homogenization models. The onset of damage is predicted by the failure surface,
which can be obtained from numerical simulations based on computational micromechanics [22, 15-20,
23], as described in the above, or from experimentally-validated phenomenological models [25-28]. In this
way, the combination of stresses which leads to the initiation of damage and the particular damage mode
activated (matrix cracking, fibre kinking, etc.) is known. Nevertheless, laminate failure is not always
associated with the initiation of damage and the accurate prediction of the maximum load-bearing capacity
requires computing the evolution of damage, including the interaction among the different physical failure
modes. This is a very complex problem and successful, accurate results were obtained through the
application of different approaches, either modelling discrete cracks by means of X-FEM techniques [29] or
simulating smeared damage by means of Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM). In both cases, the onset
of damage is dictated by the failure surface while the fracture energy associated to the crack propagation
can be obtained by means of computational micromechanics [6] or from mechanical tests [30, 31].
Within the CDM framework, damage is assumed to develop by the formation of homogeneous distributions
of microcracks and is characterized by damage variables d i which stand for the areal density of microcracks
for each damage mode. The constitutive behaviour of orthotropic materials is schematically represented in
Figure 9 (in simplified form) and can be expressed mathematically as
 1  21  31 
 1  d     E   0 0 0 
E2 E3
 1 1  1

  12 1  32 
   0 0 0 
 1   E1 1  d 2   2   E2 E3  1 
     23  
  2 
1
 2   13  0 0 0
 3   E1 E2 1  d3   3   E3   3 
   

  
23 1   23 
0 0 0 0 0
 31   1  d 4   23   G23
  31 
    
 12   1   12 
 0 0 0 0 0 
1  d5   13   G31
 
 1 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 1  d 6   12   G12 
wherein Ei and Gij are the elastic moduli of the undamaged material. For each loading direction, the
response of the material is initially elastic up to a strain  0  d  0  at which damage starts to grow until
complete fracture occurs at  f  d  1 . The damage variables control the evolution of damage and may
depend on any internal variable (such as stress, strain, elastic energy, etc.). The area under the stress-
strain curve is the energy spent during failure per unit of volume. This framework has been developed by
different authors to model the mechanical performance of an orthotropic ply taking into account the
different intraply failure mechanisms [32-34]. Continuum damage models have been implemented in either
implicit or explicit finite element codes and, in combination with interface cohesive laws to simulate interply
decohesion, they have been used to simulate the mechanical behaviour of laminates under impact [35-38],
among other cases.
Figure 9. Stress-strain curve and damage evolution law for each damage mode according to CDM.
As an example of the application of the computational mesomechanics approach, the simulation of the
standard ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) ´in-plane shear test´ [39] on an AS4/8552
coupon of [±45]2s configuration has been performed. The results regarding matrix cracking and
delamination, as compared with observations performed by X-Ray computed micro-tomography, are show
in Figure 10. Matrix cracks are simulated in a physically-sound way, parallel to the fibre directions in each

ply. They trigger delaminations that, by their side, interact with delaminations originated at the specimen
free-edges. Final failure is eventually caused by the interaction of these two damage modes throughout
the width of the specimen.
(a) (b)
Figure 10. In-plane shear test on an AS4/8552 coupon of [±45]2s configuration. a) X-Ray micro-tomography
observations of matrix cracking and delamination. b) Simulated matrix cracking and interply delamination (in blue).
Experimentally-obtained and numerically-predicted results of the standard ASTM open-hole compression

test [40] on quasi-isotropic AS4/8552 coupons are represented in Figure 11. The progressive failure
mechanisms (combination of matrix shear cracking, fibre kinking and interply delamination) are accurately
captured by the simulations.
Figure 11. Simulated (left) and experimented (right) damage on open-hole compression test coupons (AS4/8552
material system with staking sequence [+45/0-45/90]2s).
The predicted behaviour of AS4/8552 samples under Drop-Weight Impact is represented in Figure 12 [38].
The FE models simulate the geometry and boundary conditions indicated by the standard ASTM drop-
weight impact test [41] and represented in Figure 12a). Figure 12b) depicts the simulated specimen
deformations at maximum impactor penetration for four impact energy levels. It is seen that the damage
heavily increases from an impact at 19.7J to one at 50.8J. At 19.7J only blackface fibre splitting in the
centre of the specimen is visible. At 29.7J and 39.4J the fibre splits are extended towards the edges of the
specimens and some splits entirely separate from them. At these energies damage to the inner plies become
visible, both in the form of matrix cracks and fibre breakage. At 50.8J the impactor perforates the specimen.

(a)
(b)
Figure 12. Virtual testing of Drop-Weight Impact. (a) Standard test setup defined by the ASTM test standard. (b) Fibre
and matrix damage resulting from impacts at several energy levels on [-45/0/45/90]4s AS4/8552 samples.

3.3 Computational Structural Mechanics
Computational mesomechanics simulations are limited to composite coupons or small panels but they
cannot be extended to structural components due to the associated computational cost. Thus,
computational structural mechanics simulation of the composite structures is the last step in the multiscale
simulation strategy (Figure 2) and the one that still needs the development of a robust methodology to
bridge the length scales.
In this approach, the laminate is modelled by means of shell elements which contain as many integration
points through the thickness as the number of plies in the laminate in each region of the component but
different plies are not modelled independently (Figure 13). Thus the analyses are limited to bidimensional
stress states but are very efficient from the numerical viewpoint and can capture the structural failure
modes of large structures (buckling, large deformations). However, it is necessary to include accurate
models for the onset and evolution of damage at the laminate level in order to ensure the fidelity of the
numerical simulations. This is ensured by treating the laminate as a homogeneous material whose
mechanical behaviour until fracture is dictated by CDM simplified for in-plane stress states. The stiffness
constants of the laminate are easily obtained using laminate theory while the onset of damage is provided
by a failure locus in the stress space. The failure locus as well as the evolution of damage during
deformation can be obtained by computational mesomechanics simulations of the laminate under uniaxial
and multiaxial stress states under different loading conditions (tension and compression in perpendicular
directions, shear as well as multiaxial loading). This information is used as input for the damage evolution
laws of the CDM which dictate the evolution of damage in the laminate.
Figure 13. Schematic of computational mechanics approach for composite structures.
An example of the computational mechanics approach, Figure 14 shows the simulation of a bird strike at
170 m/s on the leading edge of a horizontal tail plane [42]. The simplified bird model was discretized using
an Eulerian mesh with solid elements. The leading edge and the reinforcing ribs were discretized using a
Lagragian mesh with shell elements with one integration point per ply. The possibility of decohesion
between the ribs and the leading edge was taken into account. The contour plot of damage by fibre fracture
in the leading edge and in the ribs is shown in Figure 14 at the instant of maximum deformation. The
simulations are in good agreement with the experimental results and the information provided in terms of
damage accumulation was very useful to assess the localization of damage during impact and design the
laminate lay-up as well as the geometry in order to optimize the structural behaviour.

(b)
d1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 14. Simulation of 170 m/s bird impact on a rib-stiffened composite leading edge. Contour plot of damage by
fiber fracture is represented.
Computational mechanics is also the right framework to be used in the design of novel composite structures
for buckling, damage and failure. Figure 15 shows the predictions of pre- and post-buckling progressive
failure analyses of variable-stiffness panels that are produced by tow-steering with automated fibre
placement systems [43]. The simulations can accurately predict buckling, mode change, damage
accumulation and final failure of the 508mm by 381mm panel specimens manufactured with the AS4/9773
composite system, and confirm the superior structural performance of variable-stiffness panels.
Figure 15. Computational mechanics simulation of post-buckling failure of 508mm by 381mm variable-stiffness
panels manufactured according to two techniques: tow-dropping and tow-overlapping.
4 OUTLOOK ON THE DESIGN AND CERTIFICATION OF FUTURE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
The outlined multiscale modelling strategy is promoting a substantial improvement on the understanding
of the mechanical behaviour of composites. This new set of tools is expected to have a large impact on the
efficient design, testing and certification of composite structures in aerospace because it will open the door
to the industrial implementation of virtual design and virtual testing strategies. The multiscale approach
will allow the introduction of the knowledge of materials at the constituent level (fibre, resin, interface,
fibre architecture) in the design process of new composite components. The influence of the properties of
the constituents, which are function of cure cycle and material conditioning, on the mechanical performance
distribution of composite materials can be easily and rapidly assessed. This will lead to more efficient and
rapidly obtained designs, reduce uncertainty, accelerate materials development, transform the engineering
design optimization process and unify design and manufacturing. In addition, high-fidelity simulations will

reduce the number of costly and time-consuming experimental testing and, eventually, virtual mechanical
testing by means of this approach is expected to play a very important role on the certification process of
aircraft structures. Thus, the industrial implementation of the multiscale virtual analysis approach will
represent a breakthrough in structural design with composite materials for the aerospace industry.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research leading to these results has received funding from the VIRTEST project, a collaboration
between IMDEA Materials and Fokker Aerostructures B.V., and from the European Union’s 7th Framework
Programme for the Cleansky Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement n. 632438 (GRA-01-053) -
CRASHING project.
6 REFERENCES
[1] J. LLorca, C. González, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía,J. Segurado, R. Seltzer, F. Sket , M. Rodríguez, S.

Sádaba, R. Muñoz, L. P. Canal, Advanced Materials 23, 5130-5147, 2011.
[2] M. G. Ostergaard, A. R. Ibbotson, O. Le Roux, A. M. Prior, Aeronautical Journal 1, 83–103, 2011.
[3] European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 Amendment
5, 5 Sept. 2008.
[4] A. S. Kaddour, M.J. Hinton (Guest Editors), Journal of Composite Materials 46, 19-20, 2012.
[5] A. S. Kaddour, M.J. Hinton (Guest Editors), Journal of Composite Materials, 47, 6-7, 2013.
[6] L. P. Canal, C. González, J. Segurado, J. LLorca, Composites Science and Technology 72, 1223, 2012.
[7] C. González, J. LLorca, Composites Science and Technology 67, 2795, 2007.
[8] B. Budiansky, N. A. Fleck, Applied Mechanics Reviews 47, S246, 1994.
[9] J. LLorca, C. González, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, C. S. Lopes, JOM - The Journal of The Minerals, Metals
& Materials Society (TMS) 65, No. 2, 2013.
[10] M. Rodríguez, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, C. González, J. LLorca. Acta Materialia 60, 3953, 2012.
[11] J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, M. Rodríguez, C. González, J. LLorca. Philosophical Magazine 91, 1293, 2011.
[12] M. Rodriguez, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, C. González, J. LLorca. Composites Science and Technology
72, 1924, 2012.
[13] B. Cox, Q. Yang, Science 314, 1102, 2006.
[14] T. J. Vogler, S.-Y. Hsu, S. Kyriakides, International Journal of Solids and Structures 37, 1765, 2000.
[15] E. Totry, C. González, J. LLorca, Composites Science and Technology 68, 3128, 2008.
[16] E. Totry, C. González, J. LLorca, Composites Science and Technology 68, 829, 2008.
[17] L. P. Canal, J. Segurado, J. LLorca. International Journal of Solids and Structures 46, 2265, 2009.
[18] E. Totry, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía, C. González, J. LLorca, Composites Science and Technology 70, 970,
2010.
[19] E. Totry, C. González, J. LLorca, J. Molina-Aldareguía. International Journal of Fracture 158, 197, 2009.
[20] T. J. Vaughan, C.T. McCarthy, Composites Science and Technology 71, 388, 2011.
[21] P. P. Camanho, C. G. Dávila, Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination
in composite materials, NASA/TM-2002-211737 (2002)
[22] J. Segurado, J. LLorca, International Journal of Solids and Structures 41, 2977, 2004.
[23] M. Romanowicz, Computational Materials Science 51, 7, 2012.
[24] ASTM, Test Method D6671-01, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
2002.
[25] A. Puck, H. Schürmann, Composites Science and Technology 62, 1633, 2002.
[26] C. G. Dávila, P. P. Camanho, C. A. Rose, Journal of Composite Materials 39, 323, 2005.
[27] S. T. Pinho, L. Iannucci, P. Robinson, Composites Part A 37, 63, 2006.

[28] A. S. Kaddour, M. J. Hinton, P. D. Soden, Composites Science and Technology 64, 449, 2004.
[29] S. Sádaba, I. Romero, C. González, J. Llorca, International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering
101, 7, 540–570, 2015
[30] P. P. Camanho, P. Maimí, C. G. Dávila, Composites Science and Technology 67, 2715, 2007.
[31] S. T. Pinho, P. Robinson, L. Iannucci, Composites Science and Technology 66, 2069, 2006.
[32] P. Ladevèze, G. Lubineau, Composites Science and Technology 61, 2149, 2001.
[33] P. Maimí, P. P. Camanho, J. A. Mayugo, C. G. Dávila, Mechanics of Materials 39, 897, 2007.
[34] P. Maimí, P. P. Camanho, J. A. Mayugo, C. G. Dávila, Mechanics of Materials 39, 909, 2007.
[35] E. Arévalo, C. González, F. Gálvez, J. LLorca, in 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, (Eds: F.
Gálvez and V. Sánchez-Gálvez), Tarragona, Spain, 1123-1132 (2007).
[36] C. S. Lopes, P. P. Camanho, Z. Gürdal, P. Maimí, E. V. González, Composites Science and Technology
69, 937, 2009.
[37] E. V. González, P. Maimí, P. P. Camanho, C. S. Lopes, N. Blanco, Composites Science and Technology
71, 805, 2011.
[38] C.S. Lopes, S. Sádaba, C. González, J. LLorca and P. P. Camanho, International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 2015.
[39] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013. ASTM
D3518/3518M-13.
D6742/D6742M - 12
D7136/7136M-05.
[42] C. González, J. Segurado, J. LLorca. Technical Report SimBaita2-01, Polytechnic University of Madrid,
Spain, 2006.
[43] C. S. Lopes, P. P. Camanho, Z. Gürdal, B. F. Tatting, International Journal of Solids and Structures 44,
8493, 2007.

View publication stats

Paper 77 CEAS2015 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 77 CEAS2015 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Multiscale Virtual Testing: The Roadmap to

Conference Paper · September 2015

C.s. Lopes Caroline Gonzalez

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fernando Naya Jose luis Llorca

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Prediction of mechanical properties of unidirectional FRP plies at different environmental conditions by

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

C. González (IMDEA), O. Falcó (IMDEA), F. Naya (IMDEA), J. LLorca (IMDEA)

1 GENERAL VIRTUAL TESTING STRATEGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 1

2 TRADITIONAL TOP-DOWN MULTISCALE ANALYSIS APPROACH

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 2

3 NOVEL BOTTOM-UP MULTISCALE APPROACH

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 3

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 4

3.1 Computational Micromechanics

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 5

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 6

3.2 Computational Mesomechanics

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 7

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 9

Experimentally-obtained and numerically-predicted results of the standard ASTM open-hole compression

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 10

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 11

Figure 13. Schematic of computational mechanics approach for composite structures.

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 12

4 OUTLOOK ON THE DESIGN AND CERTIFICATION OF FUTURE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 13

[1] J. LLorca, C. González, J. M. Molina-Aldareguía,J. Segurado, R. Seltzer, F. Sket , M. Rodríguez, S.

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 14

CEAS 2015 paper no. 77 Page | 15

View publication stats

You might also like