Enhanced LaRC05 failure criteria for investigating low-velocity impact on fiber-reinforced composites: An experimental and computational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The proposed FE modeling methodology can accurately predict the impact response of composite laminates. • Fiber breakage, pull-out, splitting, kinking, crushing, and matrix cracking are predicted using the enhanced LaRC05 criteria. • Delamination and intralaminar matrix cracking interactions are modeled. • The matrix fracture plane and the fiber kink band angle can be found 48 % faster using the SRGSS algorithm. • The detailed sequence of impact damage occurrence is predicted by analyzing the histories of dissipated energies. A finite element model was developed using both continuum and discrete damage modeling techniques to provide detailed predictions for ply-by-ply damage progression in composite laminates during low-velocity impact (LVI) events. A new fiber failure model was incorporated into the LaRC05 failure criteria to predict fiber pull-out and fiber crushing during the fiber damage evolution. In addition, the selective range golden section search (SRGSS) algorithm was implemented to efficiently predict fiber breakage, pull-out, splitting, kinking and crushing, and matrix cracking. The delamination was captured by cohesive element layers embedded between every adjacent composite ply. The interactions of intralaminar matrix cracking and delamination were modeled by deploying cohesive elements within each composite ply. The prediction results were validated by 30 J and 75 J drop-weight tests with different-sized impactors, as well as X-Ray CT inspections on 254 mm by 304.8 mm [0/45/90/-45] 4 s IM7/977–3 laminates. The model predicted the maximum deflection and contact duration with <2 % error, and the peak load, damaged areas, and absorbed energy with <8 % error. The matrix fracture plane and the fiber kink band angle were found with 1° precision 48 % faster via the SRGSS algorithm. The detailed sequences of damage occurrence were predicted by analyzing the energy dissipation histories through various damage modes. Although this modeling methodology was developed for LVI scenarios, it has broad applications for predicting failures in composites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".