Benchmarking Mixed Mode Failure in Progressive Damage and Failure Analysis Methods

The verification and validation of progressive-damage-analysis finite element methods are difficult but critical tasks to undertake during their development. Verification exercises assess whether a predictive analysis tool produces results that are consistent with the fundamental concepts and assumptions of the tool under evaluation. Ideally, closed-form analytical solutions can be derived for which method verification results can be compared. Problems selected for computational tool verification are often simple and isolate individual features of the tool. In the case of progressive damage finite element methods, verifications should be performed to evaluate the ability of the model to predict the initiation of damage and its growth through the finite element mesh under a variety of conditions. Mabson et al. proposed a test case of a unidirectional, fiber-reinforced plate with a center crack subjected to tensile loads to evaluate matrix crack propagation predictions. The problem was modeled using the Abaqus Hashin continuum damage mechanics (CDM) model for fiber-reinforced composites. Different combinations of matrix strengths and element sizes were used in the simulations, and the results were compared to a closed-form solution based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). It was determined that the Abaqus CDM model could predict the LEFM solution of Mode I cracks only when the finite element mesh density met specific requirements based on the material properties. This paper presents closed-form LEFM solutions for a center notch mixed mode (CNMM) verification problem. Parametric finite element analyses were developed using progressive damage analysis methods of both the Discrete Damage Mechanics (DDM) and CDM classes. The progressive damage analysis methods applied in the analyses of the CNMM problem include CompDam and the Floating Node Method. Analyses were conducted with various mode mixities and element sizes to verify that the damage models were working as intended and to identify any limits of applicability.