Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 40 references

Validating The Effectiveness of Electrospun Self Healing Diels Alder Interleaves to Mode I fracture resistance by Comparing Simulation Outputs with Experimental Results

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-dimensional finite element model with tuned quintilinear cohesive laws reproduces the measured Mode I fracture response of electrospun Diels–Alder interleaved CFRP, and that the comparison validates the…

desk verdict An honest calibration study overlabeled as validation; the tuned cohesive law parameters cannot support the paper's claims of validated interleave effectiveness. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19230 v1 pith:7DZOY3L7 submitted 2025-05-25 physics.comp-ph physics.data-an

Constantinos Rouvalis , Vassilis Kostopoulos , Spyridon Psarras This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.data-an
keywords self-healingcompositesDiels-AlderreactionelectrospinningModeIdelaminationcohesivezonemodelfiniteelementvalidationgraphenenanoplateletsfiberbridging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a finite element model using quintilinear cohesive zone laws can reproduce the measured Mode I fracture response of carbon fiber laminates modified with electrospun Diels–Alder self-healing interleaves, with and without carbon nanofillers. If true, the simulations validate the effectiveness of these interleaves for delaying delamination and provide a virtual testing tool for aerospace-grade composites. The comparison shows that the model matches initial stiffness, matrix-fracture peak load, and maximum bridging load, while falling short on the propagation branch of the load–displacement curve. The paper's own conclusion is that the chosen cohesive parameters agree with experiments in identifying the GNP-modified interleaf as superior, but that the models cannot yet be considered absolutely realistic.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Quintilinear Cohesive Law (QLCL), formed by superposing four bilinear cohesive laws so that each layer of cohesive elements accounts for a distinct fracture mechanism: brittle matrix fracture (BLCL 1, with fracture toughness $G_1$ equal to the initiation toughness $G_{Ii}$) and three successive fiber-bridging mechanisms (BLCL 2–4, with combined toughness $G_{Ib} = G_2 + G_3 + G_4$). The total fracture toughness is $G_{Ic} = G_1 + G_2 + G_3 + G_4$. The QLCL parameters for each material were selected by trial-and-error to satisfy acceptance criteria on stiffness, peak load, maximum bridging load, and propagation shape. The model uses two-dimensional 4-noded plane-strain elements and 4-noded cohesive elements tied to the sublaminates, with a refined mesh in the crack-propagation region and a mesh-convergence study confirming that the results are mesh-independent.

What would settle it

Run a three-dimensional DCB simulation with the same quintilinear cohesive parameters, allowing plane-stress behavior near free edges and multiple potential crack planes; if the predicted propagation branch matches the experimental curves while the 2D plane-strain model remains below them, then the paper's validation claim is an artifact of the dimensionality assumption rather than evidence about the interleaves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that comparing simulation outputs with experimental results validates the effectiveness of the self-healing interleaves and highlights both strengths and limitations of the adopted numerical framework. A two-dimensional plane-strain model with cohesive elements governed by quintilinear traction–separation laws reproduces the key damage characteristics of double cantilever beam specimens: initial elastic stiffness, peak force at matrix fracture, and maximum load during fiber bridging. The calibrated cohesive zone parameters indicate that BMI & GNP-modified interleaves give the best aggregate fracture response, with the highest matrix fracture toughness and the highest fiber-bridging toughness. However, the propagation parts of the numerical curves lie below most experimental curves, so the authors state that criterion (d) is not satisfied and that the models are not absolutely realistic; they attribute this mainly to the plane-strain idealization and secondarily to the model's inability to represent adjacent off-midplane delamination cracks observed in some specimens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a two-dimensional plane-strain model with a single midplane crack path can represent the DCB specimen response; if the plane-strain single-crack idealization is inadequate, the systematic underestimate of the propagation branch follows and the model cannot validate the interleaves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The simulations reproduce damage initiation and early delamination for all three SHA-modified laminate types, supporting use of the QLCL approach for virtual testing of interleaved composites.
  • The calibrated cohesive parameters rank the BMI & GNP-modified CFRP as having the best combined matrix-fracture and fiber-bridging toughness, which is a direct model-based confirmation of the experimental ranking.
  • A mesh-convergence study shows that both the finite element discretization and the cohesive zone model have converged at the chosen mesh densities, so the reported deviations are not numerical artifacts.
  • Because criterion (d) is not met, the models cannot yet be used to predict the full propagation branch reliably; this limits the current validation claim to damage onset and early growth rather than complete delamination.
  • The framework is positioned as a step toward high-fidelity virtual testing of multifunctional aerospace composites, but only for the pre-healing fracture response, since post-healing behavior showed insufficient recovery and non-typical Mode I fracture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A three-dimensional model that includes plane-stress regions near the free edges and a curved crack front would likely raise the predicted propagation loads and could satisfy criterion (d); testing this would separate a modeling limitation from a failure of the interleaf validation.
  • The inability of the 2D model to represent adjacent off-midplane delamination cracks suggests that the calibrated QLCL parameters may absorb energy from secondary cracking; a multi-crack-path simulation could change the inferred $G_{Ib}$ values.
  • Because the QLCL parameters were obtained by trial-and-error to match the same experimental curves used for comparison, the study is more an inverse identification than a blind validation; applying the same parameters to a different geometry, such as an ENF or MMB specimen, would provide a stronger test.
  • The paper only models the virgin, pre-healing response; if the GNP-modified interleaf's superiority does not persist after thermal healing, the practical 'self-healing effectiveness' claim remains limited to the first fracture event.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional plane-strain finite element models of double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens of CFRP modified with electrospun Diels–Alder self-healing interleaves (BMI, BMI+MWCNT, BMI+GNP). Delamination is modeled with cohesive zone elements using a quintilinear cohesive law (QLCL) realized by superposing four bilinear cohesive layers per interlaminar region. The QLCL parameters are selected by a trial-and-error procedure against experimental force–displacement curves, with acceptance criteria (a)–(d) covering initial stiffness, peak load at matrix fracture, maximum bridging load, and the propagation branch. The paper reports that criteria (a)–(c) are satisfied, criterion (d) fails for the two nanofiller-modified materials, and the fitted parameters are then used to evaluate fracture properties (Kp1, G1, GIb) and to conclude that the BMI+GNP-modified CFRP exhibits superior fracture performance.

Significance. If the central claim of validation were sound, this would be a useful contribution to virtual testing of multifunctional composites: it demonstrates a mesh-converged cohesive-zone methodology that can reproduce the main load–displacement features of SHA-interleaved DCB specimens, and the paper is commendably explicit about the limitations of the approach (plane-strain idealization, single crack path, and the failure of criterion (d)). The mesh-convergence study in Section 2.3 is a genuine strength, as is the candid discussion in Section 3.2 of why the propagation branch deviates. However, the significance is severely limited because the 'validation' is actually a calibration exercise: the parameters are tuned to the same experimental curves used as the evaluation target, and the conclusion about GNP superiority is read back from those tuned parameters. The paper does not provide an independent predictive test, so the central claim in the abstract—that the comparison 'validated the effectiveness' of the interleaves—is not supported by the methodology.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Tables 3–5] The model parameters are not independent of the validation target. Section 2.2 states that 'the trial-and-error method was implemented and several numerical analyses were run to determine suitable parameters for the BLCLs 1, 2, 3 and 4 ... so that the criteria can be met.' Criteria (a)–(c) are thus satisfied by construction, and the agreement in Figures 11–13 for initial stiffness, peak load, and bridging load is a calibration result, not an independent validation. Since the experimental data are from prior work [17] and the same curves define the acceptance criteria, the abstract's claim that 'this comparison validated the effectiveness of the self-healing interleaves' is unsupported.
  2. [§2.2, §4] Criterion (d), which requires the propagation part of the numerical force–displacement curve to have a similar shape to the experimental curves and to range between them, is explicitly not satisfied for the two nanofiller-modified materials. The text concedes: 'the criterion (d) is not satisfied by the present approach.' Because the stated purpose of the model is to reproduce delamination evolution, the failure of the propagation criterion in the load-bearing regime means the model does not validate the Mode-I fracture resistance of the SHA interleaves; the matched criteria (a)–(c) are local features of the fitted curve and cannot compensate for this.
  3. [§3.1, Table 8, §4] The 'evaluated' fracture properties G1, GIb, and Kp1 in Table 8 are read directly from the fitted BLCL parameters in Tables 3–5. The conclusion in Section 4 that 'the chosen CZM parameters were in agreement with the experimental outcomes, regarding the superiority of the fracture properties of the SHA & GNP-modified CFRP' is circular: the parameters were chosen to make the force–displacement curves match, so the comparison outcome is a restatement of the fitting choices rather than an independent inference from experimental measurements.
  4. [§3.2] The deviation in the propagation branch is attributed to the plane-strain single-crack idealization and to the occurrence of adjacent off-midplane delamination cracks in about 2 of 5 specimens for each modified material. These are structural limitations of the model, not minor numerical artifacts: the 2D plane-strain assumption with a single midplane cohesive path cannot represent the 3D crack-front shape (Figure 17) or the multiple delamination events documented in Figure 19. The paper therefore cannot claim that the model 'provided a deeper understanding of failure mechanisms' for the modified laminates without additional 3D modeling or a demonstration that these effects are quantitatively negligible.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.1] The text contains a broken cross-reference: 'as mentioned in paragraph Error! Reference source not found.'
  2. [Figure 13] The caption labels the material as 'BMI & MWCNT-modified CFRP,' but the surrounding text and the sequence of Figures 11–13 indicate that Figure 13 should correspond to 'BMI & GNP-modified CFRP.'
  3. [Table 2] The table does not identify which mechanical properties were taken from the prepreg datasheet [26] and which from the literature [27]; please provide per-property sources.
  4. [Figures 11–13] The legends do not identify individual experimental specimens. Since criteria (a)–(c) are defined against the maximum among specimens, the reader cannot assess the scatter or the representativeness of the 'maximum' curve without specimen-level identification.
  5. [§2.2, §4] The reference CFRP model is described as using a trilinear cohesive law, but its full parameters (other than Kp1 in Table 8) and the calibration criteria are not given; please provide this information for reproducibility.
  6. [§1] The final sentence of the Introduction is a run-on and contains a duplicated clause: '...aerospace-grade composites the numerical models that were developed – based on the Finite Element Method (FEM) with numerical Cohesive Zone Models (CZM) – are presented and their results are evaluated.'
  7. [§2.2] The abbreviation 'BLCL' is used without definition; it appears to mean 'bilinear cohesive law' and should be stated at first use.
  8. [§2.2] The equations are labeled {2.1}, {2.2}, {2.3} using braces, which is inconsistent with the standard numbering style used elsewhere in the manuscript; please make the numbering style uniform.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The 'validation' reduces to a fit: QLCL parameters are tuned by trial-and-error to the experimental curves, then 'evaluated' parameters are read back and used to rank the materials.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (trial-and-error fitting); Section 3.1 (evaluation of fitted parameters); Conclusions]
    "The trial-and-error method was implemented and several numerical analyses were run to determine suitable parameters for the BLCLs 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the three material types which contain SHA, so that the criteria can be met. ... Specifically, the evaluated parameters are the penalty stiffness 𝐾𝑝1 of the BLCL 1, the fracture toughness 𝐺1 of the BLCL 1 and the fracture toughness 𝐺𝐼𝑏. ..."

    The BLCL parameters are explicitly selected by trial-and-error so that the numerical force–displacement curves meet criteria (a), (b), and (c), which are defined as closeness to the same experimental curves used for validation. The 'evaluated' material properties in Section 3.1 (Kp1, G1, GIb) are read directly from those fitted parameters (Table 8), and the conclusion that GNP-modified CFRP is superior is drawn from these same fitted values. Thus the agreement between simulation and experiment is calibration to the target data, not an independent prediction or validation. The authors themselves concede that criterion (d), the propagation part, is not satisfied, further weakening the claim of a validated predictive framework.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the comparison 'validated the effectiveness of the self-healing interleaves' and that the chosen CZM parameters were 'in agreement with the experimental outcomes.' However, the derivation chain shows that the QLCL parameters (four BLCLs per material) were tuned by trial-and-error to satisfy acceptance criteria (a)–(c), which are defined as matching the initial stiffness, matrix-fracture peak, and bridging peak of the same experimental force–displacement curves. The 'evaluated' properties in Section 3.1 (Kp1, G1, GIb) are then read back from these fitted parameters and used to rank the materials, making the conclusion about GNP superiority a property of the fit rather than an independent finding. The paper is transparent about this procedure and also admits that criterion (d) is not satisfied, but transparency does not remove the circularity: the load-bearing 'validation' reduces to demonstrating that a sufficiently flexible quintilinear cohesive law with fitted parameters can reproduce the initial and peak portions of the experimental curves. The mesh-convergence study is independent but does not address the calibration-to-target issue. Therefore, the claimed validation is partially circular, warranting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The numerical validation claim rests on QLCL parameters fitted to the target curves, on the assumption that the BMI interleaves do not alter ply properties, on the plane-strain idealization, and on the choice to match the maximum experimental envelope. The four superposed cohesive layers are a numerical construct, not a physical entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Reference CFRP cohesive parameters = Kp1 = 350 N/mm3; G1 = 0.2 kJ/m2 (Table 8)
    Initial stiffness of the reference trilinear law, calibrated to the experimental load-displacement response.
  • BMI-modified QLCL parameters = BLCL1-4: Kp = 5e3, 4.81e1, 2.43e-1, 2.88e-2 N/mm3; G = 0.16, 0.34, 0.13, 0.12 kJ/m2; sigma_max = 14, 1.1, 0.15, 0.05…
    All four BLCL sets were chosen by trial-and-error to satisfy criteria (a)-(d) against the BMI experimental curves.
  • BMI+MWCNT-modified QLCL parameters = BLCL1-4: Kp = 2.5e3, 1.8e1, 1.5e-1, 2e-2 N/mm3; G = 0.2, 0.32, 0.2, 0.13 kJ/m2; sigma_max = 12, 0.6, 0.16, 0.05 MPa…
    All four BLCL sets were chosen by trial-and-error to satisfy criteria (a)-(d) against the BMI+MWCNT experimental curves.
  • BMI+GNP-modified QLCL parameters = BLCL1-4: Kp = 4.5e3, 2.55e1, 1.31e-1, 2.5e-2 N/mm3; G = 0.22, 0.4, 0.15, 0.12 kJ/m2; sigma_max = 16, 0.7, 0.15, 0.05…
    All four BLCL sets were chosen by trial-and-error to satisfy criteria (a)-(d) against the BMI+GNP experimental curves.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mechanical properties of the UD CFRP plies are unaffected by infiltration of the BMI electrospun interleaves during curing.
    Section 2.1 states that it was assumed the interleave embedment and BMI infiltration did not change the ply properties, based on the similarity of BMI to epoxy.
  • ad hoc to paper A quintilinear cohesive law obtained by superposing four bilinear laws can represent the R-curves of the SHA-modified CFRP.
    Section 2.2 introduces the QLCL as a superposition of four BLCLs and asserts that the representative R-curves can be approached by quintilinear curves.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional plane-strain CPE4 elements are sufficient to model the DCB specimen's Mode I response.
    Section 2 uses CPE4 plane-strain elements; Section 3.2 then attributes the mismatch to the plane-strain idealization.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching the maximum experimental stiffness, peak load and bridging load among specimens is the right validation target for an idealized, defect-free model.
    Section 2.2 sets criteria (a)-(c) against the maximum values exhibited among specimens because the model contains no flaws.
invented entities (1)
  • Four superposed cohesive element layers per interlaminar region
    purpose: Numerically implement the quintilinear traction-separation law as a superposition of four bilinear laws
    Section 2.2 introduces the QLCL by superposing four BLCLs; the individual layers are not physically observable and have no falsifiable handle outside the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validating The Effectiveness of Electrospun Self Healing Diels Alder Interleaves to Mode I fracture resistance by Comparing Simulation Outputs with Experimental Results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DZOY3L7

@misc{pith2026250519230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validating The Effectiveness of Electrospun Self Healing Diels Alder Interleaves to Mode I fracture resistance by Comparing Simulation Outputs with Experimental Results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DZOY3L7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19230}
}
read the original abstract

The predictive capabilities of the finite element approach were assessed by comparing simulation outputs with experimental results, including load-displacement trends, damage initiation points, and delamination evolution. This comparison validated the effectiveness of the self-healing interleaves and highlighted the strengths and limitations of the adopted numerical framework. The simulations not only reproduced key damage characteristics but also provided a deeper understanding of failure mechanisms in the modified laminates. This modeling strategy contributes to the broader goal of developing high-fidelity virtual testing tools for complex, multifunctional composite structures used in aerospace and related industries.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Toughening and Healing of CFRPs by Electrospun Diels–Alder Based Polymers Modified with Carbon Nano-Fillers,

    A. Kotrotsos, C. Rouvalis, A. Geitona, and V. Kostopoulos, "Toughening and Healing of CFRPs by Electrospun Diels–Alder Based Polymers Modified with Carbon Nano-Fillers," Journal of Composites Science, vol. 5, no. 9, p. 242, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Baker, S

    A. Baker, S. Dutton, and D. Kelly, Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures . AIAA Education Series, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Self-healing materials: A review of advances in materials, evaluation, characterization and monitoring techniques,

    D. G. Bekas, K. Tsirka, D. Baltzis, and A. S. Paipetis, "Self-healing materials: A review of advances in materials, evaluation, characterization and monitoring techniques," Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 87, pp. 92-119, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Self -healing polymeric materials: A review of recent developments,

    D. Y. Wu, S. Meure, and D. Solomon, "Self -healing polymeric materials: A review of recent developments," Progress in Polymer Science, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 479-522, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Passive Tuneable Fibers and Matrices,

    C. Dry, "Passive Tuneable Fibers and Matrices," International Journal of Modern Physics B, vol. 6, p. 2763, 1992

    work page 1992

  6. [5]

    Procedures developed for self -repair of polymer matrix composite materials,

    C. Dry, "Procedures developed for self -repair of polymer matrix composite materials," Composite Structures, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 263-269, 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [6]

    Self-repairing, reinforced matrix materials,

    C. Dry, "Self-repairing, reinforced matrix materials," 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Passive smart self -repair in polymer matrix composite materials,

    C. Dry and N. Sottos, "Passive smart self -repair in polymer matrix composite materials," in North American Conference on Smart Structures and Materials, 1993: SPIE

    work page 1993

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Optimisation of Hollow Glass Fibres and their Composites,

    M. Hucker, I. Bond, A. Foreman, and J. Hudd, "Optimisation of Hollow Glass Fibres and their Composites," Advanced Composites Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, 1999

    1999

  2. [9]

    Influence of manufacturing parameters on the tensile strengths of hollow and solid glass fibres,

    M. J. Hucker, I. P. Bond, S. Haq, S. Bleay, and A. Foreman, "Influence of manufacturing parameters on the tensile strengths of hollow and solid glass fibres," Journal of Materials Science, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 309-315, 2002

    2002

  3. [10]

    A self -healing carbon fibre reinforced polymer for aerospace applications,

    G. Williams, R. Trask, and I. Bond, "A self -healing carbon fibre reinforced polymer for aerospace applications," Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1525-1532, 2007

    2007

  4. [11]

    Toughening and healing of continuous fibre reinforced composites with bis - 23 maleimide based pre -pregs.,

    V. Kostopoulos, Kotrotsos, A., Tsantzalis, S., Tsokanas, P., Christopoulos, A. C., Loutas, T. , "Toughening and healing of continuous fibre reinforced composites with bis - 23 maleimide based pre -pregs.," Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 084011, no. 25(8), 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    Low velocity impact response and post impact assessment of CFRPs modified with Diels -Alder healing agent. ,

    V. Kostopoulos, Kotrotsos, A., Geitona, A., & Tsantzalis, S. , "Low velocity impact response and post impact assessment of CFRPs modified with Diels -Alder healing agent. ," Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, no. 140, 106151, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Healing of CFRPs by Diels– Alder polymers: Effects of SHA concentration and curing cycle,

    A. Kotrotsos, Tsokanas, P., Tsantzalis, S., Kostopoulos, V., "Healing of CFRPs by Diels– Alder polymers: Effects of SHA concentration and curing cycle," Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 136(19), 47478, 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    ASTM D7264 / D7264M -07. Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. ASTM International,

    ASTM, "ASTM D7264 / D7264M -07. Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. ASTM International," 2007

    2007

  8. [15]

    Enhanced fracture properties of carbon composites by adding multi-wall carbon nanotubes,

    P. Karapappas, Vavouliotis, A., Tsotra, P., Kostopoulos, V., & Paipetis, A. , "Enhanced fracture properties of carbon composites by adding multi-wall carbon nanotubes," Journal of Composite Materials, vol. 43(9), 977–985, 2009

    2009

  9. [16]

    Effects of graphene characteristics on CFRP interlaminar fracture toughness,

    C. Kostagiannakopoulou, Loutas, T., Sotiriadis, G., & Kostopoulos, V. , "Effects of graphene characteristics on CFRP interlaminar fracture toughness," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 245, 107584, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Numerical Simulation of Delamination Growth in Composite Materials,

    P. P. Camanho, C. G. Davila, and D. R. Ambur, "Numerical Simulation of Delamination Growth in Composite Materials," NASA Technical Report, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    In quest of virtual tests for structural composites,

    B. Cox and Q. Yang, "In quest of virtual tests for structural composites," Science, vol. 314, no. 5802, pp. 1102-1107, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Sridharan, Delamination Behaviour of Composites

    S. Sridharan, Delamination Behaviour of Composites. Woodhead Publishing, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    E. J. Barbero, Finite Element Analysis of Composite Materials Using Abaqus ™. CRC Press, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Comparison of Three Numerical Methods to Predict Delamination of Composites in Mode I Fracture Experiments: VCCT, CZM and XFEM,

    C. Rouvalis, "Comparison of Three Numerical Methods to Predict Delamination of Composites in Mode I Fracture Experiments: VCCT, CZM and XFEM," University of Patras, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Inverse parameter identification of n -segmented multilinear cohesive laws using parametric finite element modeling,

    S. M. Jensen, M. J. Martos, E. Lindgaard, and B. L. V. Bak, "Inverse parameter identification of n -segmented multilinear cohesive laws using parametric finite element modeling," Composite Structures, vol. 225, p. 111074, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    A novel four -linear cohesive law for the delamination simulation in composite DCB laminates,

    S. Yin, Y. Gong, W. Li, L. Zhao, J. Zhang, and N. Hu, "A novel four -linear cohesive law for the delamination simulation in composite DCB laminates," Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 180, p. 107526, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Dassault Systèmes, Abaqus 6.13 Documentation,

    "Dassault Systèmes, Abaqus 6.13 Documentation," ed, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    SIGRAPREG C U150-0/NF-E340/38% datasheet. (2018). SGL Group

    "SIGRAPREG C U150-0/NF-E340/38% datasheet. (2018). SGL Group."

    2018

  19. [27]

    Design and manufacturing of high-performance prostheses with additive manufacturing and fiber-reinforced polymers,

    D. A. Türk, H. Einarsson, C. Lecomte, and M. Meboldt, "Design and manufacturing of high-performance prostheses with additive manufacturing and fiber-reinforced polymers," Production Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 203-213, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    SIGRAPREG C U150-0/NF-E340/38% datasheet (SGL Group). 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    3D Printing of a self -healing, high strength, and reprocessable thermoset,

    T. Yuan, L. Zhang, T. Li, R. Tu, and H. A. Sodano, "3D Printing of a self -healing, high strength, and reprocessable thermoset," Polymer Chemistry, vol. 11, no. 40, pp. 6441-6452, 2020. 24

    2020

  22. [30]

    Bridging tractions in mode I delamination: Measurements and simulations,

    L. Sorensen, J. Botsis, T. Gmür, and L. Humbert, "Bridging tractions in mode I delamination: Measurements and simulations," Composites Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 2350-2358, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Delamination in cross -ply laminates: Identification of traction –separation relations and cohesive zone modeling,

    E. Farmand -Ashtiani, D. Alanis, J. Cugnoni, and J. Botsis, "Delamination in cross -ply laminates: Identification of traction –separation relations and cohesive zone modeling," Composites Science and Technology, vol. 119, pp. 85-92, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Intralaminar fracture of unidirectional carbon/epoxy composite: experimental results and numerical analysis,

    G. Pappas and J. Botsis, "Intralaminar fracture of unidirectional carbon/epoxy composite: experimental results and numerical analysis," International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 85-86, pp. 114-124, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    An efficient method for fiber bridging traction identification based on the R -curve: Formulation and experimental validation,

    G. Frossard, J. Cugnoni, T. Gmür, and J. Botsis, "An efficient method for fiber bridging traction identification based on the R -curve: Formulation and experimental validation," Composite Structures, vol. 175, pp. 135-144, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Dependency of bridging traction of DCB composite specimen on interface fiber angle,

    M. M. Shokrieh, M. Salamat -talab, and M. Heidari -Rarani, "Dependency of bridging traction of DCB composite specimen on interface fiber angle," Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 90, pp. 22-32, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    An energy based formulation of a quasi -static interface damage model with a multilinear cohesive law,

    R. Vodicka and V. Mantic, "An energy based formulation of a quasi -static interface damage model with a multilinear cohesive law," Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1539-1561, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Formulation of a mixed-mode multilinear cohesive zone law in an interface finite element for modelling delamination with R-curve effects,

    S. M. Jensen, M. J. Martos, B. L. V. Bak, and E. Lindgaard, "Formulation of a mixed-mode multilinear cohesive zone law in an interface finite element for modelling delamination with R-curve effects," Composite Structures, vol. 216, pp. 477-486, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models,

    A. Turon, C. G. Dávila, P. P. Camanho, and J. Costa, "An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 1665-1682, 2007/07/01/ 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Cohesive Zone Parameters Selection for Mode -I Prediction of Interfacial Delamination,

    M. Moslemi and M. Khoshravan, "Cohesive Zone Parameters Selection for Mode -I Prediction of Interfacial Delamination," Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 61, no. 9, p. 10, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    4 - Fractography Basics,

    M. D. Hayes, D. B. Edwards, and A. R. Shah, "4 - Fractography Basics," in Fractography in Failure Analysis of Polymers, M. D. Hayes, D. B. Edwards, and A. R. Shah, Eds. Oxford: William Andrew Publishing, 2015, pp. 48-92

    2015

  32. [40]

    The Investigation of the Stress State near the Crack Tip of Central Cracks through Numerical Analysis,

    Š. Hajdu, "The Investigation of the Stress State near the Crack Tip of Central Cracks through Numerical Analysis," Procedia Engineering, vol. 69, pp. 477-485, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.