Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Finite Element Modelling of Delamination Buckling of

Composite Panel Using ANSYS
S.Rajendran and D.Q.Song
Materials Technology Application Centre
Singapore Productivity and Standards Board
1, Science Park Drive
Singapore 118221

Abstract
Delamination buckling analysis of composite panels is of considerable interest to
aerospace industries. In this paper, finite element modelling of delamination buckling of
composite panels is discussed. ANSYS 5.4 has been used for modelling the delamination
buckling. A 3-D model with 8-node composite shell element is used. The panel is
hypothetically divided into two sub-laminates by a plane containing the delamination.
The two sub-laminates are modelled separately using 8-node composite shell element.
Appropriate constraint conditions are added for the nodes in the undelaminated region
using Coupled Nodes facility of ANSYS. The nodes in the delaminated region, whether in
the top or bottom laminate, are left free. Using this modelling approach, a few typical
test problems have been solved. The computed buckling loads and strain energy release
rate values for the test problems tally closely with that of thoery and other researchers.
In addition to the test problems, some results on delamination buckling of a woven-fabric
carbon-epoxy composite panel are also presented. The two sub-laminate model
discussed here provides a convenient approach to delamination buckling analysis.

1. Introduction
Delamination in composite structures can be a serious threat to the safety of the structure.
Delamination leads to loss of stiffness and strength of laminates under some conditions. This is
particularly so in the case of compressively loaded structures as the loss of stiffness may lead to
buckling, the consequences of which can be catastropic.

Causes of delamination are many. In aerospace applications, this includes manufacturing defects, as
well as operationally induced defects such as bird strikes, hits due to runway debris and tool drops..
The type of delamination that is dealt with in this report is the one that is already initiated by one of the
above causes.

When a laminate is subjected to in-plane compression, the effects of delamination on the stiffness and
strength may be characterised by three sets of analytical results: a) Buckling load b) Postbuckling
solutions under increased load c) Results concerning the onset of delamination growth and its
subsequent development.

Many of the analytical treatments deal with a thin near surface delamination. Such approaches are
known as “thin-film” analysis in the literature. The thin-film analytical approach may involve
significant errors in the post-buckling solutions.

Naganarayana and Atluri (1995) have analysed the buckling behaviour of laminated composite plates
with elliptical delaminations at the centre of the plates using finite element method. They propose a
multi-plate model using 3-noded quasi-conforming shell element, and use J-integral technique for
computing pointwise energy release rate along the delamination crack front.

2. Description of the problem considered for study

A square panel with central circular delamination is considered. The radius of delamination (r) is 40
mm (Fig.1). Various panel sizes in the range 100 x 100 mm to 800 x 800 mm are considered.
Exploiting the symmetry of the panel, a quarter of the panel is modelled for finite element analysis.
Two locations of delamination through the thickness are considered (Fig.2) : (a) Between first and

1
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

second ply (b) At the middle plane of the laminate. Throughout this paper, the material properties and
the layup details for the analysis shown below are used:

Material: VICOTEX Woven fabric carbon-epoxy (Ciba Geigy)

E1=48.285 GPa , E2=44.818 GPa, G12=2.563 GPa, γ12=0.0464
Number of layers: 6
Layup: [06]
Laminate thickness: 1.85 mm

The loading and boundary conditions correspond to uni-axial loading as shown in Fig. 3. The buckling
load of the first mode and strain energy release rate under postbuckled state are the information we
wish to compute using FEM.

Fig.1. Square composite panel with circular delamination

3. Finite element model

The finite element delamination analysis is carried out using ANSYS finite element software (ver.5.4).
As discussed in section 2, there are several ways in which the panel can be modelled for the
delamination analysis. For the present study, a 3-D model with 8-node SHELL 99 composite element
of ANSYS is used. The panel is divided into two sub-laminates (Fig.4) by a hypothetical plane
containing the delamination. For this reason, the present finite element model would be referred to as
two sub-laminate model. The two sub-laminates are modelled separately using 8-node SHELL 99
composite element, and then joined face to face with appropriate interfacial constraint conditions for
the corresponding nodes on the sub-laminates, depending on whether the nodes lie in the delaminated
or undelaminated region. Typically, a node in the undelaminated region of bottom sub-laminate and a
corresponding node on the top sub-laminate are declared to be coupled nodes using
Coupling/Constraint Equation facility of ANSYS. The nodes in the delaminated region, whether in
the top or bottom laminate, are connected by Contact 52 element. This would mean that the two sub-
laminates are free to move away from each other in the delaminated region, and constrained to move as
a single laminate in the undelaminated region.

2
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Fig.2. Delamination locations through the thickness

Fig.3. Boundary conditions and loads

3
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

While building the two sub-laminate model in ANSYS, manual declaration of coupled nodes, pair by
pair, is time consuming and is troublesome, as this involves selecting the nodes using the cursor. The
option of Coincident Nodes under using Coupling/Constraint Equation facility is useful for automatic
generation of coupled nodes data. In order to enable this, the top and bottom sub-laminates of
undelaminated region are first off-set by +δ and −δ, respectively, from the delamination plane. The
value of δ is chosen to be very small real number. Then, the top and bottom sub-laminates of
delaminated region are off-set by +(δ +ε) and −(δ +ε), respectively, where ε is another small real
number. The nodes are then declared coincident using a tolerance value in the range 2δ <Toler<2(δ
+ε). This automatically generates the necessary coupled node constraints to all nodes in the
undelaminated region. For the present work, the values of δ, ε and Toler are taken as 0.000001 m,
0.0000001 m and 0.0000021 m, respectively. The necessary coupled node constraints may also be
generated by other methods. The choice of the above method is only a matter of convenience.
Specifying a tolerance greater than 2(δ +ε) provides coupling for all nodes in delaminated as well as
undelaminated region, and hence represents an undelaminated plate.

Fig.4. Two sub-laminate delamination model

When we use the shell element, it is important to decide where to position the nodes across the
thickness of the element. In the two sub-laminate model described above, it is essential that the nodes
of the individual laminates lie in the plane passing through the delamination. This is necessary for a
smooth transition of bending behaviour of sub-laminates from the undelaminated region to delaminated
region. In ANSYS, this can be achieved using the node shifting option. Using this option, for all the
elements at the top laminate, the nodes are shifted to bottom face of the element, and vice versa.

The finite element model (Fig.5) typically has 2468 SHELL 99 elements and 7618 nodes. The region
close to delamination front has a finer mesh to facilitate computation of strain energy release rate later.

4
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Fig.5. Typical finite element mesh. No. of elements=2468 SHELL 99, No. of nodes=7618

The following are the important assumptions in the present finite element analysis:
a) The material properties are homogeneous.
b) There is no material nonlinearity.
c) The geometry is perfectly square and symmetric.
d) The loading is symmetric, i.e. the loads always act at the mid-plane location, unless otherwise
specified.

4. Validation of finite element model

4.1 Test problem no. 1: Buckling load computation

The aim of this test problem is as follows:

a) To check if the mesh refinement is sufficient for accurate buckling load computation.
b) To check if the coupled nodes facility of ANSYS is useful for the present problem.

Geometry: 0.09 m x 0.09 m square plate of thickness 0.00185 m.

Material: Isotropic with Young’s modulus=2.1x1011 N/m2, Poisson’s ratio=0.3

Finite element mesh: Using symmetry, only one fourth of the plate is modelled. The plate is
considered to be made of two layers of equal thickness and of isotropic material properties listed
above. A two sub-laminate model is considered. The corresponding nodes at the top and bottom
laminates are declared as coupled nodes using the procedure already described in Section 3. The finite
element mesh is created using SHELL 99 element of ANSYS.

Edge D

5
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Boundary condition: y
(1/4 th symmetry model)

Edge A Edge B x

Edge C

Symmetry boundary condition are applied on edges A and C; uz is suppressed on edge B. The edge D is
left free. θx is suppressed for all nodes so as to simulate a beam-like behaviour of the plate. This is
done to facilitate comparison with theretical prediction which employs this assumption.

Load: Compressive load at edge B.

ANSYS Analysis Procedure: Linear buckling analysis is carried out. This is a two run analysis in
ANSYS:
1) A static analysis run with Prestress effects on: For this analysis a unit in-plane compressive load
intensity (1 N/m) is applied on edge B. This run essentially creates the matrices required for the
eigenbuckling analysis run.
2) Eigenbuckling analysis run: This run computes the buckling load multiplier, λ. If unit in-plane
compressive load intensity is applied in the first run, then λ simply represents the buckling load. If
the in-plane compressive load intensity is P (N/m), then the buckling load is given by λP.

Results of Analysis: The buckling load (without delamination) computed using ANSYS is 13330.0 N.
The theoretical buckling load can be computed using the expression (Bruhn, 1973):
σcr=(π2E/12(1-γ2)) (t/b)2 (1)

Where E is the Young’s modulus, γ is the Poisson’s ratio, t is the thickness and b is the side of the
square plate. For this problem, E=2.1x1011 N/m2, γ=0.3, t=0.00185 m and b=0.09 m. This yields a
buckling load of 13352.7 N. The difference between theory and FEM is only 0.2% which is quite good.

4.2 Test problem no. 2: Strain energy release rate computation

ANSYS has built-in facility for strain energy release rate computation for some 2D analysis. However,
such a facility is not available for 3D analysis. Hence, a FORTRAN program has been developed to
postprocess ANSYS results in order to compute strain energy release rate. Modified virtual crack
closure technique (Rybicki and Kanninen, 1977; Davidson and Schapery, 1990) is used for computing
strain energy release rate. For plate/shell elements, Robinson et al. (1994, 1995) have successfully
employed a particular implementation of modified crack closure technique in which the element
resultants are multiplied with the corresponding element displacements. The accuracy of such an
implementation has already been verified earlier (Rajendran et al., 1998) for ANSYS SHELL 99
element and hence is used for the present work. The details of the test problem considered are as
follows:

Geometry: 0.2 m x 0.2 m square plate of thickness 0.0185 m. Radius of delamination is 0.04 m.

Material: Isotropic with Young’s modulus=50 GPa, Poisson’s ratio=0.3

Finite element mesh: Using symmetry, only one fourth of the plate is modelled. Here again, the plate
is considered to be made of two layers. The thickness of the thinner layer is taken as 0.00185 m (and
hence that of the thicker layer is 0.0185-0.00185 m). Both the layers are assumed to be of isotropic
material properties listed above. A two sub-laminate model is considered. The corresponding nodes at
the top and bottom laminates in the undelaminated region of the plate are declared as coupled nodes
using the procedure already described in Section 3. The finite element mesh is created using SHELL
99 element of ANSYS.

Boundary condition:
(1/4 th symmetry model)

6
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Edge D
y

Edge A Edge B x

α
Edge C

Symmetry boundary condition are applied on edges A and C; uz and θx are suppressed on edge B. uz
and θy are suppressed on edge D.

Load: Compressive load at edges B and D.

ANSYS Analysis Procedure: Linear buckling analysis is carried out in the same way as in the
previous test problem.

Results of Analysis: This problem is a typical thin film delamination problem. The thickness of the
film is 0.00185 m which is 0.1 times the thickness of the laminate, 0.0185. Hence, the thicker laminate
may be considered to be infinitely stiff compared to thinner laminate. Under this condition, the
delaminated portion of the thinner laminate may be considered as a clamped circular plate with
uniform radial compressive stress, in which case, the buckling stress is given (Evans and Hutchinson,
1984) by

σc=1.2233[E/(1-γ2)](t2/a)2 (2)

where E is the Young’s modulus, γ is the Poisson’s ratio, t2 is the thickness of the thinner laminate, and
a is the delamination radius.

This, therefore, also represents the buckling stress of local delamination. The buckling stress computed
by this formula is 3993765 N/m2 whereas the finite element analysis gives a value of 3989838 N/m2.
The difference is less than 0.1% which is quite good.

When the postbuckling deformation is axi-symmetric and nearly linear in the neighbourhood of
buckling point, the pointwise energy release rate is given (Evans and Hutchinson, 1984) by

G=(σ2-σc2) (1-γ2) t2/ ((1.8285+γ)E) (3)

where σ is the applied stress at which the energy release rate is required to be computed. Fig. 6 shows
the energy release rate distribution plotted against the angle, α, computed using finite element analysis
for σ = 1.2 σc. The plot shows a constant value of G as expected from Eq.(3). However, the average
value of G computed by FEM is 0.02069 N/m whereas the value given by Eq.(3) is 0.01847 N/m. The
FEM value is about 12% higher. Such a deviation has also been observed by Naganarayana et al.
(1996). The reason for deviation is attributed to the assumption in Eq.(3) that the thicker laminate is
infinitely rigid whereas in finite element modelling it is still flexible, and hence the deviation of 12% is
not of concern. The important point is that the strain energy distribution obtained by finite element
analysis is constant as predicted by Eq.(3). Thus, the model is adequate with respect to prediction of
delamination buckling load and strain energy release rate.

7
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

2.50E-02

2.00E-02

1.50E-02

1.00E-02

5.00E-03

0.00E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Angle (Deg.)

Fig. 6. Distribution of strain energy release rate at the delamination front for the test
problem

5. Delamination buckling analysis of composite panel

In the present study, we are concerned with only the first buckling load and the corresponding buckling
mode. Using ANSYS, buckling analysis can be carried out by two approaches: (a) Eigenvalue (or
linear) buckling analysis (b) Nonlinear (buckling) analysis.

The eigenvalue buckling analysis is simple and faster than the nonlinear analysis. It yields the buckling
load straightway. The nonlinear buckling analysis is essentially a nonlinear static analysis considering
large deflections. However, this analysis does not straightway yield the buckling load. The buckling
load is inferred rather than calculated. The load deflection data from the nonlinear analysis is plotted
and the load at which the deflection rapidly rises is taken as buckling load.

5.1 Linearised (eigenvalue) buckling analysis

For all the panels with mid-plane delamination analysed, the buckling is predominantly global, and the
buckling modeshape is similar to Fig.7. However, in the case of panels with close-to-surface
delamination, the buckling modeshape is predominantly local as seen in Fig.8 for small r/a values.
However, for low values of r/a, the modeshape involves both global and local buckling as seen in
Fig.9.

Fig.7. Typical global buckling mode

8
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

In Fig. 10, the horizontal axis represents the ratio of delamination radius to half the panel side, r/a,
while the vertical axis represents the ratio of buckling load of panel with delamination to the buckling
load of panel without delamination, Pcr/Pocr. Figure 10 shows that as r/a increases, the non-
dimensional buckling load, Pcr/Pocr, decreases for both the cases, t2/t1=1.0 and 0.2. The decrease is
more pronounced for t2/t1=0.2 than for t2/t1=1.0.

Fig.8. Typical local buckling mode

Fig.9. Typical buckling mode which involves both global and local buckling

9
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
P cr /P o cr
0.5 Delamination at t2/t1=1.0
0.4 Delamination at t2/t1=0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/a
Fig.10. Non-dimensional buckling for various delamination size and location

5.2 Nonlinear analysis

5.2.1 Comparison of buckling loads from linear and non-linear buckling analysis

Figures 11 and 12 summarise the results of nonlinear analysis. The solution path has been traced for
three values of eccentricity, viz. one-, two- and three-ply-thickness. For values of eccentricity lower
than one ply eccentricity, the solution had convergence problems particularly near the bent portion of
the curve (Fig.11), and hence these solutions are not available. The trend of the curve suggests that the
nonlinear buckling load is around 4000 N/m which is fairly close to the linear buckling load of 4042.2
N/m. Absolute comparison of nonlinear and linear buckling load in terms of percentage difference is
less meaningful as the nonlinear buckling load, 4000 N/m, is only an estimate. It may be concluded that
the agreement is quite good.

5.2.2 Post buckling solution and strain energy release rate at the delamination front

For the computations reported in this section, the same problem as summarised in Table 1 is
considered. The postbuckling solutions and the strain energy release rates have been computed for
various eccentricity and load factor values. The load factor is defined as the ratio of actual applied
load, P, to the linearised buckling load, Pcr. The results are summarised in Fig.12. The strain energy
release rate (G) shown in this figure is the total strain energy release rate considering all the three
modes. As expected, the strain energy release rate values increase with load factor value. For low load
factor values, i.e. the applied load close to the buckling load, the strain energy release rate is close to
zero, particularly for low eccentricity of loading. It is also seen from Fig.12 that, as the eccentricity of
loading increases, the strain energy release rate values also increase.

10
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Table 1 Summary of Input Data for nonlinear buckling analysis

Lay-up: [O6]
Laminate thickness = 0.00185 m; Ply thickness = 0.00185/6 m = 0.00030833 m
Ratio of thickness of thinner sub-laminate to that of thicker sub-laminate, t2/t1 = 1/2
Material properties: Ex=48.285 GPa , Ey=44.818 GPa, Gxy=2.563 GPa, γxy=0.0464
Panel size: 0.2 m×0.2 m
Radius of delamination=0.04 m

Finite element model: One fourth of the panel is modelled as shown below:
D

A B

C
Boundary Condition: a) Symmetry boundary condition on edges A and C.
b) uz = θx = 0 on Edge B;
Load: Compressive pressure is applied on edge B. The maximum intensity of pressure applied (P) is
1.1 times the buckling pressure calculated by linear buckling analysis (Pcr). For this problem, Pcr=
4042.2 N/m.

3.50E-02
Displacement at panel centre (m)

Thicker sublaminate, half ply eccentricity

3.00E-02 Thinner sublaminate, half ply eccentricity
Thicker sublaminate, one ply eccentricity
2.50E-02
Thinner sublaminate, one ply eccentricity
Thicker sublaminate, three ply eccentricity
2.00E-02
Thinner sublaminate, three ply eccentricity
1.50E-02

1.00E-02

5.00E-03

0.00E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Applied compressive load intensity (N/m)

Fig.11. Nonlinear solution and the effect of eccentricity of loading

11
 Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

500
Half ply eccentricity, load
factor=1.100
450
Half ply eccentricity, load
factor=1.056
400 Half ply eccentricity, load
factor=1.012
Half ply eccentricity, load
350
factor=0.968
One ply eccentricity, load
300 factor=1.100
One ply eccentricity, load
G (N/m)

factor=1.056
250
One ply eccentricity, load
factor=1.012
200 One ply eccentricity, load
factor=0.968
Three ply eccentricity, load
150 factor=1.012
Three ply eccentricity, load
100 factor=1.056
Three ply eccentricity, load
factor=1.012
50
Three ply eccentricity, load
factor=0.968
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle (Deg.)

Fig.12. Strain energy release rate distribution along the crack front

7. Concluding remarks

Buckling analysis of square composite panels with embedded circular delaminations has been carried
out using ANSYS 5.4. The following are some important observations:

1. The two-sublaminate model developed in this work provides a convenient method to model
delaminated composite panels. The accuracy of the model in predicting the buckling loads and
strain energy release rates has been verified using a typical test problem. The agreement of results
with theory is quite good.

2. Whenever the delamination is located at the mid-plane of laminate, the panel exhibits only global
buckling, i.e. there is no local buckling of delaminated region. On the other hand, whenever the
delamination is close to the surface (typically t2/t1=0.2), the buckling mode is predominantly local,
i.e. only the delaminated region buckles for small r/a values (typically, 0.3). For higher r/a values,
both global and local buckling co-exists.

3. The reduction of buckling load is more significant for close-to-surface delamination than for mid-
plane delamination.

4. The eccentricity of loading significantly influences the buckling load as well as the strain energy
release rate distribution at the delamination front. Hence, delamination buckling studies must
consider eccentricity of loading particularly in the case of thin panels such as the ones considered
in this report.

12
Proceedings of 2nd Asian ANSYS User Conference, Nov 11-13, 1998, Singapore

Acknowledgement - The funding by National Science and Technology Board (NSTB) of Singapore
for this project is greatly acknowledged. The authors also would like to thank other members of the
team, A.Lee and C.K.Tan of SPSB for their invaluable help in experiments, and S.P.Phua and H.F.Lee
of ST Aero for their comments and discussions during the project.

References

ANSYS User’s Manual Vol. I (1994), Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc.

Bruhn, E.F. (1973), Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Tri-state offset co. (USA).

Davidson, B.D. and Schapery, R.A. (1990), A technique for predicting mode-I energy release rates
using a first order shear deformable plate theory, Engng. Fracture Mech., 36, 157-165.

Evans, A.G. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1984), On the mechanics of delamination and spalling in
compressed film, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 20, 455-466.
Naganarayana, B.P. and Atluri, S.N. (1995), Strength reduction and delamination growth in thin and
thick composite plates under compressive loading, Computational Mechanics, 16, 170-189.

Rajendran, S. and Song, D.Q. (1998), Finite element delamination buckling analysis of composite
panels, Part 1 - Some modelling considerations, a part of Quarterly Report of ATP R&D Project 9.

Robinson, P. and Song, D.Q. (1994), The development of an improved mode III delamination test for
composites, Composite Science and Technology, 52, 217-233.

Robinson, P., Javidrad, F. and Hutchings, D. (1995), Finite element modelling of delamination growth
in the DCB and edge delaminated DCB specimens. Composite Structures, 32, 275-285.

Rybicki, E.F. and Kannenen, M.F. (1977), A finite element calculation of stress intensity factor by
modified crack closure integral, Engrg. Fracture Mech., 9, 931-938.

13