Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
M AT E R I A L S

Article

Three-dimensional numerical modelling


of drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced
plastic composites

Journal of Composite Materials


2014, Vol. 48(10) 12091219
! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021998313484947
jcm.sagepub.com

Ozden Isbilir1 and Elaheh Ghassemieh2

Abstract
Drilling is a key factor in the manufacturing of holes required for the assemblies of composite laminates in aerospace
industry. The quality of holes can be controlled by the choice of tool geometry and process parameters. Simulation of
drilling process is an effective method in optimizing the drill geometry and process parameters in order to improve hole
quality and reduce the drill wear. In this research, we have developed three-dimensional finite element model for drilling
carbon fiber-reinforced. A three-dimensional progressive intra-laminar failure model based on the Hashins theory is
considered. Also, an inter-laminar delamination model which includes the onset and growth of delamination by using
cohesive contact zone was developed. It is shown that the induced thrust force, torque, damaged area and delamination
are predicted very well with the given drill geometry and process parameters. The delamination area resulted from
drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer was predicted successfully using the developed model. The current finite
element model using three-dimensional elements and improved damage models showed much better capability in
simulation of the drilling process of CFC compared to the previous model using shell elements.

Keywords
Drilling, carbon fiber-reinforced composites, delamination, finite element analysis

Introduction
The potential of composite materials was rst realized
by aerospace and defense industries. During the past
decades, demand for the composite materials has
increased in a variety of industries including aerospace,
automotive, marine, civil, chemical and biological
equipments and sports. Owing to the versatile features
and sophisticated characteristics of constituents, composites contribute to superior nal properties in dierent
applications. Particularly, ber-reinforced composite
laminates have become one of the most interesting
groups of materials, due to their unique properties
such as high specic strength, high specic stiness,
low thermal expansion, good corrosion resistance and
low weight.
The need for high-performance and lightweight
structures has provided a strong development of berreinforced polymer composite laminates. Fiberreinforced composite laminates commonly used in
industries mainly include carbon ber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite laminates.1 Owing to the
advantages of ber-reinforced composite laminates,
conventional metallic materials are being replaced

with plastic-based composites in various industries,


including aerospace, aircraft and defense. Particularly
in aerospace industry, an increasing use of composite
laminates can be seen in structural components. CFRP
composite laminates are used in wing boxes, horizontal
stabilizers, vertical stabilizers and wing panels.1 The use
of composite laminates in primary structures has
enabled a considerable weight reduction. Typical examples of extensive application of composite laminates can
be seen in the latest models of Boeing and Airbus airplanes.1 Approximately 30% of external surface area of
Boeing 767 consists of composite laminates,2 whereas
the amounts of composite laminates used in both
Boeing 787 Dream-liner and Airbus A350 are over
50% of the whole weight.35
1
Medical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Karabuk
University, Karabuk, Turkey
2
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queens University
Belfast, Ashby Building, Belfast, UK

Corresponding author:
Elaheh Ghassemieh, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Queens University Belfast, Ashby Building, Belfast, UK.
Email: E.Ghassemieh@qub.ac.uk

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

1210

Journal of Composite Materials 48(10)

Although composite components are produced to


near-net shape, machining is often needed to fulll tolerance requirements for the assembly needs. Among
machining processes, drilling is most frequently used
to make holes for assemblies of dierent parts with
screws, rivets and bolts.6 To ensure high strength and
load capacity in the assemblies, damaged-free and precise holes must be obtained.
Some characteristics of composite laminates such as
non-homogeneity, anisotropy, highly abrasive and hard
reinforced bers, and coexistence of hard abrasive bers
with soft matrix, make composites components dicult
to machine.7,8 The most frequent drilling-induced
defects are delamination, ber pull-out, inter-laminar
cracking or thermal damages in addition to other
minor damages.9,10 These damages can aect not only
the load-carrying capacity of laminated parts but also
strength and stiness, fatigue life and long-term performance of the composite structure, thus reliability.11,12
Rapid tool wear can be a signicant factor on the extent
of damage due to the very abrasive bers.13 Moreover, it
increases the number of tool changes that aect the production cycle and the nal cost.
Among the problems caused by drilling, delamination is considered the major damage in the drilling
of ber-reinforced plastic composites. Delamination
aects the structural integrity and long-term reliability
of the composite components severely. It was reported
that delamination-induced and hole quality problems
causes approximately 60% of all part rejections in aircraft industry.14,15 Therefore, delamination causes signicant loss since drilling is often a nal machining
operation during assembly of laminated composite
components.
In the past, drilling of composite materials has been
simulated as two-dimensional (2D) and 3D orthogonal
cutting using nite element (FE) analysis. This is due to
the complexity of machining process, stress and delamination analysis of laminated composites.16,17 FE stress
and failure analyses have been conducted using maximum stress and Tsai-Hill criteria owing to the limited
capabilities of computer processors and FE tools.
Latest advances in computational processors and
improved FE formulations have allowed the development of complicated and more realistic 3D models to be
solved with improved computational eciency. In
recent years, numerical predictions of delamination
and critical thrust force have been performed in drilling
of laminated composites.1820 The onset of delamination is modeled by virtual crack extension (VCE)
method17,18 and cohesive zone elements (CZE).19,20
The latter approach of CZE overcomes some of the
diculties of the former methods of VCE. For example
a pre-dened crack front is not required in CZE. These
elements use a failure criterion that combines aspects of

strength-based analysis to predict the onset of the


softening process, and a fracture mechanics-based
approach to predict the growth of delamination,
which is governed by the inter-laminar through-thickness stress components. However, these studies suer
from some signicant drawbacks such as lack of a progressive damage model for intra-laminar and interlaminar properties. Moreover, the complex geometry
of drill bit and machining process parameters such as
feed rate and cutting speed have not been taken into
account. In our more recent work, the inuence of cutting parameters have been studied in a mesoscale FE
modeling by using a real 3D twist drill bit in the drilling
of CFRP with continuum shell elements and CZE
approach.21 Whilst this model showed considerable
improvement compared to the past simulation work
in the area of drilling of CFC, still the use of shell
elements imposed some unreal assumptions.
Considering that the drilling process is a fully 3D process with the load being imposed in the third direction,
application of the shell elements and the associated
inter-laminar and intra-laminar damage models could
be far from the real process.
Therefore, it seemed an obvious improvement to the
previous model would be considering 3D solid elements
and damage models. This is the challenge we have
taken in the current research reported here. The current
work investigates the drilling of CFRP using a 3D FE
analysis coupled with cohesive contact zone by using
3D solid elements. Thrust force, delamination onset
and growth and progressive failure analysis are
included and results are compared.

Model development
Stress model
Orthotropic material properties were assigned to each
unidirectional (UD) composite lamina according to the
ber orientation by using a pre-dened local coordinate
system. Linear elastic material behavior was assumed
prior to any damage for each element and it can be
calculated as below.
3

1  23 32 21 31 23 31 23 32


0
0
6 E2 E3 
E2 E3 
E2 E3 
11
6
6
6 7 6 12 13 32 1  31 13 32 31 21
6 22 7 6
0
0
6 7 6 E E
E3 E1 
E3 E1 
3 1
6 7 6
6 7 6
6 33 7 6 13 12 23 23 13 21 1  12 21
6 76
0
0
6 7 6
E1 E2 
E1 E2 
6 12 7 6 E1 E2 
6 7 6
6 7 6
0
0
0
2G12 0
6 31 7 6
4 5 6
6
6
0
0
0
0 2G31
23
4
2

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

0
0
0
0
0

72 3
7 "11
7
76 7
7 6 "22 7
76 7
76 7
76" 7
7 6 33 7
76 7
76 7
7 6 "12 7
76 7
76 7
7 6 "31 7
74 5
7
7 "
5 23

2G23

Isbilir and Ghassemieh

1211

where


Matrix compression 22 33  0


1  xy yx  yz zy  zx xz  2xy yz zx
Ex Ey Ez

FTm

The mechanical properties of the UD plies are given


in Table 1.

! "

2
22
223

2

1 j22 33 j
f,C
f
22
223
!2
!2

 2

1  2
1
2
f
23 22 33 f,T
12 13
23
12

!2
22 33 2

Progressive failure model (intra-laminar failure)


The intra-laminar damage initiation criteria for berreinforced plastic composites in 3D case are based
on Hashins theory.24 The initiation behaviour is
assumed to be orthotropic. The initiation criteria
consider four dierent damage initiation mechanisms
namely ber tension, ber compression, matrix
tension and matrix compression as expressed by
equations (3)(6).
Fiber tension 11 4 0
FTf

11

!2

12

f,T
11

!2

13

f
12

!2
3

f
13

Fiber compression 11  0


11

FC
f

!2
4

f,C
11

2 1 
23 32
3 6 E2 E3 
2
6
 11
6
6  22 7 6 12 13 32
7 6 E E 
6
7 6
6
3 1
6  33 7 6
7 6 13 12 23
6
6 7 6
6 12 7 6 E E 
1 2
7 6
6
4  31 5 6
0
6
6
 23
4
0
0

21 31 23


E2 E3 
1  31 13
E3 E1 
23 13 21
E1 E2 
0
0

31 23 32


E2 E3 
32 31 12
E3 E1 
1  12 21
E1 E2 
0
0

FTm

!2

f,T
22

1
f
23

1
f
12


22 33 2

!2
!2




2
23

 22 33

2
2
12
13

2G12
0

0
2G31

0
0

3
72
3
7 "11
7
7 6 "22 7
76
7
76
7
7 6 "33 7
76
7
76" 7
7 6 12 7
76
7
7 4 "31 5
7
7 "
23
5

2G23

where

Matrix tension 22 33 4 0


1

where m and f subscripts denote matrix and ber; C and


T represent compression and tension, f superscript symbolizes failure, respectively.  and  are the normal and
shear stresses, respectively. Standard tests are performed on bre and matrix and the damage parameters
for dierent modes of failure are measured by the
manufacturer of the CFRP composite.1822 This is
given in Table 2. It should be noted that Hashins
damage model has been recognized as one of the
most capable models in analysis of the anisotropic composite materials as it considers various failure modes
that could occur in these types of materials and also
it includes the interaction of these modes. Therefore, it
has been used by many researchers in order to model
the failure behaviour of composites.
When the Hashins criteria have been fullled in any
mode, damage has initiated. In this study, a sudden
degradation criterion is applied for the evolution of
the intra-laminar damage in any mode.

1  12 21  23 32  31 13  212 23 31


E1 E2 E3

E1 x E1 1  df
E2 y E2 1  df 1  dm
E3 z E3 1  df 1  dm

G12 G12 1  ds
G31 G31 1  ds
G23 G23 1  ds

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

1212

Journal of Composite Materials 48(10)

Table 1. Orthotropic unidirectional material properties.22,23


E1 (GPa)

E2 (GPa)

E3 (GPa)

G12 (GPa)

G13 (GPa)

G23 (GPa)

12

13

23

112

8.2

8.2

4.5

4.5

0.3

0.3

0.4

Table 2. Damage parameters.18,22


f ,t
11
(MPa)

f ,c
11
(MPa)

f ,t
22
(MPa)

f ,c
22
(MPa)

f ,t
33
(MPa)

f ,c
33
(MPa)

f
12
(MPa)

f
13
(MPa)

f
23
(MPa)

1900

1000

84

250

84

250

60

110

110

The damage variables of stiness matrix for a particular mode can be dened as reported in equation (9)

df

8
0
>
>
>
>
<1

>
0
>
>
>
:
1
8
0
>
>
>
<1
dm
>0
>
>
:
1

if  11 i0

and

FTf h1,

if  11 i0

and

FTf  1,

if  11  0 and

FC
f h1,

if  11  0 and

FC
f  1,

if  22  33 i0

and

a linear softening law is used. The damage evolution


variable, d, is expressed below.
d

FTm h1,

v
u it
uX
m t
2i

12

Delamination is assumed to be initiated when a


quadratic stress criterion reaches a value of 1 as
shown in equation (13) where D is the damage initiation
variable.

ds 1  1  df 1  dm

Progressive delamination model (inter-laminar


failure)

it  2
X
i
in

Zero thickness, surface-based cohesive behavior


approach is implemented in this study. The approach
is similar to the cohesive element approach proposed by
Alfano and Criseld.25 The bi-linear tractionseparation law ensures a linear elastic response up to delamination initiation, followed by a linear softening phase
as the delamination grows. Normal stress,  n, and shear
stresses,  s and  t, are dened for surface-based cohesive behavior using the following governing equations.

i

i n,s,t

in

if  22  33  0 and FC
m  1,

Ki i D 5 1
Ki i 1  d D  1

11

m fm  om

where the eective displacement is dened as below:

if  22  33 i0
and FTm  1,
if  22  33  0 and FC
m h1,

fm m  om

i0

i n,s,t

13

The growth of the delamination is expressed by


mixed-mode energy criterion in this study. Total fracture energy at the completion of delamination is the sum
of normal and tangential fractures energies based on a
power law energy criterion as dened in equation (14).
The exponential constants; , , , are set to 1.6.17


Gn

GC
n

    
Gs
Gt
C C
Gs
Gt

14

where the fracture energies are computed as:


i n,s,t

10

Z
Gi

where K and d are traction separation stiness modulus


and separation for normal and shear directions,
respectively.
The second component of the damage involves the
specication of the evolution of the damage. This can
be done using a softening criterion after damage initiation as expressed in equation (11). In this study,

1
i @i , Gci i0 fi ,
2

i n,s,t

15

C
C
The critical fracture energies (GC
n , Gs , Gt ), tractionseparation stiness modulus (Kn, Ks Kt) and maximum
contact stresses (n0 , s0 , t0 ) are given in Table 3 26 for
normal and shear directions. The data is obtained by
performing double cantilever beam (DCB), end notch
exure (ENF) and mixed mode bending (MMB).

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

Isbilir and Ghassemieh

1213

Table 3. Interface properties for composite laminate.26


n0 (MPa)

s0 (MPa)

t0 (MPa)

GnC (N/mm)

GsC (N/mm)

GtC (N/mm)

Kn (N/mm3)

Ks (N/mm3)

Kt (N/mm3)

60

110

110

0.33

1.209

1.209

106

106

106

Element Size 2 mm

Element size 1 mm

Element Size 0.5 mm

Graded Mesh
( 0.26 mm & 1 mm )

Figure 1. Finite element (FE) model of drilling of carbon fiberreinforced polymer (CFRP).

Finite element model of drilling


3D FE modeling was performed using the commercial
FE package, Abaqus v6.9. FE model, boundary and
loading conditions are shown in Figure 1. All degrees
of freedom were constrained at the xed end of the
laminate to simulate the fully clamped laminate end.
Similarly, the drill is constrained in x and y directions
(ux uy urx ury 0) to model the drilling process
parameters. Rotational and translational velocities
were applied to the drill body as spindle speed and
feed rate, respectively. The heat generation is ignored
since high amount of coolant has been used in the
experiments to keep the temperature close to the
room temperature.
Each composite layer, 40 mm  40 mm  0.26 mm
dimensions of length, width and thickness, respectively,
was modeled separately and was discretised with one
element in the thickness direction. Reduced-integrated
8-noded brick elements (C3D8R) were used in the laminated workpiece to reduce computational time and
cost. In order to investigate the eect of mesh size on
the outputs, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.26 mm element
sizes used in-plane directions. Due to the large stress
gradients and potential damage at the boundary of the
hole, the mesh was rened in the hole vicinity with an
aspect ratio of 1.0 in the latest model. The density of
mesh was reduced outside of this region in the workpiece to reduce solution time as this area was less critical in the analysis. A maximum aspect ratio of 4.0 was
used away from the hole region. Zero thickness, surface-based cohesive contact was used between each

Figure 2. Finite element (FE) model of carbon fiber-reinforced


polymer (CFRP) workpiece.

layer where inter-laminar delamination is expected to


occur. The meshes of the laminated CFRP workpieces
are shown in Figure 2. The size of the rened area in
Figure 2 is twice the size of the nominal drill diameter.
The size of the damaged area is roughly 1.5 times of the
drill diameter. Therefore, the rened area covers safely
the area of interest. In our initial model, we had used
larger rened area to assess the area of large stress gradients. Then, we reduced the rened area to the high
stress concentration area only to avoid large number of
elements.
Perfect bonding was assumed between the lamina at
the beginning of the process and the friction coecient
was assumed to be zero between the plies after the separation. However, these assumptions would have some
eects on the FE predictions. A surface-to-surface kinematic contact algorithm was dened to model the interaction between the surfaces of the CFRP workpiece
and the cutting tool. Pure Lagrangian contact algorithm was used for the penetration, so the surface of
the tool is set to be the master object and the surface of
the workpiece is assumed to be the slave object. The
coecient of friction is set equal to 0.15, which was
obtained from pin on disk tests.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

1214

Journal of Composite Materials 48(10)

Orthotropic material properties were assigned to


each UD composite lamina according to the ber orientation by using a pre-dened local coordinate system as
explained in our previous study.21 The stacking
sequence of the workpiece is [90/45/0/45]2s, which
means total 16 plies with a nal thickness of 4.16 mm.
Linear elastic material behavior was assumed for each
composite lamina prior to damage and material nonlinearities were not taken into account (i.e. non-linear
shear stressstrain behavior). However, it must be
noted that they may have relative importance on the
FE estimations.
Drill was modeled in Solidworks CAD environment
and imported into the FE software. The drill was
assumed as rigid body to reduce the computational
time; 3-node triangular facet rigid body elements were
used in the drill. The twist drill has 8 mm in diameter
with 140 point angle and 30 helix angle. The CFRP
composite workpiece was drilled at 457 mm/min feed
rate and 4500 r/min spindle speed (113 m/min cutting
speed).

Finite element model of asymmetric double


cantilever beam
An important computational step is the verication of
the proposed numerical model for mixed-mode delamination propagation for non-UD laminates. For this
purpose, a FE model has been developed to analyze
the asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) test
and compared with the previous study.27 The crack
interface was chosen to be 0/45 and the eort was particularly focused on delamination in mode I owing to
the signicance of thrust force in drilling of CFRP.
The 3D composite laminate was modeled in order to
investigate the delamination prediction capability of the
current FE model. The stacking sequence of the test
specimen was 0/45/45/45/45/0//45/0/45/0/45/
45/45/45/0/45/0/45, where // indicates the delamination surface as in the previous study.27 The material
behavior and material properties were the same as in
the drilling model explained above. The ADCB FE
model and the test data of the specimen are given in
Figure 3 and Table 4, respectively. The specimen was
xed at one end and loaded at the other end with an
increasing traction force. The resulting force and displacement are given in the result and discussion section.

Figure 3. Finite element (FE) model and boundary conditions


of asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) test specimen.

Table 4. Specimen and test data of ADCB test.


L (mm)

B (mm)

t (mm)

a0 (mm)

170

20

4.68

85

ADCB: asymmetric double cantilever beam.

experiments at a constant 38 bar coolant pressure


(equal ow rate of 2.4 L/min). Experiments were
repeated 5 times and the results reported are all mean
values. The diameter was chosen 8 mm as it is one of the
most common required hole size in aircraft industry.
The tests were performed at 457 mm/min feed rate
and 4500 r/min spindle speed (113 m/min cutting
speed).
The induced thrust force and torque during machining were measured using the dynamometer (Kistler
9255B). Dynamometer was charged and the signals
were collected by a data acquisition system which
included a multi-channel charge amplier (Model
5017) and Kistler Dynoware software. The charge amplier converted the induced signals, which were proportional to the applied force, to voltage and these voltage
signals were gathered through the data acquisition
system. The resulting signals were converted to the
force by the calibrated data in the software.
Measurements were obtained with a frequency of
1000 throughout drilling of holes.
The delamination was observed by an optical
microscope.

Results and discussions

Drilling tests
Drilling trials were conducted using Mori Seiki SV-500
milling machine with maximum 10.000 r/min. All tests
were carried out involving high-pressure cooling
through tool coolant holes; 5% emulsion of Hocut
795B cutting uid was applied in wet cutting

Verification of delamination prediction


Figure 4 shows the stress distribution and the delamination after the ADCB test. As shown in the gure, both
arms have identical displacement at the end of the
simulation. The simulations were performed until the

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

Isbilir and Ghassemieh

1215

Figure 4. Stress distribution and delamination of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) specimen and asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) test.

34.2

30
25
Force (N)

1600

33.6
32.5

Estimated thrust force (N)

35

20
15

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

10

0.18

0.26

0.5

Element size (mm)

Figure 6. Effect of element size on thrust force.

0
Experiment

FEA_1mm

FEA_0.26mm

Figure 5. Comparison of critical force for two different finite


element analysis (FEA) runs and the average experimental data.27

displacement is 13.6 mm for the given 85-mm crack


length.
As plotted in Figure 5, the results of FE models are
in good agreement with the experimental result. The
average critical forces are slightly underestimated as
32.5 and 33.6 N for 1 mm and 0.26 mm in-plane element
sized tests specimens, respectively. This means dispersions are 4.88% and 1.67% compared to the experimental test results. The good correlation of the
outputs conrms that the delamination onset and
growth of CFRP laminates can be predicted reasonably
during drilling and this gives condence about the
assumptions made in the present study.

Results of drilling
Mesh convergence study. One of the signicant factors in
FE simulations is the size eect. In order to investigate
size eect and decide the optimum size for the drilling

of CFRP, four FE simulations have been performed.


Figure 6 plots the estimated thrust force versus element
size. The optimum results can be obtained from the
simulation with 0.26 mm where the aspect ratio is 1 in
the hole vicinity. As it can be seen from the gure, the
results change signicantly with the element size. This
proves the inuence of the elements size on the outputs.
There is not much change between the 0.26 mm and
much ner mesh of 0.18. This conrms the choice of
0.26 mm mesh as the optimum size in terms of accuracy
of the results and reduced computation time.
It should be noted that several factors could aect
the accuracy of the simulation results such as more
realistic friction model, improved damage model, inclusion of thermal and wear eect and including the
deformation of the drill.
Force and torque. Figure 7(a) and (b) shows the experimental and simulated thrust force and torque in drilling
of CFRP at 457 mm/min feed rate and 4500 r/min spindle speed (113 m/min cutting speed), respectively. The
reported FE results for the model uses element size

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

1216

Journal of Composite Materials 48(10)

0.26 mm in the drilling zone. It was observed that the


thrust force in the experimental trial was 230 N,
whereas the FE model estimated 227 N. The experimentally measured torque was 0.29 N.m compared to the
torque value predicted as 0.30 N.m by the FE simulation. This shows that the FE model estimated the thrust
force and torque accurately with 1.3% and 3.5% deviation from the test results, respectively. The estimation
of thrust force is slightly improved compared to our
previous model21 due to the use of real 3D solid elements. The diversity in the previously reported model was
2.17% with the use of continuum shell elements.21 This
gave the condence about the capability of the FE
model in its prediction of the thrust forces and torque
values for the future works.
Damage and delamination. Figure 8(a) and (b) shows
entrance
delaminations
for
experimentally
observed and FE estimation after drilling of CFRP at
457 mm/min feed rate and 4500 r/min spindle speed,
respectively. The white areas in Figure 8(a) and (b)

(a)

shows the complete damaged area after the drilling,


which is called entrance delamination at the outer
surface of the workpiece, whereas the red area in
Figure 8(b) shows the delamination propagation
between two layers, which can cause loss of the strength
in the structural performance. Delamination factor is
the parameter used to quantify the delamination extent
and it is dened as the delaminated diameter divided by
the nominal diameter. The damage area predicted reasonable and the entrance delamination factor has been
predicted as 1.3 with the use of 3D elements. The
experimentally obtained entrance delamination factor
was 1.2. The diversity of the delamination factor compared to the experimental result is only 8%. Our previous model with continuum shell elements predicted
the delamination factor of 1.4.21 Therefore, some
improvement in the prediction of the FE model is
obtained by the current model. The speed of the drilling
process may have an inuence on the crack propagation, thus delamination parameters may need to be
checked at high-speed tests.

(b)
0.5

400
Experiment

FEA

FEA

0.4
Torque (N.m)

300
Thrust Force (N)

Experiment

0.45

350

250
200
150

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15

100

0.1

50

0.05

0
0

Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)

Figure 7. Drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) (a) thrust force (b) torque.

Figure 8. Entrance delamination (a) experimental (b) finite element in mixed mode failure.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

Isbilir and Ghassemieh

1217

Stress distribution and failure. The progressive damage and


the stress distributions of the CFRP workpiece during
the drilling process are shown in Figure 9(a) and 9(b).
Stress is induced in the workpiece as the drill cuts the
workpiece material surface. As it can be observed from
Figure 9(a), the highest stresses are induced around the
centre of the hole where the drill pushes the material.
The induced Mises stress is estimated up to 1.2 GPa,
whereas after the drilling the residual stress on the
workpiece is estimated 60 MPa in some local places as
shown in Figure 9(a) and 9(b), respectively.
The dominant mode of failure is matrix failure. Due
to the penetration and cutting action of the drill, the
matrix fails easily compared to the bers. Figure 10
shows the matrix failure under tension mode after drilling of CFRP. This matrix crack could contribute to
delamination initiation and growth, which results in
ber buckling.

process is an absolute 3D process, having a 3D model


to indicate this provides much more accurate results.
The 2D models or the simplied geometry 3D models
are not able to capture all the drilling process features.
The model could be used in design of the process and
drill bit.
The delamination onset and growth have been veried with ADCB test. The mesh renement has signicant eect on the prediction of thrust force by the
model. Mesh optimization has been performed to reassure an ecient use of computational time versus
accuracy of the outputs of the FE model.

Conclusion
A 3D FE model is developed which predicts the onset
and growth of intra-laminar and delamination damage
in CFRP composite laminate induced by drilling. The
failure modes such as ber breakage and matrix cracking were calculated in a progressive failure analysis
using Hashin criteria developed for 3D solid elements.
Surface-based cohesive behavior which uses bi-linear
traction-separation was embedded between each layer.
Currently, there is no record of 3D model of drilling
with inclusion of the real drill geometry and process
parameters in the open literature. Since the drilling

Figure 10. Matrix failure in drilling of carbon fiber-reinforced


polymer (CFRP).

Figure 9. Workpiece stress distribution (a) at 0.4 s (half the thickness drilled) (b) after drilling at 08 s (through the thickness drilled).

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

1218

Journal of Composite Materials 48(10)

Induced thrust force, torque and delamination have


been compared with drilling tests. The current model
using 3D elements and improved intra-laminar failure
and mixed mode delamination models show better capability in predicting the drilling forces and torques and
the induced delamination in comparison to previous
model.
The current model eectively captures the onset of
any failure modes by developed complete 3D progressive failure analysis and incorporated with delamination onset and growth. Damaged area, delamination,
induced thrust force and torque are predicted very well.
Acknowledgement
Authors greatly acknowledge the provision of materials by
Airbus and the access to the drilling facilities of the
Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) at
University of Sheeld. The funding of the PhD scholarship
of Mr. Ozden Isbilir under supervision of Elaheh Ghasemieh
supplied by the Ministry of National Education of the
Republic of Turkey is highly appreciated.

Conflict of Interest
None declared.

Funding
The only funding source for this research has been the PhD
scholarship of Ozden Isbilir by Ministry of National
Education of the Republic of Turkey who has performed
this research under supervision of Elaheh Ghasemieh.

References
1. Soutis C. Fibre reinforced composites in aircraft construction. Progr Aerospace Sci 2005; 41(2): 143151.
2. Gay D, Hoa SV and Tsai SW. Composite materials design
and applications. New York: CRC Press, 2003.
3. Shyha I, et al. Effect of laminate configuration and feed
rate on cutting performance when drilling holes in carbon
fibre reinforced plastic composites. J Mater Process
Technol 2010; 210(8): 10231034.
4. Lopez de Lacalle LN, et al. Desing and test of a multitooth
tool for CFRP milling. J Compos Mater 2009; 43:
32753290.
5. Fan Y and Zhang L. New development of extra large composite aircraft components application technology Advance of aircraft manufacture technology. Hangkong
Xuebao/Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica 2009;
30(3): 534543.
6. Ravishankar SRM and Murthy CRL. Ultrasonic imaging
for evaluation of drill induced delaminations in composite
laminates. Proceedings of 14th Conference on NonDestructive Testing, Oxford and IBH Publishing, 1996,
pp. 813.
7. Teti R. Machining of composite materials. CIRP Ann
Manufac Technol 2002; 51(2): 611634.
8. Abrao AM, et al. Drilling of fiber reinforced plastics: A
review. J Mater Process Technol 2007; 186(13): 17.

9. Wern C, Ramulu M and Shukla A. Investigation of stresses in the orthogonal cutting of fiber-reinforced plastics.
Exper Mech 1996; 36(1): 3341.
10. Rao GVG, Mahajan P and Bhatnagar N. Micro-mechanical modeling of machining of FRP composites Cutting
force analysis. Compos Sci Technol 2007; 67(34):
579593.
11. Persson E, Eriksson I and Zackrisson L. Effects of hole
machining defects on strength and fatigue life of composite laminates. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manufac 1997;
28(2): 141151.
12. Mishra R, et al. Neural network approach for estimating
the residual tensile strength after drilling in uni-directional glass fiber reinforced plastic laminates. Mater
Design 2010; 31(6): 27902795.
13. Abrate S. Machining of composite materials. In: Mallick
PK (ed.) Composites engineering handbook. New York:
Marcel Dekker, 1997, pp.777809.
14. Wong TL, Wu SM and Croy GM. An analysis of delamination in drilling composite materials. In: Proceedings of
14th SAMPE Technology Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA,
1982, pp. 471483.
15. Stone R and Krishnamurthy K. A neural network thrust
force controller to minimize delamination during drilling
of graphite-epoxy laminates. International Journal of
Machine Tool Manufac 1996; 36(9): 9851003.
16. Arola D and Ramulu M. Orthogonal cutting of fiberreinforced composites: A finite element analysis. Int J
Mech Sci 1997; 39(5): 597613 .
17. Zitoune R and Collombet F. Numerical prediction of the
thrust force responsible of delamination during the drilling of the long-fibre composite structures. Compos Part
A: Appl Sci Manufac 2007; 38(3): 858866.
18. Zitoune R, Collombet F, Lachaud F, et al. Experimentcalculation comparison of the cutting conditions representative of the long fiber composite drilling phase.
Compos Sci Technol 2005; 65(34): 455466.
19. Durao LMP, de Moura MFSF and Marques AT.
Numerical simulation of the drilling process on carbon/
epoxy composite laminates. Compos Part A: Appl Sci
Manufac 2006; 37(9): 13251333.
20. Durao LMP, de Moura MFSF and Marques AT.
Numerical prediction of delamination onset in carbon/
epoxy composites drilling. Eng Fract Mech 2008; 75(9):
27672778.
21. Isbilir O and Ghassemieh E. Finite element analysis of
drilling of carbon fibre reinforced composites. Applied
Composite Materials 2012; 19(34): 637656.
22. Hexcel. Hexcel Product Datasheet, http://www.hexcel.
com/NR/rdonlyres/A4AE89BC-0EA6-473A-A3CAF2F98C13D033/0/HexPly_M21_eu.pdf (2009, accessed
10 January 2009).
23. Irisarri F-X, Bassir DH, Carrere N, et al. Multiobjective
stacking sequence optimization for laminated composite
structures. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69(78): 983990.
24. Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech 1980; 47: 329334.
25. Alfano GC and Crisfield MA. Finite element interface
models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites. Int J Numerical Meth Eng 2001; 50: 17011736.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014

Isbilir and Ghassemieh

1219

26. Bertolini J, Castanie B, Barrau JJ, et al. Multi-level


experimental and numerical analysis of composite stiffener debonding. Part 1: Non-specific specimen level.
Compos Struct 2009; 90: 381391.
27. Prombut P, Michel L, Lachaud F, et al. Delamination of
multidirectional composite laminates at 0_/y _ ply interfaces. Eng Fract Mech 2006; 73: 24272442.

List of abbreviations


D
df, dm, ds
"

E
G

 f, t
 f, c
FC
f

Stress
Shear stress
Damage initiation variables
Damage evolution variables in fiber,
matrix and shear mode
Normal strain
Shear strain
Elasticity modulus
Shear modulus
Poissons ratio
Strength of the material in tension in
any direction
Strength of the material in compression
in any direction
Hashins damage initiation criterion in
fibre mode in compression

FTf
FC
m
FTm
u
ueq0
ueqf
G
C
C
GC
,
G
,
G
n
s
t
Kn, Ks, Kt
n0 , s0 , t0
n, s, t
L
B
t
a0

Hashins damage initiation criterion in


fibre mode in tensile
Hashins damage initiation criterion in
matrix in compression
Hashins damage initiation criterion in
matrix in tensile
Displacement
Equivalent displacement at the damage
initiation
Equivalent failure displacement
Fracture Energy
The critical fracture energies
traction-separation stiffness modulus
Maximum contact stresses for normal
and shear directions.
Separations in delamination
The length of ADCB specimen
The width of ADCB specimen
The total thickness of ADCB specimen
Initial crack length in ADCB test
Friction coefficient

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at Zhejiang University of Technology on December 11, 2014