Advertisement

A Hemivariational Inequality and a Nonconvex Energy Bundle Approach to the Problem of Debonding in Adhesively Bonded Composite Structures

  • D. N. Kaziolas
  • M. J. Kontoleon
  • C. C. Baniotopoulos
Part of the Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications book series (NOIA, volume 50)

Abstract

In the present paper the problem of debonding in adhesively bonded composite structures is examined. The main reason that leads to the damage of these structures is the delamination effect due to the considered external loading. The adhesive material is assumed to obey to a nonmonotone, possibly multivalued three-dimensional stress-strain law. This kind of behaviour results in a nonconvex nonsmooth energy function in the problem introducing a hemivariational inequality that is the expression of the principle of virtual work in inequality form. This problem is equivalent to a substationarity problem of the minimum of potential energy of the structure that is an optimization problem. The application of the optimization programme NSOLIB, based on the proximal bundle method, converges to one at least substationarity point which is a solution of the problem at hand. In the last part of the paper the study of a steel frame and a composite two-layered structure demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords

Relative Displacement Multilayered Structure Heat Affect Zone Adhesive Material Hemivariational Inequality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clarke, F. (1983). Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. John Wiley, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Crisfield, M. A. (1986). Snap-through and snap-back response in concrete structures and the dangers of underintegration. Int. Jour. Numer. Meth. Engng., 22: 751–767.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crisfield, M. A. and Wills, J. (1988). Solution strategies and softening materials. Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng., 66: 267–289.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eurocode3 (1992). Commission of the European Communities Eurocode 3 Part 1.1: Design of Steel Structures. European Committee for Standarization.Google Scholar
  5. Fichera, G. (1963). The Signorini elastostatics problem with ambiguous boundary conditions. In Application of the Theory of Functions in Continuum Mechanics I. Springer, Tbilisi.Google Scholar
  6. Fichera, G. (1972). Boundary value problems in elasticity with unilateral constraints. In Flügge, S., editor, Encyclopedia of Physics, Vol. Via/2, pages 391–424. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Green, A. and Bowyer, W. (1981). The testing analysis of novel top-hat stiffener fabrication methods for use in GRP ships. In Marshall, I., editor, Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Composite Structures, pages 182–201. Applied Science Publishers, Barking, Essex.Google Scholar
  8. Kelley, J. (1960). The cutting plane method for solving convex programs. SIAM Journal, 8: 703–712.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Kiewel, K. (1990). Proximity control in bundle methods for convex nondifferentiable optimization. Mathematical Programming, 46: 105–122.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mäkelä, M. (1996). Issues of implementing a Fortran subroutine package NSOLIB for Nonsmooth Optimization. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  11. Mistakidis, E. and Stavroulakis, G. (1998). Nonconvex Optimization in Mechanics. Algorithms Heuristics and Engineering Applications by F.E.M. Kluwer Academic, Boston.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Moreau, J. (1963). Functionelles sousdifférentiables. C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 257 (A): 4117–4119.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreau, J. (1968). La notion de sur-potentiel et les liaisons unilatérales an elastostatique. C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 257 (A): 954–957.Google Scholar
  14. Mosallam, A., Chakrabarti, P., and Arnold, M. (1999). Polymer composites and high-strength epoxy adhesives used to repair damaged steel connections could help many structures withstand the next earthquake. ASCE Civil Engineering, 69-No4:57–59.Google Scholar
  15. Naniewicz, Z. and Panagiotopoulos, P. (1995). Mathematical theory of hemivariational inequalities and applications. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Basel and Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  16. Panagiotopoulos, P. D. (1983). Nonconvex energy functions. Hemivariational inequalities and substationary principles. Acta Mechanica, 42: 160–183.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Panagiotopoulos, P. D. (1985). Nonconvex energy functions. Hemivariational inequalities and substationary principles. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Panagiotopoulos, P. D. (1993). Hemivariational Inequalities. Applications in Mechanics and Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Rockafellar, R. (1979). La Theórié des sous-gradients et ses applications a l’ Optimization. Functions convexes et Non-convexes. Les Presses de l’ Univerité de Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
  20. Roman, I., Harlet, H., and Marom, G. (1981). Stress intensity factor measurments in composite sandwich structures. In Marshall, I., editor, Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Composite Structures, pages 633–645. Applied Science Publishers, Barking, Essex.Google Scholar
  21. Schramm, H. and Zowe, J. (1992). A version of the bundle idea for minimizing nonsmooth functions: Conceptual idea, convergence analysis, numerical results. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 2: 121–152.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. N. Kaziolas
    • 1
  • M. J. Kontoleon
    • 1
  • C. C. Baniotopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Steel StructuresAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations