Affiliation:
1. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The College of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Wisconsin, 3200 North Cramer St., Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA
Abstract
Fatigue and fracture prediction in composite materials using cohesive zone models depends on accurately characterizing the core and facesheet interface in advanced composite sandwich structures. This study investigates the use of machine learning algorithms to identify cohesive zone parameters used in the fracture analysis of advanced composite sandwich structures. Experimental results often yield non-unique solutions, complicating the determination of cohesive parameters. Numerical determination can be time-consuming due to fine mesh requirements near the crack tip. This research evaluates the performance of Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest (RF), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) machine learning methods. The study uses features extracted from load–displacement responses during the fracture of the Asymmetric Double-Cantilever Beam (ADCB) specimen. The inputs include the displacement at the maximum load (δ*), the maximum load (Pmax), the total area under the load–displacement curve (At), and the initial slope of the linear region of the load–displacement curve (m). There are two objectives in this research: the first is to investigate which method performs best in identifying the interfacial cohesive parameters between the honeycomb core and carbon-epoxy facesheets, while the second objective is to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset by reducing the number of input features. Reducing the number of inputs can simplify the models and potentially improve the performance and interpretability. The results show that the ANN method produced the best results, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 0.9578% and an R-squared (R²) value of 0.7932. These values indicate a high level of accuracy in predicting the four cohesive zone parameters: maximum normal contact stress (σI), critical fracture energy for normal separation (GI), maximum equivalent tangential contact stress (σII), and critical fracture energy for tangential slip (GII).