This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper lefthand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 481061346 USA
313/7614700 800/5210600
Order Number 9303191
Constitutive equations for fully bonded metal matrix composites
Herath, Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara, Ph.D.
University of California, Santa Barbara, 1992
Copyright 1992 by Herath, Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara. All rights reserved.
U MI
300 N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Santa Barbara
Constitutive equations for fully bonded
metal matrix composites
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Mechanical Engineering
by
Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara Herath
Committee:
Professor Frederick A. Leckie, Chairperson
Professor Robert M. McMeeking
Professor Zhigang Suo
Professor G. Lucus
July 1992
The dissertation of Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara Herath is approved
fl . WW
Committee Chairperson
July 1992
ii
copyright by
Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara Herath
1992
iii
Acknowledgments
First of all it is my great honor and pleasure to thank my advisor Prof. F. A.
Leckie for advising, assisting and teaching me throughout this study at UCSB. I
would also specially like to thank Dr. S. Jansson for having very useful
discussions and suggestions throughout this study and shearing his previous
knowledge on this material system. I will also appreciate their steady concern for
my professional development and personal welfare. I am also grateful for the
continuous financial support they provided through the Air Force Grant number
AFOSR900132 during this study. In addition to them, I am also indebted to Prof.
M. P. Ranaweera of the University of Peradeniya for his continuous advice and
concern during the past period. I also have to thank him for arranging me to work
with the research group at UCSB. I would also like to thank the Professors who
were in my dissertation committee. In addition to them, I have been very lucky to
be surrounded by a number of very supportive and intellectual people in Mechanical
Engineering and Materials departments of UCSB.
In addition, I would like to thank my office mates Dov Sherman, Shrwai Ho,
Shobha (my wife), Francois Hild and Dominic Dal Bello for their helpful
discussions and sharing ideas.
In addition, I thank my family, relatives and friends for their constant
encouragement through all of my endeavors.
Finally I would like to thank Prof. Keith Kedward for lending his new
Macintosh computer for my dissertation writing, and Mrs. Leah Pollard for many
clerical assistance during the last few years.
K. R. B. Herath
July, 1992
iv
VITA
December 13,1962~Born~Kandy, Sri Lanka.
1985B.Sc. in Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
1986Instructor, Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
1987Assistant Lecturer, Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
19871989Teaching Assistant, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of
Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, USA.
1989~M.Sc. in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois at
UrbanaChampaign, USA.
19901992Teaching/ Research assistant, Mechanical Engineering, University of
California at Santa Barbara, USA.
1992PhD in Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara,
USA.
1992Lecturer, Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
v
ABSTRACT
Constitutive equations for fully bonded metal matrix composites
by
Kulothdeepthi Ravindra Bandara Herath
Unidirectionally reinforced metalmatrix composites (MMCs) have excellent
strength and stiffness properties when they are loaded in the fiber direction. An
advantage of these MMCs is that they can also carry relatively high transverse and
shear loads. Therefore these materials can be utilized effectively to make multiaxial
load carrying structural components. To use composites to design such components
it is necessary to have anisotropic constitutive equations developed in general form.
In this study elastoplastic constitutive equations are developed to describe the
overall mechanical behavior of fully bonded metalmatrix composites when
subjected to cyclic loads.
The constitutive equations developed in this study are implemented in ABAQUS
finite element code as a new user defined material subroutine (UMAT). With the
use of these constitutive laws some structural analysis were performed to predict the
stress/ strain behavior and the failure mechanisms of representative components
such as a plate with a hole, a plate with notches etc. The ability of this model to
describe cyclic loading behavior is also demonstrated. The predictions from these
analyses are useful in design of structural components made of metal matrix
composites.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: Proposed Outline of Study 3
1.1) Research Plan 3
1.2) The Composite Material 4
1.3) General Structure of the Yield Surface for a Transversely
Isotropic Material 5
CHAPTER 2: Axisymmetric Component of the Flow Potential 9
2.1) Yield Surfaces and Hardening Rule 9
2.1.1) Initial Yield Surface 12
2.1.2) Subsequent Yield Surface 13
2.1.3) Hardening Rule 15
2.2) Comparison of the Axisymmetric model with Finite Element
Computing Predictions
2.3) Modified Current Yield Surface
2.4) Compressibility
2.5) Summary of the Constitutive Equations Developed for
Axisymmetric Behavior of the Composite Material
Figure Captions and Figures
CHAPTER 3: Shear Component of the Flow Potential
3.1) Yield Surfaces and Hardening Rule
3.1.1) Initial Yield Surface
3.1.2) Limit Surface
3.1.3) Subsequent Yield Surface and Hardening Rules
3.2) Compressibility
vii
19
20
22
23
26
31
31
31
32
33
36
3.3) "Comparison of the shear Model with Experimental Results 37
3.4) Summary of the Constitutive Equations Developed for Shear
Behavior of the Composite Material 37
Figure Captions and Figures 39
CHAPTER 4: Constitutive Equations 43
4.1) Combination of Axisymmetric and Shear Models 43
4.1.1) Elasticity 44
4.1.2) Plasticity 45
4.2) Determination of Parameters in Constitutive Equations 47
4.2.1) Longitudinal Tension Test, K'L 48
4.2.2) Shear Test, K's, K*s and A 48
4.2.3) Transverse Tension Test, K'T 49
4.2.3) Hydrostatic Tension Test, K'LT 50
4.3) Verification of the Constitutive Model from other Experiments 50
4.4) Remarks 52
Figure Captions and Figures 53
CHAPTER 5: Implementation of Constitutive Law in ABAQUS 60
5.1) User Material Subroutine 60
5.2) Iterative Scheme 61
5.3) Input Parameters to the ABAQUS 63
5.4) Output Variables from ABAQUS 66
CHAPTER 6: Applications to Structures: Part 1 69
6.1) Plate with a Circular Hole 70
6.1.1) Monotonic Loading 70
6.1.2) Cyclic Loading 73
6.2) Plate with a Center Notch 74
6.3) Plate with Double Edge Notches 77
viii
6.4)'Summary
Figure Captions and Figures
80
83
CHAPTER 7: Applications to Structures: Part 2 116
7.1) Uniformly Loaded Ring 116
7.2) Partially Loaded Ring 119
7.3) Summary 120
Figure Captions and Figures 122
CHAPTER 8: Conclusions 140
8.1) Summary 140
8.2) Implications for Future Work 141
REFERENCES 143
APPENDIX 1 147
ix
INTRODUCTION
Unidirectionally reinforced metalmatrix composites (MMCs) have excellent
strength and stiffness properties when they are loaded in the fiber direction. An
advantage of these MMCs is that they can also carry relatively high transverse and
shear loads. Due to this reason MMCs can be used to make structural components
which can carry multiaxial stresses. Therefore we need to have the constitutive
equations and failure criteria to do the necessary design calculations for MMCs
when they are subjected to multiaxial variable loading. The main purpose of the
present study is to develop elasticplastic constitutive equations for a fully bonded
metalmatrix composite under variable loads and to demonstrate some applications
of these constitutive equations.
When a metalmatrix composite is subjected to proportional loads, it has been
shown that isotropic hardening is sufficient to describe the material behavior, but
when it is subjected to nonproportional and cyclic loading both isotropic and
kinematic hardening are required for an adequate prediction. One of the simplest
constitutive equations which describe both isotropic and kinematic hardening was
that suggested by Krieg [1975]. The constitutive equations for Aluminum based
metalmatrix composites (B/Al and Gr/Al) have been developed by Dvorak and co
workers [1973,1976,1987,1988,1991]. Their theory uses a hardening law
1
suggested by Phillips and coworkers [1976,1979]. In their formulation of
constitutive equations the assumptions which are valid for the hardening of the
Aluminum based metals have been extended to the composite material. It has been
observed that these assumptions are not directly valid for MMC's. It is noticed that
the subsequent yield surfaces obtained using Dvorak's hardening rules are not in
good agreement with the calculated yield surfaces for FP/Al composite system.
Later Aboudi and coworkers [1989,1990] developed a micromechanical model to
predict initial and subsequent yield surfaces for MMCs using the method of cells
and the unified viscoplasticity theory. Although it is based on simple assumptions,
Aboudi's constitutive equations are too complicated for practical use. Jansson
(1992) has developed constitutive equations for MMCs based on a detailed
numerical study. These constitutive equations are developed only for proportional
loading and they describe the mechanical behavior of the FP/Al composite material
very well.
In the present study new constitutive equations are developed for MMCs when
they are subjected to multiaxial variable loading. Therefore this constitutive model
can be used to predict the cyclic loading behavior of components made of the
composite material. The constitutive equations developed in this study are
implemented into the ABAQUS finite element code as a new user material model.
Then using these constitutive equations some numerical calculations are performed
for structural components made of FP/Al to understand their stressstrain behavior
and the failure mechanisms.
2
CHAPTER 1
Proposed Outline of Study
1.1 Research Plan
Because of the limited availability of composite materials in quantity and shape
the information available from standard mechanical tests is small. Using the least
possible amount of information (part experiment and part finite element
calculations) we shall attempt to describe the behavior of metatmatrix composite in
the following way,
1) Develop the theoretical frame work for constitutive equations which
describes the multiaxial behavior of a given MMC system under variable
loads.
2) Determine the necessary parameters in the constitutive equations from
available experimental data.
3) Implement the constitutive equations as a UMAT routine in the ABAQUS
[Hibbit et al 1988] finite element code.
3
4) Evaluate the ability of the constitutive equations to predict the behavior of
structural components with representative stress concentrations, when
subjected to cyclic loading.
1.2 The Composite Material
The composite material studied herein is the Du Pont's A1 matrix [Champion et
al, 1978] with continuous FP fibers in a unidirectional lay up. It is fabricated by
preparing the FP fibers into tapes by using a fugitive binder and the tapes are
subsequendy laid up in a metal mold in the desired orientation. The binder is burned
away and the mold is vacuuminfiltrated with the molten matrix. The composite
was available in the form of a plate 150x150x12.5 mm. The fiber volume fraction
was determined to be 55%.
The matrix material is 2 wt% LiAl binary alloy, which exhibits kinematic and
isotropic hardening behavior. The modulus of the matrix E
m
68.9 GPa, Poisson's
ratio v
m
0.32, the yield strength Y
m
94 MPa, the ultimate strength 130 MPa, and
the failure strain is 30% [Jansson 1991].
The FP fiber consists of 99% pure crystalline aalumina (AI2O3) coated with
Silica that improves the strength of the fiber and aids the wetting by the molten
4
metal. The Lithium also promotes the wetting of the Alumina fibers that forms a
strong matrixfiber interface [Jansson 1991]. Fibers are considered to be isotropic.
The modulus of fiber Ef 344.5 GPa, the Poisson's ratio VF 0.26, approximate fiber
diameter 20 im, tensile strength Cf for a 6.4 mm gage length specimen is 1.92.1
GPa, and the fracture strain of the fiber is 0.30.4 % [Jansson 1991].
Based on the experimental and computational results [Jansson 1991] the
interface of this composite material is assumed to be fully bonded.
1.3 General Structure of the Yield Surface for a Transversely
Isotropic Material
For modeling purposes the fibers are assumed to be long parallel circular
cylinders; in reality they have slightly different diameters which are distributed
randomly. However the fiber volume fraction is taken to be nearly uniform in the
transverse plane. The fully bonded metalmatrix composite system is taken to be
homogeneous and transversely isotropic.
The Cartesian coordinate axes system xi is defined as indicated in figure 2.1
where the axis xi is parallel to the fiber direction and axes X2, X3 are in the
transverse plane. For a transversely isotropic material the invariants of the stress
tensor a are,
IlOll . 12=2^022+033) . I3
=
^(
ct
22033)
2
+C$3 , l4=0?2+0?3 , I5HCT (1.1)
II is directly related to the stresses in longitudinal direction. I2 and I3 can be
related to the Mohr's circle in the transverse plane, where I2 is the center of the
circle which is the mean normal stress on transverse plane and VI3 is the radius of
the circle which relates to the shear stresses acting on the transverse plane. I4 is
related to the anti plane shear stresses acting on the composite. I5 is the only term
which is cubic in stress.
In general the initial yield function can be written in terms of the stress
invariants
F=F(I1II2I I3) I4,15) (1.2)
This is still a very general result and simplifications are required if it is to be
useful. For proportional loading Jansson [1992a] proposed the following initial
yield function for FP/A1,
6
rC?1 (q22+g33)
2
gll(CT22+g33) fo
22
'^)^^ Q?2 + q?3
K'
2
K"'
2
" K"'
2
K"'
2
K"'
2
IV
L
JV
T
1S.
LT
FT>TS
K
AS
where the K's are material constants.
This is the simplest form of a quadratic yield function. The first three terms in
the right hand side of equation 1.3 are the contribution from axisymmetric stresses
with respect to the fiber direction and the other terms are the contribution from shear
stresses acting on the matrix. Longitudinal and transverse biaxial loading with
stress components of same sign will load the fiber in the longitudinal direction so
the initial yield stress for those loadings are large. For transverse
tension/compression, transverse shear and antiplane shear loading the fiber will
induce a stress concentration which will result in an initial yield stress which is
smaller than that for the matrix. Therefore K'L , K'T and K'LJ are expected to be
larger than K'TS and K'AS. Experiments (as explained in section 4.2) indicated this
is to be the case where the constants are found to be K'L=300 MPa, K'T=360 MPa,
K'
lt
=247 MPa and K'
A
s=K
,
T
s=42 MPa.
The composite behavior will be divided into two parts, one for the fiber
dominated behavior for axisymmetric loading and the other for the matrix
dominated behavior for shear loading. An axisymmetric unit cylinder model is
studied to describe the fiber dominated behavior and is developed in Chapter 2. In
7
this model the matrix is assumed to be an elasticperfectly plastic material which
obeys von Mises yield condition. The matrix dominated behavior studied in Chapter
3 characterises the behavior by using the two surface plasticity model (Krieg 1975)
in which the kinematic and isotropic hardening of the matrix is used to describe the
hardening behavior of the composite. By combining the fiber dominated and matrix
dominated models we develop a rather complete set of constitutive equations which
describe the elasticplastic behavior of the metalmatrix composite. These combined
equations are developed in Chapter 4 and some experiments are also proposed to
determine the necessary parameters in the constitutive equations.
The constitutive equations are then implemented into ABAQUS finite element
code as a new user defined material subroutine. The procedure is explained in
Chapter 5. Using this new user material subroutine some structural components
(with stress concentrations) are analyzed under different loading conditions to
determine the stress and strain distributions. The results obtained from these studies
are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. These stress and strain distributions will provide
an insight into the local failure conditions in the composite.
8
CHAPTER 2
Axisymmetric Component of the Flow Potential
2.1 Yield Surfaces and Hardening Rule
In this Chapter we shall study the properties when the composite material is
subjected to axisymmetric loading. A detailed micromechanical study is performed
to obtain the current yield surface and the hardening rule by using a unit cylinder
model with a single fiber surrounded by the matrix material. The fiber volume
fraction is designated by c which is 0.55 for FP/A1. The matrix can be taken as a
thin layer around the fiber due to this high volume fraction of fibers in the FP/A1
system. Therefore the radial stress is assumed to be constant throughout the matrix
layer.
The axisymmetric applied stress vector to the unit cylinder (figure 2.2) is
defined with the use of the global coordinate system (figure 2.1) as follows,
Q
I = (2.1)
P
9
where Q=CTn and P=^<022+033) .
2
To obtain a general solution to the elasticity problem we have to satisfy both
equilibrium and compatibility equations. This is complicated and numerical
procedures are necessary to get the solution. One of the simplest ways to solve this
problem approximately is to assume uniform stresses in the entire matrix phase
which will satisfy the equilibrium equations in both phases. When this assumption
is made it is quickly discovered that the yield surface in the P, Q space consists of
two parallel straight lines given by
^+^1=0.
K
L
K
T
Computational studies, referred to later, suggest that for equal biaxial stress states
this condition is an overestimate of the yield condition. Therefore to get a better
yield surface the equilibrium equation in the hoop direction is relaxed and the
compatibility of the displacements across the interface is satisfied in this study.
Since we assume a perfect bond condition for FP/A1 composite system, the
displacements ui are continuous across the interface. Therefore
u? = u no sliding of fibers
up = uf no debonding of matrix
10
where superscripts m and f denote the matrix and the fiber, Subscripts r and z
denote the direction of the displacement in the r and z direction according to the axes
system shown in figure 2.2.
Now by considering the equilibrium in the fiber direction and the compatibility
of displacements at the interface, the elasticity problem for the unit cylinder model is
solved approximately. The elastic solution gives the matrix (local) stresses at the
interface (figure 2.2) in terms of global stresses as,
By solving the cylinder model Ly are found to be functions of the elastic properties
of the constituents and the fiber volume fraction. General expressions for Ly are
given in Appendix 1. For the FP/A1 metalmatrix composite this tensor is
[A]=[L][Z] (2.2)
CJ
Z
where [o]= G0
.r
Lu L12
and [L]= LJJ L22
0 1
0.318 0.349
[L]= 0.02 0.59
0
11
2.1.1 Initial Yield Surface
Because the behavior under the current loading is dominated by the elastic
properties of the fiber the analysis is simplified by assuming that the matrix is an
elasticperfectly plastic material which obeys the von Mises yield condition.
Therefore the matrix stresses must satisfy the following condition at yield,
where a'ij are the deviatoric stresses at the interface of the matrix and ^eff is the
effective stress. Y
m
is the yield stress of the matrix which is 94 MPa.
The matrix stresses a'ij in equation 2.3 are substituted by applied stress vector
(equation 2.2) to obtain the yield condition in terms of applied stresses as,
f=S+ ElPQ . i = o (2.4)
KI K$ Klj
where KL, KJ and KLT are constants which are functions of the elastic properties
of the constituents and the fiber volume fraction. General expressions for KL, KT
arid Klt are obtained using the elastic solution of the cylinder model and are given
in Appendix 1. From the unit cylinder model, using equations in Appendix 1 it
is found that K
L
=305 MPa, K
T
=165 MPa and K
L
T=175 MPa for FP/A1. They are
12
relatively large compared to K's (which is explained in Chapter 3) because they
strongly depend on the fiber behavior.
The initial yield surface defined by equation 2.4 is a general equation of a conic
section. For a stable material yield surface has to be convex everywhere. Therefore
using the properties of conic sections [Nichols, Kalin 1972] it is found that the
initial yield surface given in equation 2.4 represents an ellipse when it satisfies the
following condition
Kj
T
>^ l (2. 5)
As expected the above inequality is satisfied by the initial yield surface given in
equation 2.4 for FP/A1. The equality condition in the equation 2.5 holds only when
the initial yield surface is given by two parallel straight lines.
2.1.2 Subsequent Yield Surface
After the initial yielding, the matrix has both elastic and plastic deformations
while the fiber deforms elastically. The plastic deformations result in a self
equilibrating stress distribution so that the matrix stresses a
N
i can be written in the
form,
13
O?
z " Pz
e
= CT
e  Pe (26)
O_f =0r
where a; are the current elastic stresses and pj are the components of the current
residual stresses in the matrix. Since the matrix is assumed to be a thin layer around
the fiber the radial stress is always equal to the applied stress P and there is no
residual stress in the matrix in the radial direction.
In order to achieve a simple mathematical format for the current yield surface it
is useful to define the residual stresses by quantities
a
i, where
[p]=[K][M][a]. (2.7)
In this equation
[p] =
pz
Pe
, [K] =
Ln L12
L21 L22 .
, [M] =
1 rm
n
0 i
n
and [a] =
a
z
Or
Here the constants m and n are functions of the elastic properties of the constituents
and defined in Appendix 1. For FP/A1 these constants are found to be m= 2.14
and n= 1.59.
14
The current yield surface is obtained by substituting the current matrix stresses
given in equation 2.6 into the yield condition (equation 2.3). Then using applied
stresses P, Q (equation 2.1) and the residual stresses
a
i (equation 2.7) the current
yield surface can be written in the following mathematical form.
f
_ (Q  az)
2
[
(P  cxr)
2
(Q  ocz)(P  a
r
)
1=0
p
2
KL p
2
K$ p
2
KLT
It is found that the P depends on the current values of residual stress a
r
. Analytical
expression for p is given in Appendix 1. Therefore the size of the current yield
surface changes with current loading. The current yield surface given in equation
2.8 is also an ellipse and it does not rotate w.r.t. the initial yield surface.
2.1.3 Hardening Rule
Applying equilibrium in the axial direction and compatibility conditions at the
interface for the current stress state the relation between local plastic strains and
local residual stresses can be found as follows,
[e
pm
] = [A][p] * (2.9)
15
where [e
pm
] =
,pm
pm
,pm
[A] =
An A12
A21 A22
A31 A32 .
and
The constants Ay depend on the elastic properties of the constituents and the
fiber volume fraction. By solving the elastoplastic unit cylinder model, we can get
analytical expressions for Ajj which are given in Appendix 1. For FP/A1 we
obtain,
[A] = 10
11
1.689 0.464
0.526 1.451
1.163 0.987 J
Pa"
Using the virtual work principle [Cocks and Leckie 1987] for the same unit
cylinder model, the matrix (local) plastic strains are related to the composite (global)
plastic strains through the tensor Ljj (defined in equation 2.2) as follows,
[de
1
*] =(lc)[L]
T
[de
pm
] (2.10)
16
where [deP] =
deT
de?
c
are the composite plastic strains.
Using equations 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10 the relation between composite plastic
strains and the residual stresses are determined as follows,
[da]=lH][d
pc
]. (2.11)
where [H] =
Hii H
1 2
H21 H22
= {(1 c)[L]
T
[ A] [K] [M]}
_1
The constants Hy depends on the elastic properties of the constituents and the fiber
volume fraction. For FP/A1 we obtain,
[H] = 10
52.39 22.28
21.84 12.49 J
MPa
The relations given in equation 2.11 define the hardening rule.
Although the current yield surface and the hardening rules for this model are
obtained in the cylindrical coordinate system, we need to have them in the global
Cartesian coordinate system for future use (see Chapters 4 and 5). Therefore the
17
residual Stresses and the plastic strains in cylindrical coordinate system can be
transformed into Cartesian coordinate system through following transformations,
<Xii = Oz and Ot2+3 = 20r (2.12)
l! = ef and 8^ =2e
r
pc
(2.13)
Here an, (X2+3> e
p
li and ePa are in Cartesian coordinate system. The last
definition given in equation 2.13 is the relation between area strain and radial strain.
Where Pa = e
p
22 + e
p
33
Now with the use of equations 2.12 and 2.13, the hardening rule obtained from
the model (equation 2.11) can be rewritten in the Cartesian coordinate system as
follows,
daii "z Z
I 2
"
def i
. da
2+3
.
. Z
2
i Z22 .
X.
where Zy depend on the elastic properties of the constituents and the fiber volume
fraction. For FP/A1 we obtain,
18
[Z]= 1(T
52.39 11.14
43.68 12.49 J
MPa
The general expressions for Zij are given in Appendix 1. We can see from this
model the hardening rule obtained for axisymmetric loading is linear. For the
completeness of the hardening rules we need to know the increments of the plastic
strains. They are obtained from the normality condition as explained in section 2.3
of this Chapter.
2.2 Comparison of the Axisymmetric Model with Finite Element
Computing Predictions
Using the unit cylinder model the motion of the yield surface can be found for
both proportional and nonproportional axisymmetric loading. The predictions of
the model are compared with those obtained using finite element calculations.
Figure 2.3 shows the motion of the composite yield surface for various
axisymmetric proportional loading paths. These loads are chosen to be much higher
than the operating loading range for FP/A1 system. Then as the next step we want to
investigate the behavior for different nonproportional loading paths. The motion of
the composite yield surface for axisymmetric nonproportional loading paths is
shown in figure 2.4. Maximum and minimum applied load levels for both P and
Q were 900 MPa and 900 MPa. Notations shown in figure 2.4 are explained
here. In figure 2.4 Q=P corresponds to a proportional loading path where the
19
ratio Q/P was kept as 1 throughout the loading path. Then Q>P means load Q was
applied first from 0 to maximum (900 MPa) or minimum (900 MPa) level of Q
while keeping P at zero. After Q has reached to 900 MPa or 900 MPa (depending
on the loading direction) the load Q was kept constant at that final load level and
load P was applied from 0 to maximum (900 MPa) or minimum (900 MPa) level
of P (again depending on the loading direction). Similarly P~>Q means vice versa
of Q>P. These two variable loading procedures will produce nonproportional
loading paths. The current yield surfaces obtained from the model agree very well
with the finite element predictions for both proportional and nonproportional
loading as shown in figures 2.3 and 2.4.
2.3 Modified Current Yield Surface
The model was tested for small and very large (out of the operating loading
range for FP/A1 material system) proportional and nonproportional loading as
explained in section 2.2. It is found that the change in the size of the current yield
surface given in equation 2.8 is negligible compared to the initial yield surface
(equation 2.4) for all of those possible loading. Therefore using these observations,
we can simplify the form of the current yield surface given in equation 2.8 as a
kinematic hardening behavior by taking p=l. Now the modified current yield
surface can be written as,
20
(QOQ
2
(POR)
2
(QOGCPO,.)
f = ^ +  ^  1=0 (2.15)
K
2
Kf Kl
T
in which KL, KT and KLT are the same constants as defined for the initial yield
surface. Therefore the current yield surface can be represented by pure translation
of the initial yield surface.
Using equations 2.1 and 2.12 with equation 2.15 the current yield surface can
be written in the Cartesian coordinate system as follows,
f
_(gnan)~ ^ (q
2
2+CT33a2+3)
2
(
g
ii'
a
11)(g22+<*33^2+3)
1=
q (2 16)
K'
l
2
K'
2
K'
2
t
where K'L=KL, K'T= 2KJ and K'LT= ^ KLT For FP/A1 these constants are
found to be K'L=305 MPa, K'T=330 MPa and K'LT=247.5 from the equations
given in Appendix 1.
The composite plastic strains are obtained by assuming that the plastic strain
rates are normal to the current yield surface, ie.
< = (2.17)
21
where f is the composite flow potential given in equation 2.16. The plastic
multiplier dA, is positive and depends on the stress and deformation history. During
the plastic loading process dA. can be found by the consistency condition, df=0, as
follows,
df
= f
do
'
+
5sir
da
' >
+
5i^ =
(2.18)
dan and da2+3 in equation 2.18 are given in terms of plastic strain increments
in equation 2.14. Substituting the normality condition of equation 2.17 for plastic
strains, equation 2.18 can be simplified to give dA. as,
dA =
d f _
d O i
dq
(2.19)
where T =
9f
da
li
df
d 0 2 2
Zn
L Z21
2Z
12
2 Z22 J
_3f_
9CTH
3f
.d a 2 2 .
(2.20)
2. 4 Compr essi bi l i t y
For isotropic materials plastic deformation is incompressible, ie.
dePn+deP22+deP33=0. However it can be deduced from the current anisotropic
22
model that the volumetric strain during the plastic deformation is non zero and is
given by,
dV = dA, 2(oi iaii)
1 1
[K'L
2
K',
2
tJ
+ (CT22+a33a2+3)
4
K'f
1
K'
2
LT
(2.21)
where dV=dePn+deP22+deP33.
For a uniaxial tension test in longitudinal direction the quantity dV/dePn is
calculated from the model and found that it varies from 2.07 to 2.30 (see Table
2.1). Since the plastic flow is constrained in the fiber direction, the plastic strains
in the transverse directions are found to be larger than the plastic strains in the fiber
direction. For an isotropic material, the quantity dV/dePn is zero during the plastic
deformation. When the total strains are considered for the above test the ratio of the
volumetric strain to longitudinal strain, e'kk/e'll. is 0.44 when the material is elastic
and drops to 0.28 during the plastic deformation (see Table 2.1).
2.5 Summary of the Constitutive Equations Developed for
Axisymmetric Behavior of the Composite Material
The flow potential and hardening rules developed in this study for the
axisymmetric behavior of the metalmatrix composite can be summarized as
follows,
23
Flow potential: f= (
g
ir
a
n)
2
+
(cf22+o'33
a
2+3)
2
_ (Pi _ j _ q
K'L K'lt
Flow rule def = dX
1
0C?i
Hardening rule: doci = ZdePk
and from the consistency condition dX, can be found as,
d X =
3f
^
da,
d a
where T =
8f 3f
3<Jll d ( S 2 2
Zn
L Z21
2 Z12
2 Z22 J
8f
8CTH
8f
_ d ( J 2 2 .
24
ai i (MPa) dV/dePn
e'kk/e'll
304 0.00 0.44
348 2.07 0.42
416 2.16 0.38
487 2.23 0.33
527 2.26 0.32
561 2.28 0.29
590 2.29 0.29
611 2.30 0.28
Table 2.1 Amount of compressibility in a longitudinal tension test
25
FIGURE CAPTIONS: CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.1 Cartesian coordinate axes system for fiber reinforced metal matrix
composite
Figure 2.2 Axisymmetric unit cylinder model with applied loads P and Q
Figure 2.3 Kinematic motion of composite yield surface for various
axisymmetric proportional loading
Figure 2.4 Comparison of kinematic motion of composite yield surfaces for
axisymmetric proportional and nonproportional loading
26
a,.
X3
Figure 2.1
27
Matrix
Fiber.
Stresses in the matrix at the interface
Figure 2.2
28
Q=991 MPa
P=0
* MODEL
FEM
P=1052 MPa
Q=0
litial
P=1052 MPa
Q=0
10
Q=991 MPa
P=0
20
20 15 10 5 0 5 1 0 15 20
P/Ym
Figure 2.3
29
E
>
20
15
10
5
10
15
* MODEL
FEM
( Min.(P.Q): i=900MPa
Q=P
P>Q
Max.(P,Q)=900 MPa
Q=P
Q>P
Initial
P>Q
20  i i  i i i i  i i i i  i i i i  i i i i  i i i i  i i i i  i i i i
 2 0  15  10  5 0 5 10 15 2 0
P/ Y m
Figure 2.4
30
CHAPTER 3
Shear Component of the Flow Potential
3.1 Yield Surfaces and Hardening Rule
In this Chapter we shall study the properties when the composite material is
subjected to shear loading. The behavior of the composite material under shear
loading is dominated by the matrix behavior. When attempts have been made to
describe the behavior of composite material when subjected to cyclic shear loading
it was discovered that both isotropic and kinematic hardening are required for an
adequate prediction of the behavior. For this kind of behavior one of the simplest
constitutive equations developed was that suggested by Krieg [1975]. His theory
involved a memory of a second order tensor and some scalars, where the tensor is
related to back stress which comes from kinematic hardening and the scalars are
related to isotropic hardening.
3. 1. 1 I ni t i al Yi el d Sur f ac e
Figure 3.1 shows the shear stressstrain diagrams for metalmatrix composite
for transverse and anti plane shear tests. Both shear experiments followed almost
31
the same stressstrain path as shown in figure 3.1. Also from the numerical
calculations for FP/A1 it has been observed that the calculated initial yield surface is
a circle in a 12, <*13 plane [Jansson 1991]. These observations allow a great
simplification to the formulation of constitutive equations for shear and enable us to
assume that the transverse and anti plane shear responses are the same for the
composite material. Therefore the initial yield stress in shear can be characterized by
a single constant K's for both transverse and anti plane shear loading (ie.
K'S=K'TS=K'AS) The value of initial yield stress K's is found to be 42 MPa from
the experiments shown in figure 3.1. From the results obtained in Chapter 2 it
can be immediately seen that K'L, K'T and K'LT K'S. This is due to the
influence of the strong elastic fibers in the composite system.
Based on the above assumptions when multiaxial shear stresses are acting on
the composite the initial yield surface can be represented by a sphere of radius K's
in the shear stress space and can be written as follows,
ka22C33)
2
+C23
2
+Cn2
2
+<Tl 3
2
F = 4 1 = 0 ( 3 .
K's
2
3. 1. 2 Li mi t Sur f ac e
When the composite is subjected to transverse and anti plane shear loading the
material exhibits a hardening behavior after the initial yielding and gradually
32
approaches a limit stress level as shown in figure 3.1. This is expected because
the behavior of the composite material under the shear loading is dominated by the
behavior of the matrix material. Since the composite material behavior is assumed to
be the same for transverse and anti plane shear loading the limit shear stress has
been taken to be 105 MPa from the experimental observations (figure 3.1).
Therefore when the composite is subjected to multiaxial shear stresses the limit
surface can be simply written as,
1 / * *
x
2 * 2 * 2 * 2
7(^22^33) +023 +<*12 +Oi3
F = 4 1=0 (3.2)
Ks
2
This limit surface represents a sphere in the shear stress space, where the radius
K*
s
is the limit shear strength and it is 105 MPa for the considered material system.
3. 1. 3 Subsequent Yi el d Sur f ac e and Har deni ng Rul es
When the composite material was subjected to cyclic shear loading the
experimental stressstrain behavior observed is shown in figure 3.2 (Jansson
1991). The experimental observations show that both kinematic and isotropic
hardening are necessary to describe the material behavior. To capture these features
the two surface plasticity model [Krieg 1975, McDowell 1985, 1989 and Ohno
1986], as briefly explained below, is used to obtain the current yield surface and
33
hardening rule for the shear part of the flow potential. Using a simple monotonic
shear loading experiment we can obtain the necessary constants to describe the two
surface model by curve fitting. Then this model can be used to describe the
behavior of the composite material when it is subjected to cyclic shear loading.
In order to describe the transient elastoplastic behavior of materials observed
just after initial yielding (or reverse yielding), a limiting surface (F* = 0) is
introduced inside which a yield surface (F=0) is allowed to translate (in kinematic
hardening), as shown in figure 3.3, where a denotes the center of the current
yield surface, while K*
s
and K
s
are the radii of limit and yield surfaces. After the
onset of yielding, the yield surface is assumed to translate so that stress a
approaches the stress point a* on F* = 0 at which the outward normal is
codirectional with the outward normal to the yield surface (F=0) at stress point <T.
The translation of the yield surface within the limit surface describes the transient
elastoplastic behavior after yielding. The plastic tangent modulus is taken to be
larger when the stress state is remote from the limit surface. Therefore the model
varies smoothly from a high to a low stiffness during the plastic loading process.
Using this model with notations shown in Figure 3.3 we obtain the following
current yield surface for the shear component of the flow potential,
34
1 = 0 (3.3)
Where a defines the back stress tensor which comes from the kinematic hardening.
The hardening rule is directly obtained from the two surface model and is given
where A is a constant which defines the hardening rule for the shear model. It is
calculated by curve fitting (see section 4.2.2) and is 11.014 for this material, and
T=CT*0, where T is the distance between possible contact points in two surfaces.
We can easily see equation 3.4 gives a non linear hardening behavior for the shear
part of the flow potential.
The composite plastic strains are obtained from the normality condition as
follows,
by,
da = Atari (3.4))
dif Ait (3.5)
35
where F is the composite flow potential given in equation 3.3. The plastic multiplier
dA. is positive and depends on the stress and deformation history. During the plastic
loading process dA, can be found by the consistency condition as follows,
3F 3 F
dF = dCi + dttj = 0 (3.6)
aai ai
dtXjin equation 3.6 are given in terms of dA, in equation 3.4. Therefore equation
3.6 can be simplified to give dA, as follows,
3F .
do;
dA, = (3.7)
aF
A
Arh
doj
where r \ \ = a*j  aj.
3. 2 Compr essi bi l i t y
From the model developed for the shear behavior of the composite material, it
can be seen that there is no volumetric strain during the plastic deformation, ie
dePi i+deP22+de
p
33=0.
36
3. 3 Compar i son of t he Shear Model wi t h Ex per i ment al Resul t s
Figure 3.1 shows the shear stressstrain diagrams for transverse and anti
plane shear tests. After curve fitting with these monotonically loaded shear
experimental results, the necessary parameters (K's, K*s and A) to describe the
constitutive model were obtained as explained in section 4.2.2. Then this model
was used to generate the stressstrain behavior for a cyclic shear test. The model is
found to be in a good agreement with the experimental result (Jansson 1991) as
shown in figure 3.2.
3. 4 Summar y of t he Const i t ut i ve Equat i ons Devel oped f or Shear
Behavior of the Composite Material
The flow potential, limit surface and hardening rules developed in this study for
the shear behavior of the metalmatrix composite can be summarized as follows,
1 0 0 0 2
J
{022CJ33CX23)"+(023(X23)"+(012CX12)~+(C 13"(* 13)
Flow potential: F = 4 1 = 0
K's
2
i * * \ 2 * 2 * 2 # 2
+ (a22033) +a23 +c12 +<*13
Limit surface: F = 1=0
Ks
2
37
3F
Flow rule: def = dA,
00i
Hardening rule: da, = A dA, Ti
and from the consistency condition dA. can be found as,
r
Ar
li
8aj
38
FIGURE CAPTIONS: CHAPTER 3
Figure 3.1 Shear stress  strain diagrams for transverse and anti plane shear
loading experiments [Jansson 1991]
Figure 3.2 Cyclic anti plane shear test
Figure 3.3 Limit and yield surfaces in two surface plasticity model
39
Transverse  experiment
joqoc Anti plane  experiment
Transverse  computed
Model
0.5 '.0
r *)
I 5
2.0
Figure 3.1
40
15
10
5
0
5
10 expenment
model
15
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Y
12
<%>
Figure 3.2
41
F=0 , Yield surface
F*=0 , Limit surface
Figure 3.3
42
CHAPTER 4
Constitutive Equations
4.1 Combination of Axisymmetric and Shear Models
Two constitutive models have been developed in this study to describe the
behavior of composite material under different loading conditions; one for the fiber
dominated axisymmetric behavior (Chapter 2) and the other for the matrix
dominated shear behavior (Chapter 3). In this Chapter these two models are
combined to describe the multiaxial behavior of the composite under general loading
and a systematic procedure for determining the material parameters is developed.
This combined model will give the complete set of constitutive equations for a
metalmatrix composite.
When the composite is loaded beyond the initial yielding, the increments of the
total strains in the composite are given by
dej= def+deP (4.1)
43
where e
e
j' are the elastic strains and ePj are the plastic strains in the composite. Each
of these vector consists of six components; den, de22, d33, dei2, dei3 and d23.
4. 1. 1 El ast i c i t y
For a transversely isotropic material, such as FP/A1 system, increments of the
elastic strains are given by
def
de
de
33
dYf
2
1 V
L
VL
E, E, E,
V.
1
~
V
T
E, E
T
E
t
v,. v
1
E,.
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
1
0 0 0 0 0
C
L
0 0 0 0 0
1
'da, '
da
22
da
33
dx,
dx,
dx
23
(4.2)
where El, Ej, Gl, Vl and Vt are the five independent elastic constants for a
transversely isotropic material. These constants can be determined experimentally
44
[Jansson' 1991] and for the studied composite material system EL=225 GPa,
ET=150 GPa, GT=55 GPa, GL=58 GPa, VL=0.28 and VX=0.31. The transverse
shear modulus Gr is given by the relation
G
T
^
L

2(1+vr)
4. 1. 2 Pl ast i c i t y
When the composite material is subjected to multiaxial stresses the current yield
surface can be obtained by combining the axisymmetric model developed in Chapter
2 and the shear model developed in Chapter 3 as follows,
P_(qn<*n)
2
(
q
2Z
+q
33^2+3)
2
(qilalXq22+<*33ttZt3)
(4.3)
K
t 2 Tr '2 VI 2
L K T LT
4i022q3323)
2+
(023023)
2+
(
0
12
ct
I2)
2+
(
0
13Cl3)
2
4 [=0
K'<?
where K'L, K'T, K'LT and K's are constants and calculated from the initial yield
stresses of the anisotropic composite material and aj are the back stresses which are
zero at the initial yield. The first three terms in the equation 4.3 are obtained from
the fiber dominated axisymmetric model and the last four terms are obtained from
the matrix dominated shear model.
45
The function F is such that
dey = 0 for F< 0
dey = 0 for F= 0 and dF < 0
dy * 0 for F= 0 and dF = 0
(elasticity)
(elastic unloading) (4.4)
(plastic loading)
The plastic strains are obtained by assuming the normality condition, ie.
de
P
^ 55T
(4,5)
where F is the flow potential given in equation 4.3 and dA. is the plastic multiplier.
The consistency condition, dF=0, is used to find the current value of dA. as follows.
3F .
Kctoi
dX =
 "55 *5
(4
"
6)
^L
Z
 + An
doti
1J
So] 3 a,
1
where Zjj are constants related to axisymmetric hardening and A is the constant
related to shear hardening, rji is the distance between possible contact points in limit
and yield surfaces in shear as shown in figure 3.3. ie rji = a*i  Gj.
For the fiber dominated axisymmetric behavior the hardening rules are given
by,
46
da; = Zy dePj (4.7)
and for the matrix dominated shear behavior the hardening rules are given by,
doti = A dA, rii (4.8)
The limit surface for the matrix dominated shear behavior is required in the
constitutive equations and is given by
1 / * * \ 2 * 2 * 2 * 2
. 7(022033) +23 +Ol2
+CJ
13
F = * 1 = 0 ( 4. 9 )
K
s
*
2
Equations 4.1  4.9 are the complete set of constitutive equations to describe the
composite material behavior under general loading.
4.2 Determination of Parameters in Constitutive Equations
A systematic procedure to find the parameters in constitutive equations is
explained in this section. Some of the parameters are determined by calculations and
others by experiments. Since the experimental and computed (finite element) stress
strain graphs for longitudinal tension and transverse tension tests were in good
agreement the finite element procedures are convenient and used to find K'L and
47
K'T. A finite element calculation for a hydrostatic tension test is used to find K'LT
and the monotonically loaded shear experiments are used to obtain K's, K*s and
A. The constants Zjj in the constitutive equations are obtained from the cylinder
model as explained in Chapter 2.
4.2.1 Longitudinal Tension Test, K'l
The stressstrain diagram obtained from a longitudinal tension test is shown in
figure 4.L and is used to find K'L The stress corresponding to the initial yield is
K'L and found to be 300 MPa (as indicated in the figure 4.1) from the test.
4.2.2 Shear Test, K'
s
, K*
s
and A
The stressstrain diagrams for transverse and anti plane shear tests are shown in
figure 3.1 of Chapter 3 and are used to obtain K's, K*s and A. The stressstrain
diagrams (figure 3.1) exhibit a hardening behavior after the initial yielding and
gradually approaches a limit stress level. From those experimental observations
initial yield stress, K's, and limit stress, K*s, are selected to be 42 MPa and 105
MPa. The only other necessary parameter to describe the shear behavior is the
constant A in equation 4.8 which defines the slope of the hardening curve. It is
determined by curve fitting the model with shear experimental results as explained
below. During the plastic deformation the flow potential, hardening rule and
consistent condition can be used to obtain the following relation
48
di.
dy
to
(Kstb)K's(l
1

di
)
G dy
TO
where io is a shear stress selected in the plastic region and Idx/d'ylxo is the
corresponding slope at the stressstrain diagram for that stress To as indicated in
figure 4.6. The constant G is the shear modulus and K's and K*s are as defined
above. Using the experimental shear stressstrain diagrams in figure 3.1, the
constant A can be calculated by choosing a stress level in plastic region and using
equation 4.10. Then using this calculated A, the entire shear stressstrain behavior
is predicted from the model and compared with experimental results. This
procedure has been repeated until the best fit of the model is obtained. The best fit
of the model is obtained when A is 11.014.
4.2.3 Transverse Tension Test, K'T
The stressstrain diagram obtained from a transverse tension test is shown in
figure 4.3 and is used to calculate K'T. The only non zero stress for this test is
033. When the initial yield stress, a, in the transverse tension is obtained from the
test, K'T can be calculated using the equation 4.3 as follows,
49
1 _ 1 l_
K't Cf
2
4 K's
(4.10)
Knowing K's from the shear test, K'T is calculated to be 360 MPa from the
transverse tension test.
4. 2. 4 Hydr ost at i c Tensi on Test , K'LT
From finite element calculations the stressstrain diagram can be obtained for the
composite material when it is subjected to hydrostatic tension (ie <Ji 1=022=^33)
and is used to calculate K'lt IF the initial yield stress for the hydrostatic tension
test is <Jh then K'lt can be calculated using the equation 4.3 as follows,
Knowing K'l from the longitudinal tension test and K't from the transverse
tension test, K'lt is calculated to be 247 MPa from the hydrostatic tension test.
4.3 Verification of the Constitutive Model from Other Experiments
Initial yield stresses from both longitudinal tension test and transverse tension
test are used to find the parameters in the constitutive equations as explained in
section 4.2. Then the other experimental and numerical results available from both
2 , 1 , 4 I
(4.11)
rrt 2 tt( 2 TT 2
IV LT KL ^ T H
50
longitudinal and transverse tension tests are used to verify the predictions from the
constitutive model as explained in this section.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are from a longitudinal tension test, where figure 4.1
is the stressstrain diagram and figure 4.2 is the relation between transverse
contraction and longitudinal strain for this test. The initial yield stress from this test
has already been used to calculate K'L as explained in section 4.2.1. Then using the
model longitudinal stressstrain diagram and the transverse contraction are predicted
and shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2. It can be seen that the predictions from the
model are in very good agreement with experimental and numerical results for this
test.
Figures 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 are from a transverse tension test, where figure
4.3 is the stressstrain diagram, figure 4.4 is the relation between out of plane
and transverse strain and figure 4.5 is the relation between longitudinal and
transverse strain for this test. The initial yield stress from this test is used to
calculate K'x as explained in section 4.2.3. Then the model was used to predict the
stressstrain behavior of the material under transverse tension loading and compared
with experimental and computed results as shown in figures 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.
It can be seen that the predictions obtained from the model for this test are also in
good agreement with the experimental and numerical results.
51
4.4 Remarks
The constitutive laws developed in this study represent the mechanical behavior
of the fully bonded composite material system (FP/A1) very well. This model has
the ability to predict the material behavior of the composite under complex
multiaxial loading. Remainder of this study is devoted to demonstrate how to use
these constitutive equations in design of structural components.
52
FIGURE CAPTIONS: CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.1 Stress  strain curve for longitudinal tension test [Jansson 1991]
Figure 4.2 The relation between transverse contraction and longitudinal strain
for specimen loaded in longitudinal tension [Jansson 1991]
Figure 4.3 Stress  strain curve for transverse tension test [Jansson 1991]
Figure 4.4 The relation between out of plane and transverse strain for specimen
loaded in transverse tension [Jansson 1991]
Figure 4.5 The relation between longitudinal and transverse strain for specimen
loaded in transverse tension [Jansson 1991]
Figure 4.6 Typical shear stressstrain diagram
53
Experiment
Computed
Model
K'L
0
0. 3 0. 0 0. 4
0. I 0. 2
f i n (S)
Figure 4.1
54
0.00
0*11
Experiment
Computed
Mode L
0.02
0.C6
0.08
 0. 10
0.12
0.3 0.2 0.0
Ci i ( * )
Figure 4.2
55
Experiment
Computed
Wotrix
r Model
0 2 0.4 0.6
33 (*)
Figure 4.3
56
0 2
*
: o 02 04 Co oa
i 3 ( X )
Figure 4.4
57
0.00
C T l S
Experiment
Computed
ModeL
o.ot
0.02
0.04
o.t 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2
*u ()
Figure 4.5
58
K's
y %
Figure 4.6
59
CHAPTER 5
Implementation of Constitutive Law in ABAQUS
For the design purpose it is important to understand the stress and strain
distributions of structural components made of MMCs. But due to the limited
availability of these materials, experiments will be expensive to perform on
components. However the constitutive models developed for these materials can be
used to analyze structural problems numerically. This has been done by
implementing constitutive law in ABAQUS finite element code as a user defined
material subroutine and that procedure is explained in this Chapter.
5. 1 User Mat er i al Subr out i ne
The user material subroutine called UMAT in ABAQUS provides an extremely
powerful and flexible tool for analysis. During the structural calculations this
subroutine will be used to define the mechanical constitutive behavior of the
material at each material calculation point. This is very flexible to use in analysis
where the user defines the number of material parameters necessary for the UMAT
and their magnitudes and the number of solution dependent state variables with
60
input data for the structure. These parameters with other variables such as stresses,
strains etc. are passed to the subroutine at each Gauss integration point of the
element. The subroutine calculates the Jacobian matrix of the constitutive model,
3(A<Ji)/3(Aej), which is the change in the i
1
*
1
component of stress at the end of the
increment caused by a change in the j
1
*
1
component of the strain increment array.
The stress tensor and the state variables are also updated to the current values at the
end of the increment. The distributions and magnitudes of these state variables can
be printed out as additional information for the analysis.
5. 2 I t er at i ve Sc heme
When the deformation during the increment is elastic the stresses satisfy the
condition F < 0 where F is the yield function. Iterations are not necessary in this
case and only the elasticity relations are used to define the Jacobian matrix for the
next increment as
J"j
+1
= Ey (5.1)
where Ey is the 6x6 elasticity tensor (which is the inverse of the compliance tensor
given in equation 4.2). The stress increment Aoi and the current stress of"
1
are
given by,
61
Actj = E;; A&
(5.2)
o?
+1
= of +Aq
If of
+1
gives the condition F > 0 then the plastic deformation occurs within the
increment. Therefore corrections are needed for the stresses Aai and corresponding
p
A X , Aoii and Ae
;
. To find these corrections an implicit iterative scheme is used
within the subroutine which will ensure the stability of the global convergence. The
method used by Doghri et al, 1989 and Hild et al 1990 is implemented for this
purpose. In that scheme the following non linear equations are simultaneously
solved by the Newton's method.
Yield condition : F"
+1
= 0 (5.3)
t)F
Flow rule : gjf
+1
= Ae?  A X = 0 (5.4)
1
Hardening rule: h"
+1
= Aoc,  A X D; =0 (5.5)
Elastic law: of"
1
"
1
 Ejj( ej
+1
 e?  Ae? )= 0 (5.6)
p
The variables a
u
A8
;
, Aaj and d X at the end of the time increment must satisfy
the yield condition, flow rule, hardening rule and the elastic law. Since the yield
62
condition F=0 is satisfied throughout the plastic deformation the consistency
condition, dF=0, is automatically satisfied.
The iterative scheme is considered to be converged when the corrections are
smaller than the specified tolerances. After the convergence is achieved the stresses,
strains and the state variables are known at the end of the increment. The Jacobian
matrix, Jij
+1
, is then calculated as follows,
j?
+1
= E  
J
lj Mj
3F 3F
(Eik )( Emj)
dOjc OCT
m
3F ^ 3F 3F _
E
k
, Dfe
d < J k 3 c i d a k
n+l
(5.7)
where
3Aej
5.3 Input Parameters to the ABAQUS
The following input parameters must be defined in the input file for ABAQUS
with the *USER MATERIAL key word.
Ell (or En): Elastic modulus of the composite in longitudinal direction. For the
FP/AL system Ell is 225 GPa.
63
vtl (or v31): Poisson's ratio of the composite for transverse strain when stressed in
the longitudinal direction. For the FP/Al system vjl is 0.18.
ETT (or E33): Elastic modulus of the composite in transverse direction. For the
FP/Al system ETT is 150 GPa.
vtt (or v33): Poisson's ratio of the composite for transverse strain when stressed in
the other transverse direction. For the FP/Al system Vtt is 0.31
K'L, K'T, K'LT: These constants are related to the yield stresses of the composite
for different experiments. For the FP/Al system K'L=304.86 MPa,
K'
t
=330.22 MPa and K'
LT
=247.47 MPa.
K's: This is the yield stress of the composite in shear. For the FP/Al system K's is
42 MPa.
Zn, Z12, Z21, Z22: These constants will describe the hardening rule for the
axisymmetric part of the flow potential. For the FP/Al system these
constants are found to be Zn=5239 GPa, Zi2=1114 GPa, Z2i=4368 GPa
and Z22=1250 GPa.
64
A: This constant will define the hardening rule for the shear part of the flow
potential. For the FP/A1 system A is 11.014.
K*s: This is the limit strength of the composite when it is subjected to shear stress.
For the FP/A1 system K*s is 105 MPa.
Ln, L12, L21, L22: These constants will define the relation between the elastic
stresses in the matrix and the applied stresses when the composite is
subjected to axisymmetric loading. For the FP/A1 system Ln=0.318,
Li2=0.349, L
2
1=0.02 and L
2
2=0.59.
m, n: For the FP/A1 system m= 2.14 and n= 1.59.
c: Fiber volume fraction. For the FP/A1 system c=0.55.
Y
m
: Yield strength of the matrix in uniaxial tension. For A1 matrix Y
m
=94 MPa.
Efaii: Amount of ductility (or the failure strain) of the matrix material. For A1 matrix
fail=0.3.
An example of special key words necessary when a user material is used is
given below.
"MATERIAL, NAME = FP/AL
65
USER MATERIAL, CONSTANTS = 23
*DEPVAR
* SOLID SECTION, ELSET = ALL, MATERIAL = FP/AL
5.4 Output Variables from ABAQUS
The user material subroutine has the capability to define any number of solution
dependent state variables in addition to the standard output variables such as
stresses and total strains. Using this state variable approach additional macro level
composite variables such as plastic strains, residual stresses and micro level
constituent variables such as fiber and matrix stresses can be determined. These
state variables are calculated at every Gauss integration point and available as
tabular print out form or as contour form in ABAQUS. A list of available solution
dependent state variables are given below.
SDV1SDV6: Residual stresses developed in the composite. They can be written
according to the order of output as AN, OC2+3, 0 1 2 3 ,
A
12> 13> and OC23..
66
SDV7SDV12: Plastic strains developed in the composite. They can be written
according to the order of output as ePn, EP22, eP33>7P12. ^13. and 7P23.
SDV13: Accumulated value of plastic multiplier, ie.
t
X = (5.14)
t=o
SDV14: Increment in the plastic multiplier ( Ak) for that time increment
SDV15: This is the indicator for the convergence of the local iteration scheme for
constitutive equations. The possible range for this variable is between 0 and
50.
SDV16: This variable gives the amount of axisymmetric hardening. It is defined as
2 2
a
n +
a
2+3 + ail <*2+3 (525
K
t 2 v 2 /i 2
L ^ T
K
LT
SDV17: This variable gives the amount of shear hardening. It is defined as
^ai.3 + ah + a?
2
+ a?3
K'l
(5.16)
67
SDV18: This variable is the equivalent plastic strain for composite. This is defined
as
This is the total accumulation of plastic strain.
SDV19: This variable gives the fiber stress. Knowing of the fiber stresses are
important for the prediction of fiber failure in the composite.
SDV20: This variable gives the void growth ratio (G]/ a
e
ff) in the matrix during its
plastic deformation. Where a^k is the sum of principal stresses in the matrix
and a
e
ff is the effective stress in the matrix.
(5.17)
68
CHAPTER 6
Applications to Structures: Part 1
Some structural components with representative stress concentrations were
analyzed using this new user material subroutine to demonstrate the ability of
constitutive equations to predict the material behavior. It is important to understand
the distribution of stresses and strains in these structural components to get an
insight to the final failure of the structure for design puiposes. An attempt has been
made to establish the governing failure mechanisms for the structures analyzed in
this study. Anisotropic strength properties and failure strains for FP/A1 are
summarized in Table 6.1 and will be used to establish the failure criteria.
Three structural components, a plate with a hole, a plate with a center notch,
and a plate with double edge notches, were analyzed under monotonic loading
using finite element method and the results are discussed in this Chapter. Then the
plate with a hole is analyzed when subjected to cyclic loading and the results are
also discussed in this Chapter. An analysis of a ring reinforced in hoop direction is
performed under two different loading conditions, one with uniform radial loads
69
and the other with partial radial loads, and the results are discussed in the next
Chapter.
6.1 Plate with a Circular Hole
6.1.1 Monotonic Loading
A plate with a hole which is loaded in the fiber direction is analyzed and
discussed in this section. Dimensions and boundary conditions of the problem are
shown in figure 6.1. The length to width ratio is taken to be 5/3 while the hole
diameter is one half of the width of the plate. Due to the symmetries of the structure
only one fourth of the plate was considered for the analysis. A plane stress
calculation was done using displacement controlled boundary conditions as shown
in figure 6.1(b). The ultimate longitudinal tensile stress of the unnotched
composite (CUTS), which is 600 MPa for considered FP/A1 system, is used to
normalize the average stress at the load carrying ligament (C[i
g
) of the plate and the
load level is defined as % = Oiig / ours
The stressstrain diagram obtained from this analysis is shown in figure 6.2.
Yielding first occurs at the load level ^,=0.1457 and is indicated in figure 6.2. It
should be noted that the linear behavior of the stressstrain diagram is not
significantly altered due to yielding. When the elastic stresses in the composite are
considered the stress concentration factor at point B (figure 6.1(b)) of the hole
surface was found to be 4.6. The distribution of longitudinal stress in the composite
along the ligament AB is shown in figure 6.3 for three load levels, one before
yielding (A.=0.004) and other two after yielding (?i=0.293 and X=0.566). An
important feature which can be noticed from the figure 6.3 is that the stress
concentration factor has not changed significantly due to yielding in the matrix.
This is probably due to the fact that the elastic fibers carry most of the longitudinal
stress since the matrix yield stress is relatively small in this material. For the load
level of A.=0.57, the highest longitudinal stress and the strain in the composite (at
point B) were found to be 780 MPa and 0.37% respectively, which are larger than
the reported longitudinal failure stress (600 MPa) and strain (0.3%) for the FP/A1
system. The distribution of fiber stress which is computed from the axisymmetric
model (Chapter 2) is plotted along the ligament AB (figure 6.4) for the same
load levels as above. It can be observed that the stress concentration in the fiber is
7.0, which is higher than the stress concentration of 4.6 for the composite. Also
from figure 6.4 it can be seen that the fiber stress concentration has increased
from 7.0 to 8.0 after the yielding in the matrix occurred. The horizontal fiber along
the critical section BC (figure 6.1(b)) is the one which is highly stressed and the
distribution of fiber stress along BC is shown in figure 6.5 for the same load
levels as above. The highest stress in the fiber is found at point B, where it is 1350
MPa for A.=0.57 and it drops to a lower value within a half of the hole radius
distance and remains uniform at a stress of 280 MPa as shown in figure 6.5.
71
The Variation of the shear stress, %\2, along the section BC is shown in figure
6.6 for load levels X=0.293 and ^,=0.566. The limit strength in shear, K*s (105
MPa), is used to normalize t\2 in figure 6.6. It can be seen that the high shear
stresses are limited to a distance of one hole radius from point B. Since the initial
yield stress in shear, K's, is 42 MPa for this material, yielding can be observed in
regions where Ti2/K*s is greater than 0.4.
Distributions of the effective plastic strains are shown in figure 6.7 for three
different load levels X=0.15, A,=0.22, ^.=0.35 and X=0.57. Yielding was first
observed at point D (which is found at 20 from the Yaxis) when X=0.15 and
indicated in figure 6.7(a). As the load increases yield zone has extended in the
fiber direction as illustrated in figures 6.7(b), (c) and (d). Although a diffuse
yield zone is observed, the high plastic strain gradient is confined to the region near
the hole surface as shown in figure 6.7(d). This yielding is mainly due to the
high shear stresses along the fiber direction. Maximum strain component of Yl2 was
found at point D where it is 0.8% at the end of the loading and is much less than the
failure strain of the composite in shear. It can be seen that the high plastic strains in
this structure are not within the critical load carrying ligament of AB. Therefore
during the monotonic loading the expected failure of this structure is due to the fiber
failure at the critical load carrying ligament.
72
6. 1. 2 Cycl i c Loadi ng
Another analysis was performed for a plate with a hole with dimensions a=4.75
mm, b=19.05 mm, c=76.2 mm and thickness = 2.6 mm to understand the behavior
when subjected to cyclic loading. A load control analysis was performed for this
test with the applied stress varying between 9 MPa and 180 MPa. The above
geometry and load levels were selected to be the same as the experimental data
available for cyclic loading (Tsangarakis et al 1985). The global stressstrain
diagram obtained for the first cycle of this analysis is shown in figure 6.8 and for
all other cycles the same stressstrain behavior is observed. The loading and
unloading paths followed the same stressstrain curve and the linearity in the stress
strain curve has not changed due to yielding near the hole surface. In this cycle
yielding was first observed at 53 MPa during loading and at 77 MPa during
unloading, but residual strains were negligibly small at the end of the cycle.
First yielding was observed on the hole surface at the same place as in the
previous problem (point D of figure 6.7(a)) and the plastic strains are also found
to be confined to a small region near the hole surface (same as in the previous
problem). The highest shear stress in the plate is found at point D and the cyclic
shear stressstrain diagram at this point is shown in figure 6.9(a). As the number
of cycles increases the mean stress level of the cyclic shear behavior has dropped to
zero as shown in figure 6.9(a) and in ten cycles local plastic shake down
behavior is observed with a reversal strain, 2yr, of 0.33% (figure 6.9(a)). Due
to this behavior, the Aluminum matrix will have cyclic plastic deformation of
0.33% at point D and fatigue will be expected to initiate there. The variation of At
(difference between maximum and minimum shear stress within a cycle) at point D
is shown in figure 6.9(b) for the first ten cycles. The highest difference in shear
stress is At/K*s=0.99 and it is observed in the first cycle. Then Ax gradually drops
as the number of cycles increases and remains almost constant after eight cycles.
The variation of the shear stress, T12, along the horizontal section BC (in
figure 6.1(b)) for the maximum and minimum levels of the applied stresses (ie.
for 180 MPa and 9 MPa) in the tenth cycle is shown in figure 6.9(c). It can be
observed from figure 6.9(c) that the maximum difference in the shear stress in
the tenth cycle is Ax/K*s=0.91 and it occurs near the hole surface. Shear stresses
are found to be zero away from the hole surface.
6.2 Plate with a Center Notch
A plate with a center notch which is loaded in the fiber direction is analyzed and
discussed in this section. Dimensions and boundary conditions of the problem are
shown in figure 6.10. The length to width ratio is taken to be 5/3 (same as in the
hole problem) while the notch length is one half of the width of the plate. The notch
tip was blunted by introducing a root radius of 0.1 mm. Due to the symmetries of
the structure only one fourth of the plate was considered for the analysis. A plane
stress calculation was done using displacement controlled boundary conditions as
74
shown in figure 6.10(b). The ultimate longitudinal tensile stress of the
unnotched composite (otjTS). which is 600 MPa for the considered FP/A1 system,
is used to normalize the average stress at the load carrying ligament (an
g
) of the
plate and the load level is defined as X = AU
G
/ (J UTS
The stressstrain diagram obtained from this analysis is shown in figure
6.11. Yielding first occurs at load level X=0.051 and is indicated in figure 6.11.
It should be noted that the linear behavior of the stressstrain diagram is only
slightly changed due to yielding. The distribution of the longitudinal stress in the
composite along the ligament AB is shown in figure 6.12(a) for three load
levels, one before yielding (^=0.0008) and other two after yielding (^=0.3287 and
X=0.5257). It is noticed from the figure 6.12(a) that there is a high stress
gradient near the notch tip. Figure 6.12(b) shows the variation of composite
stress just ahead of the notch tip for both AB and BC directions. The distance in
this figure is normalized using the root radius of the notch. It can be seen that the
high stresses near the tip die down within a distance of five times the root radius in
both AB and BC directions. Outside this region the longitudinal stress in the
composite remained uniform and equal to applied stress. When the elastic stresses
in the composite are considered the stress concentration factor at the notch tip (point
B) was found to be 15. The stress concentration factor did not change significantly
after yielding illustrating a behavior similar to the plate with a hole problem.
Figure 6.12(c) shows the distribution of composite stress just ahead of the notch
tip along Ydirection in a loglog plot. Using the gradient of that graph it is found
that the stresses near the notch tip has r 
6
singularity. From the analysis it is
found that the longitudinal stress in the composite at point B exceeds the
longitudinal failure stress (600 MPa) at a low load level of A,=0.16. The distribution
of the fiber stress along the ligament AB is shown in figure 6.13 for three load
levels, one before yielding (X=0.0008) and other two after yielding (^=0.3287 and
A.=0.5257) and it is observed that elastic stress concentration of the fiber is 22,
which is higher than the stress concentration of 15 for the composite. The
horizontal fiber along the critical section BC is the one which is highly stressed and
the distribution of fiber stress along BC is shown in figure 6.14 for the same load
levels as above. The highest stress in the fiber is at the notch tip (point B) and that
high stress drops to a lower value within the distance of five times the root radius
and then gradually approaches to a uniform stress level as shown in figure 6.14.
This indicates that only a very short length of fiber is highly stressed near the tip.
The variation of the normalized shear stress T12 along the section BC is shown
in figure 6.15 for two load levels X,=0.328 and X=0.526. Since the initial yield
stress in shear, K's, is 42 MPa for the composite material, yielding is observed in
regions where Ti2/K*s is greater than 0.4. Also it is found that the shear stresses
are less than the limit shear strength of 105 MPa.
Distribution of the effective plastic strains are shown in figure 6.16 for two
different load levels A,=0.15 and X=0.53. Yielding was first observed at the notch
tip as shown in figure 6.16(a). As the load increases yield zone has extended in
the fiber .direction as illustrated in figure 6.16(b) and high plastic strains were
confined to a very small region near the notch tip. Maximum strain component of
yl2 was found to be 3.1% at the end of the loading and it is still less than the
reported failure strain of the composite in shear. Yielding in the fiber direction is
mainly due to the high shear stresses near the tip. As the load increases yielding on
the free surface of the notch was observed (figure 6.16(b)) due to compressive
transverse stresses. With all of these observations, it can be concluded that the
expected failure of the plate with a center notch during the monotonic loading will
be due to the fiber failure at the critical load carrying ligament. A statistical study
will be necessary to obtain the failure strength of this structure.
6.3 Plate with Double Edge Notches
A plate with double edge notches loaded in the fiber direction is analyzed and
discussed in this section. Dimensions and boundary conditions of the problem are
shown in figure 6.17. The size of the plate and the total lengths of the notches are
selected to be same as in the center notch problem. Both notch tips are blunted by
introducing a root radius of 0.1 mm. Due to the symmetries of the structure only
one fourth of the plate was considered for the analysis. A plane stress calculation
was done using displacement controlled boundary conditions as shown in figure
6.17(b). The load level, X, is defined in the same way as in the center notch
problem.
77
The siressstrain diagram obtained from this analysis is shown in figure 6.18.
Yielding first occurs at load level A.=0.051 and is indicated in figure 6.18. It is
observed that the load level corresponds to initial yield was the same as for the
center notch problem. In this problem also it is observed that the linear behavior of
the stressstrain diagram is only slightly changed due to yielding. The distribution
of longitudinal stress in the composite along the ligament AB is shown in figure
6.19(a) for three load levels, one before yielding (A,=0.0016) and other two after
yielding ( X=0.3247 and A,=0.4492). The longitudinal stress distribution was very
similar to the results obtained from the center notch problem and the high stress
gradient was near the notch tip. Figure 6.19(b) shows the variation of composite
stress just ahead of the notch tip for both AB and BC directions. The distance in
this figure is normalized using the root radius of the notch. It can be seen that the
high stresses near the tip die down within a distance of five times the root radius in
both AB and BC directions. Outside this region the longitudinal stress in the
composite remained uniform and equal to applied stress. The stress concentration
factor at the notch tip (point B) was found to be 15 and it was same as in the center
notch problem. The stress concentration factor did not change significantly after
yielding. Figure 6.19(c) shows the distribution of composite stress just ahead of
the notch tip along Ydirection in a loglog plot. Using the gradient of that graph it
is found that the stresses near the notch tip has r 
6
singularity. From the analysis
it is obtained that the longitudinal stress in the composite at point B exceeds the
longitudinal failure stress (600 MPa) at a low load level of A.=0,16. The distribution
of the fiber stress along the ligament AB is shown in figure 6.20 for three load
78
levels, one before yielding (A.=0.0016) and other two after yielding (?i=0.3247 and
^=0.4492) and the distribution was very similar to the results obtained from the
center notch problem. The horizontal fiber along the critical section BC is the one
which is highly stressed and the distribution of fiber stress along BC is shown in
figure 6.21 for the same load levels as above. Again the distribution of fiber
stress along BC is very similar to the results obtained from the center notch
problem. The highest stress in the fiber is near the notch tip (point B) and that high
stress drops to a lower value within the distance of five times the root radius and
then gradually approaches to a uniform stress level as shown in figure 6.21. This
indicates that only a very short length of fiber is highly stressed near the tip.
The variation of the normalized shear stress T12 along the section BC is shown
in figure 6.22 for two load levels X=0.325 and ?i=0.449. Since the initial yield
stress in shear, K's, is 42 MPa for the composite, yielding is observed in regions
where Ti2/K*s is greater than 0.4. Also it is found that the shear stresses are less
than the limit shear strength of 105 MPa.
Distribution of the effective plastic strains are shown in figure 6.23 for
different load levels X.=0.16 and A,=0.45. Yielding was first observed at the notch
tip as shown in figure 6.23(a). The yield zone has extended in the fiber direction
(see figure 6.23(b)) as the load increases showing similar behavior to center
notch and hole problems. High plastic strains were also confined to a very small
79
region near the notch tip. Maximum strain component of yl2 was found to be 2.2%
at the end of the loading and it is still less than the reported failure strain of the
composite in shear. Yielding in the fiber direction is mainly due to the high shear
stresses near the tip. With all of these observations, it can be concluded that the
expected failure of the plate with double edge notches during the monotonic loading
will also be due to the fiber failure at the critical load carrying ligament.
6. 4 Summary
The three problems studied in this Chapter had a very similar overall behavior
during longitudinal monotonic loading. From observing the stressstrain diagrams
for longitudinal monotonic loading shown in figure 6.24 for three problems, it
can be seen that the both notch problems had almost the same stressstrain behavior
and the plate with a hole was compliant compared to the notches because of the area
reduction due to the hole. During the monotonic loading the high plastic strains
were not within the critical load carrying ligament and therefore the final failure of
these structures can be predicted from the failure of fibers in the load carrying
ligament due to high stress concentrations.
It is found that the results obtained from both load and displacement control
tests were similar for above three structural components. But the displacement
control calculations were easy to converge than the load control calculations during
the plastic deformations of the structures.
80
When the plate with a hole is subjected to cyclic loading it is found that the
fatigue is expected to initiate at point D (20 away from the vertical axis of the hole)
where the plastic strains are found to be high during the cycles.
81
Property Definition Magnitude
(FP/Al)
Longitudinal Ultimate Tensile Strength, (Tuts (MPa) 600
Transverse Limit Strength, Otl (MPa) 210
Initial Yield Strength in Shear, K's (MPa) 42
Limit Strength in Shear, K*s (MPa) 105
Longitudinal Failure Strain, efl (%)
0.3
Transverse Failure Strain, efr (%) 0.8
Anti plane Shear Failure Strain, yfs (%) 20
Average Strength of Uncoated Fibers (MPa)
(Gauge length 6.25 mm, Weibull Modulus 6.5)
1480
Table 6.1 Strengths and Failure Strains of FP/Al
82
FIGURE CAPTIONS: CHAPTER 6
Figure 6.1 Plate with a circular hole  Longitudinal loading
a) Notations and dimensions
b) Boundary conditions
Figure 6.2 Stressstrain diagram
Figure 6.3 Normalized longitudinal composite stress distribution along AB
Figure 6.4 Normalized fiber stress distribution along AB
Figure 6.5 Normalized fiber stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.6 Normalized shear stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.7 Distribution of effective plastic strains in the plate
Figure 6.8 Applied stressstrain diagram for cyclic loading
83
Figure 63 (a) Shear stressstrain diagram at point D for cyclic loading
(b) Variation of Ax at point D with number of cycles
(c) Variation shear stress along BC at tenth cycle
Figure 6.10 Plate with a center notch  Longitudinal loading
a) Notations and dimensions
b) Boundary conditions
Figure 6.11 Stressstrain diagram
Figure 6.12 Normalized longitudinal composite stress distribution
a) Along the entire ligament AB
b) Just ahead of the notch tip along AB and BC
c) Same as b) in a loglog plot
Figure 6.13 Normalized fiber stress distribution along AB
Figure 6.14 Normalized fiber stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.15 Normalized shear stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.16 Distribution of effective plastic strains in the plate
84
Figure 6.17 Plate with double edge notches  Longitudinal loading
a) Notations and dimensions
b) Boundary conditions
Figure 6.18 Stressstrain diagram
Figure 6.19 Normalized longitudinal composite stress distribution
a) Along the entire ligament AB
b) Just ahead of the notch tip along AB and BC
c) Same as b) in a loglog plot
Figure 6.20 Normalized fiber stress distribution along AB
Figure 6.21 Normalized fiber stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.22 Normalized shear stress distribution along BC
Figure 6.23 Distribution of effective plastic strains in the plate
Figure 6.24 Comparison of StressStrain behaviors of Hole, Center notch and
Double edge notches
85
fiber direction
2c
2a = 30 mm , 2b = 60 mm , 2c = 100 mm
Figure 6.1(a)
G.
lig
'app
/ t 9 / ? i f / Pr r f
ii
g
" O b/(ba)
app
Figure 6.1(b)
86
Yielding
B.
a.
eg
2~
0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
y / b
Figure 6.3
88
T i
*
era
Os
oo
VO
g /a
o NJ 00
o
o
o
to
o
ji.
o
l/l
X = 0.0035
 X = 0.2928
5~
X = 0.5659
0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.8 1
x / c
Figure 6.5
90
0.2
0.4
0.6"
\= 0.2928
\= 0.5659
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x / c
Figure 6.6
91
1 = 0.0e0
2 = 5.0e7
1= 0.0e0
2 = 1.0e4
3 = 2.0e4
4 = 3.0c4
a) X = 0.1457
b) X. = 0.2163
l=0.0e0
2 = 3.0e4
3 =1.0e3
4 = 2.0c3
1 = 0.0e0
2 = 8.0e4
3 = 2.5e3
4 = 4.0e3
c ) X = 0.3498 d) X = 0.5659
Figure 6.7
92
200
150
100
50
0
Loading 
Yielding Unloading
Yielding
T
I I I
0 0.04 0.06 0.08
e (%)
app
0.1
Figure 6.8
93
0.5 & 0.2
a = 180 MPa
max
a . = 9 MPa
min
0 H
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 "
Y
I2
(%)
Figure 6.9(a)
94
0.99
0.98
e
<
0.97
0.96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
No. of Cycles
Figure 6.9(b)
95
Ax/ K
<S
e
y a = 9 MPa
jfJl
a = 180 MPa
app
X / C
Figure 6.9(c)
96
fiber direction
t
Y
V
1
1
2a
^
X
'
J
f2r
2c
2a = 30mm , 2b = 60mm , 2c = 100mm , 2r = 0.2mm
Figure 6.10(a)
G
lig
/o
a
iig =
a
b / (b a)
app
Figure 6.10(b)
97
200
app
app
150
100
o.
B.
50
Yielding
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.1 0.12
e (%)
app
Figure 6.11
98
15"
a.
Q.
0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0
y / b
Figure 6.12(a)
99
15
CU
a.
03
10
Along AB
5
Along BC
0 5 10 15 20 25
distance / r
Figure 6.12(b)
100
y/r
Figure 6.12(c)
101
= 10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
y / b
Figure 6.13
102
X = 0.0008
X = 0.3287
A, = 0.5257
20
15
10
5
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0
X / c
Figure 6.14
103
0.1
0.2 j
1
0.3
0.4
 X = 0.3287
0.5
0.6;
X = 0.5257
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X / c
Figure 6.15
104
l=0.0e3
2=3.0e3
1
a) X, = 0.1527
l=0.0e3
2=5.0e3
^
3=3.0e2
32
1
\l
b) X = 0.5257
Figure 6.16
105
X
2rHk
2a = 30mm , 2b = 60mm , 2c = 100mm , 2r = 0.2mm
Figure 6.17(a)
lig
app
0
Ug
 b / (b a)
app
Figure 6.17(b)
106
140
120
app app
100
80
60
40
Yielding 20
0.1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.02 0
e (%)
app
Figure 6.18
107
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5
y / b
Figure 6.19(a)
108
15
10
Along AB
5
Along BC
0 15 5 10 20 25
distance / r
Figure 6.19(b)
109
20
10
a.
a.
at
1
0.5 1 10 20
y / r
Figure 6.19(c)
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 
110
o.
o.
0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1
y / b
Figure 6.20
111
X = 0.0016
X = 0.3247
X = 0.4492
20
B.
P.
a
15
10"
5
0.04 0 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.1
X / C
Figure 6.21
112
0.8 i
X = 0.3247
0.6
X = 0.4492
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 1
X / c
Figure 6.22
113
l=O.Oe3
2=3.0e3
1
a) X = 0.1629
l=0.0e3
2=3.0e3
3=2.0e2
3
b) X = 0.4492
Figure 6.23
114
200
150
100
a,
e u
CO
Center Notch
Double Edge Notch
Hole
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
e (%)
app
Figure 6.24
115
CHAPTER 7
Applications to Structures: Part 2
An analysis of a ring reinforced in hoop direction is performed under two
different applied loading conditions. The first analysis is done when the outer
boundary of the ring is subjected to a uniformly distributed radial tensile stresses
and the second when the ring is subjected to discontinuous radial tensile stresses.
Information which is important in design are discussed for these problems.
Anisotropic strength properties and failure strains for FP/A1 which are summarized
in Table 6.1 will be used to establish the dominant failure mechanisms.
7. 1 Uni f or ml y Loade d Ri ng
A composite ring reinforced in its hoop direction and loaded uniformly at the
outer surface is studied in this section. The dimensions and boundary conditions
used are shown in figure 7.1(a) and (b). The outer diameter is taken to be twice
the inner diameter. A plane stress displacement control analysis was performed in r
0 plane using the symmetry of the problem as indicated in figure 7.1(b).
116
The stressdisplacement curve is shown in figure 7.2(a). The non linearity of
this curve is due to yielding which was first observed at 81 MPa as shown in the
figure. The corresponding stressstrain diagram is shown in figure 7.2(b) and it
shows a behavior similar to the transverse tensile behavior of the material (figure
4.2). The strain in figure 7.2(b) is obtained from the finite element calculation as
the radial strain at the outer boundary. Calculations were performed until the loads
reached a level when numerical convergence was impossible. The radial strain
corresponding to this displacement was about 0.2% and the applied stress was 143
MPa. The load level X is redefined for this problem as X = 0appA*TL> where a
app
is
the applied stress and cjtlis the transverse limit strength of the composite (210
MPa). Yielding was first observed at the outer surface and progressed inwards as
the applied load increases. The variation of effective plastic strain along the radial
direction is shown in figure 7.3 for the final load level of ^,=0.68. It can be
observed that the plastic strains are high near the outer boundary and almost zero at
the inner boundary. The maximum plastic strain observed for the above load level is
0.16% at the outer surface.
The variation of composite hoop stress, <199, along the radial direction is shown
in figures 7.4(a) and (b) for two load levels, one before yielding (A, =0.3) and
the other after yielding (X.=0.68) which is the final load level. In figure 7.4(a) the
composite hoop stress is normalized w.r.t. (J UTS and in figure 7.4(b) the same
stress is normalized w.r.t. applied stress. For both load levels the maximum
composite hoop stress is observed at the inner surface of the ring. The distribution
117
of the matrix hoop stress along the radial direction is shown in figure 7.4(c). It
can be observed from figure 7.4(b) that after matrix yielding the composite hoop
stress has increased near the outer surface. This is because in the yielding regions
matrix can not carry any higher stresses and forces the fibers to carry that extra
stress in the hoop direction. But still at the outer surface composite hoop stress
occurred is only 48% of the ultimate strength of the composite and at the inner
surface it is 60% of the ultimate strength as shown in figure 7.4(a). Therefore
fiber failure is not expected at the inner surface and better design of reinforcement
pattern may be needed to take the maximum advantage of fibers in this structure.
The distribution of normalized composite radial stress, an, is shown in figure
7.5 for the same load levels as above and it is observed that the stress distribution
does not change significantly after yielding.
The variation of strains Eqq and En are shown in figures 7.6 and 7.7 for three
load levels, one before yielding (>.=0.3) and other two after yielding (X=0.39 and
?l=0.68). There is a rapid increase in the radial strain, En, near outer boundary due
to the plasticity as the applied load increases. This high radial strain will cause
instability in the ring at the outer boundary at that load level before any fiber failure
begins to occur at the inner boundary.
118
7. 2 Par t i al l y Loade d Ri ng
A ring which has the same dimensions as in the previous section is analyzed
when discontinuous loads are applied on its outer surface as shown in figure
7.8(a). When the symmetry of the problem is considered, only the portion ABCD
is analyzed with boundary conditions shown in figure 7.8(b). This analysis was
done using load control test.
The load level X is defined as X = CT
app
/aTL. where a
app
is the applied stress
and CTjl is the transverse limit strength of the composite. The applied load was
increased until the numerical convergence problems occurred when the final load
level was X=0.74. Yielding was first observed at the outer boundary near the load
discontinuity point as shown in figure 7.9(a). As the applied load increases
plastic zone spreaded inwards from the outer boundary and the high plastic strains
were observed near the loaded regions as shown in figures 7.9(b). Distribution
of normalized transverse tension, On, is shown in figure 7.10 for the final load
level of X=0.74. It is observed that the highest transverse tension is at the loaded
surface and confined to a small region near the loaded ligament of the structure. The
distribution of the normalized shear stress, x
r
0, is shown in figure 7.11 for the
load level X =0.74. It can be seen from figure 7.11 that there is an infinitely large
shear stress at the load discontinuity point of the structure. The high transverse
119
tension and shear stresses around the load discontinuity region will cause the matrix
to fail in that region.
The normalized hoop stress, (Tee, distribution in the structure is shown in
figure 7.12 for the final load level of A,=0.74. The highest hoop stress is
observed at the loaded region of the outer surface and also the high stresses are
found at the inner surface (see figure 7.12). However these stresses are found to
be less than 50% of the composite ultimate strength in longitudinal tension (OUTS)
The fiber stress, CTfib, distribution in the structure is shown in figure 7.13 for the
final load level of X=0.74. The highest fiber stress of 400 MPa is observed at the
loaded region of the outer surface and at the inner surface as shown in figure
7.13. These fiber stresses are much below the reported failure strength (Table
6.1) of the fiber. Therefore the fiber failure would not expect to occur at this load
level for this structure. From these observations it can be concluded that the
maximum advantage of fibers are not taken in this structure and a better distribution
of reinforcements would be necessary to make the structure more effective.
7. 3 Summar y
A ring reinforced in hoop direction is studied in this Chapter under two different
applied loading conditions. When uniform radial stresses are applied to the outer
boundary of the structure it is found that the plastic strains at the outer boundary are
120
high andthere is a rapid increase in the radial strain near the outer boundary. This
high radial strain will expect to cause instability in the ring at the outer boundary.
When discontinuous radial stresses are applied to the outer boundary of the
structure it is found that the transverse and shear stresses are high around the load
discontinuity region and will cause the matrix to fail in that region. For both loading
conditions matrix failure is expected before the fiber failure. Therefore a better
design of reinforcement pattern may be needed to take the maximum advantage of
fibers in this structure.
121
FIGURE CAPTIONS: CHAPTER 7
Figure 7.1 Uniformly loaded ring
(a) Configuration of the problem
(b) Boundary conditions
Figure 7.2 (a) Stressdisplacement diagram
(b) Stressstrain diagram
Figure 7.3 Variation of effective plastic strains along radial direction
Figure 7.4 (a) Variation of composite hoop stress, aee, along radial direction
normalized by ultimate longitudinal tensile strength
(b) Variation of composite hoop stress, Gee. along radial direction
normalized by applied stress
(c) Variation of matrix hoop stress along radial direction
Figure 7.5 Variation of composite radial stress, G
n
, along radial direction
Figure 7.6 Variation of composite hoop strain, Eee, along radial direction
122
Figure 7.7 Variation of composite radial strain, En, along radial direction
Figure 7.8 Partially loaded ring
(a) Configuration of the problem
(b) Boundary conditions
Figure 7.9 Distribution of effective plastic strains
Figure 7.10 Distribution of normalized radial stress
Figure 7.11 Distribution of normalized shear stress
Figure 7.12 Distribution of normalized hoop stress
Figure 7.13 Distribution of fiber stresses
123
a = 30 cm , b = 15 cm , thickness = 1 cm
Figure 7.1(a)
Figure 7.1(b)
124
Yielding
Figure 7.2(a)
125
Yielding
Figure 7.2(b)
126
0.2
X =0.68
0.15
0.1"
4>
0.05
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
r / a
Figure 7.3
127
0.6
X = 0.68
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
& a a 6 AA
0.1
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.9 1
r / a
Figure 7.4(a)
128
2.6
2.5
2.4
o.
a.
05
2.2":
CD
2.1 "
2.0i
1.9"
1.8
1.7I
1.6
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.5
r / a
Figure 7.4(b)
129
0.9
X = 0.3
A, = 0.68
e. 0.8
e>
0.7
o
0.6
0.5
0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0
Figure 7.4(c)
130
 Q  i i i i i i i i i  i i i i i  i i i i i i i 1 1i 1111 i i i i  i i i i i i ii
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
r / a
Figure 7.5
131
0.2
$
0.1 "
co
0.0K"
0.5
t
l
O
O
J
A. = 0.39
31=0.68
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
r / a
Figure 7.6
132
0.2
A. = 0.3
\ = 0.39
X=0.68 /N
&
U
U r n
CO
o.i 
o.o
0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
r / a
Figure 7.7
133
a = 30 cm , b = 15 cm , thickness =
Figure 7.8(a)
1 cm
ft ft u o
Figure 7.8(b)
134
1 = 3e6
2= le5
3 = 2e5
a) A, = 0.38
Oe6
5e4
le3
1.5e3
2e3
b) X = 0.74
Figure 7.9
135
0
X = 0.74
(Japp= 155 MPa
Distribution of
g
TL
Figure 7.10
136
X = 0.74
Oapp= 155 MPa
Distribution of
T
&
K*
s
Figure 7.11
137
X = 0.74
0.3
0.3
Oapp= 155 MPa
0.4
Distribution of Z
CT
UTS
Figure 7.12
138
>00
400.
X = 0.74
300
r~\
300 \
\ \ 200 
O
a
pp= 155 MPa
Distribution of (MPa)
Figure 7.13
139
CHAPTER 8
Conclusions
8.1 Summary
In this study constitutive equations were developed for a fully bonded metal
matrix composite when it is subjected to multiaxial loading. These constitutive
equations can describe the elastoplastic behavior of the composite material under
variable loading conditions.
The composite material behavior is divided in to two parts, one for the fiber
dominated axisymmetric behavior and the other for the matrix dominated shear
behavior. The combination of these two behaviors describe the complete set of
constitutive equations for the fully bonded metalmatrix composites. Some
experimental and numerical methods are used to determine the necessary parameters
in the constitutive equations.
The constitutive laws are then implemented in the finite element code ABAQUS
as a user defined material subroutine. This subroutine is implemented in a very
general way such that it can be used for any fully bonded MMC system when the
140
corresponding material parameters are provided as input data. This subroutine can
be used with a variety of element types such as three dimensional, plane stress,
plane strain and axisymmetric elements.
Using the finite element code ABAQUS and the new material subroutine UMAT
some numerical calculations are performed on different structural components made
of FP/A1 system to understand the behavior of these components. Using local stress
and strain distributions, it was possible to propose failure mechanisms for these
different structures. New reinforcement designs can be suggested by evaluating the
finite element results to get the maximum advantage of the fibers.
8.2 Implications for Future Work
In this study the composite is assumed to be a continuous and homogeneous
material. Therefore this material model can only predict the initiation of damage. A
further investigation must be done using damage mechanics or fracture mechanics
concepts to evaluate the evolution of damage. As a breakthrough a few number of
structural components were examined during this study, but the subroutine is
available with ABAQUS to use with any other component design.
In general some mesh refinements are necessary in the places where the stress
and strain gradients are high. The mesh dependence of this material model must be
141
investigated with a detailed study. The necessary equilibrium tolerances must also
be determined using a similar investigation.
142
REFERENCES
1972 Nicholes, E.D. and Kalin, R., Analytic Geometry, 174191, Holt,
Reinehart and Winston inc.
1973 Dvorak, GJ., Rao, M.S.M., and Tarn, J.Q., J. Composite materials, 7(2),
194
1975 Phillips, A. and Weng, G.J., J.appLMech., 42, 375
1975 Krieg, R.D., J.appl.Mech., 42, 641
1976 Dvorak, GJ. and Rao, M.S.M., IntJ.Engng.Sci., 14, 361
1977 Phillips, A., and Moon, H., Acta Mechanica, 27, 91
1977 Phillips, A. and Lee, C.W., IntJ.Solids structures, 15, 715
1978 Champion, A.R., Krueger, W.H., Hartman, H.S. and Dhingra, A.K.,Proc
2nd International conference on composite materials, Toronto, Metallurgical
Soc. AIME, 883904
143
1984 Spencer, A.J.M., Continuum theory of the mechanics of fiberreinforced
composites, SpringerVerlag WeinNew York
1985 Tsangarakis, N., Gruber, J.J., and Nunes, J., J. of Composite materials,
19, 250268
1985 McDowell, D.L., J.appl.Mech., 52, 298308
1986 Ohno, N., and Kachi, Y., J.appl.Mech., 53, 395
1987 Cocks, A.C.F., and Leckie, F.A., Advances in appl.Mech., 25, 239
1987 Dvorak, G J. and BaheiElDin, Y.A., Acta Mechanica, 69,219
1988 Dvorak, G.J., BaheiElDin, Y.A, Macheret, Y. and Liu, C.H., J.Mech.
Phys.Solids, 36 (6) 655
1988 Hibbitt, Karlson, and Sorensen, Inc., ABAQUS Finite element program,
version 4.7
1989 McDowel, D.L., International Journal of Plasticity, 5,29
144
1989 Karr, D.G., Law, F.P., Fatt, M.H., and Cox, G.F.N., International
Journal of Plasticity, 5, 303
1989 Aboudi, J., Appl.Mech.Rev., 42 (7), 193
1989 Dvorak, G J., BaheiElDin, Y.A., Bank, L.C., Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 34 (1), 87104
1989 BaheiElDin, Y.A., Dvorak, G.J., Wu, JerFang, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 34 (1), 105123
1989 Doghri, I., and Billardon, R., Plastendo, Laboratoire de Mecanique et
Technologie, E.N.S. de Cachan / C.N.R.S./ Universite Paris 6
1990 Hild, F., and Billardon, R., Elastendo, Laboratoire de Mecanique et
Technologie, E.N.S. de Cachan / C.N.R.S./ Universite Paris 6
1990 Aboudi, J., Pindera, MJ., Herakovich, C.T. and Becker, W.,J.Composite
Materials, 24, 2
1990 Aboudi, J., International Journal of Plasticity, 6, 471
1991 Jansson, S., Mechanics of materials, 12, 4762
145
1991 Fares, N. and Dvorak, G.J., J.Mech.Phys.Solids, 39 (6), 725
1991 Everett, R.K. and Arsenault, R.J., Metal matrix composites, Academic
Press, inc.
1991 Gunawardena, S.R., Jansson, S., and Leckie, F.A., Proc. of ASME
winter annual meeting
1991 Meletis, E.I., and Chaudhury, S., Composite Structures, 19, 89103
1992 Bao, G., Ho, S., Suo, Z., and Fan, B., Int. J. Solids structures, 29 (9),
11051116
1992a Jansson, S., On the structure of non linear constitutive equations for fiber
reinforced composites, Department of Mechanical and Enviromental
Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara
1992b Jansson, S., and Leckie, F.A., J. Mech.Phys. Solids, to be published
1992c Jansson, S., and Leckie, F.A., Effect of cyclic thermal loading on the in
plane shear strength of fiber reinforced MMC's, Department of Mechanical
and Enviromental Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara
146
APPENDIX 1
From the elastic solution obtained for unit cylinder model (Chapter 2) we obtain the
transformation tensor Ly for stresses:
T _M(lvmVf) T (M(Mv2+Mvm+vm2vrvmvf) T M(vmvf)
L
ll~ .
l
12 . *21
=
.
Ai Ai Aj
(Al.l)
and L _[cM(MVm+Mym+1  Vf2ymVf)+(l c)(1 +Vf)(Mym+1 2Vf)]
A,
where Ai=M[cM(lv&)+(lc)(lv
m
Vf)] and .
Em
The subscripts denote matrix (m) and fiber (f). E and v are the Young's modulus
and Poisson's ratio of each phase respectively.
For the initial yield surface, the following relations are obtained from the elastic
solution of the cylinder model,
147
tKr Kn
Y I 2 2 i 2 2
1
m' L11+L21 L11L21 <
r
m' L]2+L22L12L22 " Ll2 " ^22+1
(A1.2)
Kixf = . _L
Y
m
/ L11+L21 2(LnLi2+L2iL22) + LnL22 + L2iLi2
For continuous yielding (beyond the initial yielding) of the matrix we also obtain
the following relations from the cylinder model
K
2
_ 1
Ym / L12+L22 " L12L22
1
2( Li 1L12+L21L22)  ( Li 1L22 + L21L12)
(K7
\Y
m
2( L12+L22 " L12L22)  ( L12+L22)
(A1.3)
_L = 4 L_
t
m = A2
A
2
K[
t
1
v2y 2 y2 T/"2
*LT
K
7
and n = A
2
V"2 v2 ir2if 2
p
2
= 1 
n2
L.tt.A2
tv2 T^2
K2 K7
1 1
TT2it4
ATK3 KLK7.
Plastic strains in the matrix are related to the residual stresses in the matrix through
an elastic tensor Ajj (equation 2.9), where
148
au = cm+1c , a12 = ^m. , a2j = ~t
cmv
m
+
(
1
~
c)v
f] t
cEf E, cEf
(A1.4)
A22
=
~ > A31 =  (Aj 1 + A21) and A32 = (Ai2 + A22)
Using Hy which is defined in Chapter 2 (equations 2.11), we can obtain a relation
between residual stresses and plastic strains. This relation also defines the tensor
Zij, which describes the hardening rule for the axisymmetric part of the flow
potential in Cartesian coordinate system. Therefore we get the following results,
Z
11
=H+mH
12
, Z
12
=
H
i2+
2
mH
22
f
z
21
=2nH
21
and Z
22
= nH
22
.
149