0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 1215 стр.Aug 20, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 12

© All Rights Reserved

- som11.doc
- STRENGHT OF MATERIAL FORMULA'S
- E-proceeding ICSEM 2013
- Analysis of multi layered filament wound composite pipes under internal pressure
- Strength-of-Materials.doc
- Display OpenSees
- rtp
- FEM Stress Concepts
- Plate Eqns MSW
- TEP Questions
- Axially Loaded Members
- 2 Ss Unconfined Compression Test
- MicroMeasurement Strain Gauge Rosettes
- As Physics Unit 1 Rev Notes on YM, Stress, Strain
- Effect of Water Absorption on the Mechanical Properties of Hemp
- FRANK TRUNK Patent Us 20050032029
- ICCM17 Large Structures Failure AnalysisExperiment
- General Theory of Elastic Stability_ Southwell
- Http Www.inrisk.ubc.CA Process.php File=STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Truss Members
- Overcoring Methods

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Composite Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

for Eshelby-based models

Atul Jain a,b,, Yasmine Abdin b, Wim Van Paepegem c, Ignaas Verpoest b, Stepan V. Lomov b

a

Department of Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium

c

Department of Material Science and Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Available online 17 June 2015

Keywords:

A Short-ber composites

B Fiber matrix debonding

C Finite element analysis (FEA)

C Micro-mechanics

a b s t r a c t

Inclusions in short ber reinforced composites (SFRC) suffer from debonding and cannot be directly modeled using Eshelby based mean eld methods. This paper proposes a method of treatment of inclusions

with debonded interface by replacing them with a ctitious equivalent bonded inclusion (EqBI) whose

properties are calculated based on the reduced load bearing capacity of the inclusion due to the debonded

interface. Approximate expressions are derived for stress redistribution in an inclusion due to the

presence of debonded interface for the six elementary loading cases and the corresponding terms in

the stiffness tensor are estimated as a function of the reduced average stress in the inclusion.

Mechanical equivalence of the EqBI is conrmed by comparison with nite element models having inclusions with debonded interface and the overall stress strain response of a SFRC composite is validated

against experimental data.

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The properties of a short ber reinforced composites (SFRC)

depend on the properties of its constituents and on the capacity

of stress transfer in the interface [1]. Mean eld homogenization

schemes are computationally cheap, easy to implement and reasonably accurate making them a good candidate for predicting

local effective stiffness properties of SFRC. Different mean-eld

homogenization schemes described in literature depend on the

solution of Eshelby [2] and thus are based on the assumption of

a perfect interface between the inclusions and the matrix. The

MoriTanaka (MT) formulation [3] is probably the most commonly

used mean eld homogenization scheme. It is known to predict

with reasonable accuracy not only the effective response of the

composite but also the stresses in individual inclusions [4] in spite

of formal mathematical inconsistencies appearing in some specic

cases [5].

SFRC, when subjected to loading, suffer from bermatrix

debonding which leads to a debonded interface and consequently

the formulation of Eshelby and MT cannot be used. In this paper

we propose a method to deal with these inclusions with a

Corresponding author at: Department of Materials Engineering, KU Leuven,

Belgium.

E-mail addresses: atul.jain@siemens.com, atul.jain@mtm.kuleuven.be (A. Jain).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.007

0263-8223/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

inclusion (EqBI). The properties of the EqBI are estimated as a function of the reduced stress transfer in the inclusion due to the

debonded interface. Depending upon the direction of applied load

with respect to the ber axis, the debonded interface surfaces

could lie (A) at the tip or (B) elsewhere on the surface of the

inclusion; we name these two congurations Type A and Type B,

respectively (Fig. 1).

Within the framework of mean-eld homogenization there are

several ways to estimate the onset of debonding in an inclusion in

a composite based on the average stresses in the ber and some

failure criteria; a few of them were proposed in [69]. There is also

a family of methods which rely on Weibull statistics to estimate

the extent of debonding in SFRC [10,11]. Such methods require a

number of additional experimentally determined parameters as

input. Once the state of debonding is calculated the next step is

to model the properties of debonded inclusion.

However, there is limited literature describing the methods to

deal with inclusions having a debonded interface in the framework

of mean-eld homogenization. Zhao and Weng [12,13], Fitoussi

et al. [14] and Mihai [15] proposed a scheme to estimate the

effective properties of a composite containing perfectly bonded

inclusions as well as inclusions with a debonded interface by

replacing the inclusions with a debonded interface by a perfectly

bonded equivalent inclusion, so that the Eshelby [2] solution

693

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the concept of the equivalent bonded inclusion (EqBI) used to calculate the effective properties of SFRC containing inclusions with

debonded interface. Two different congurations of the debonded interface (Types A and B) are shown as EqBI of different color.

be used.

Koyama et al. [16] proposed a method to deal with inclusions

with debonded interface by introducing a virtual matrix; this

approach is deemed to be simplistic and is known to lead to a

lower bound of the elastic properties. Zairi et al. [11] and Nhung

[17] modeled ber matrix debonding by replacing part of the

debonded ber with an equivalent volume of matrix material.

The volume of the additional matrix was determined as a function

of the fraction of debonding.

Caroll and Dharani [18] derived an analytic expression for the

loss of axial elastic modulus in unidirectional SFRC due to debonding initiating at the tip of the bers. They noted that the effects of

debonding in terms of loss of axial stiffness of bers could be

different based on the exact location and extent of debonding.

More work in this eld was done [1923].

All the models described above suffer from certain shortcomings. Zhao and Weng [12,13] and Mihai [15] dealt exclusively with

spherical isotropic inclusions. The loss of modulus in the direction

tangential to the debonded interface is neglected and the exact

area and position of the debonded interface is not taken into

account in the model. These ideas are not directly adaptable for

ellipsoidal inclusions.

If the debonded inclusions are replaced partially by the voids as

was proposed by Koyama et al. [16], Zairi et al. [11] and Nhung

[17], the exact region of debonding cannot be taken into account.

Therefore that approach cannot differentiate between Type A and

Type B debonding. The MT formulation cannot take into account

the exact location of the void, this scheme therefore cannot

conrm that the stress redistribution due to debonded interface

and the average stresses in the debonded inclusion are correctly

estimated.

Also the friction between the ber and the matrix cannot be

accounted for by either of the two sets of methods.

There have been limited attempts to validate predictions of the

average stress in an inclusion with a debonded interface. Average

stresses in individual inclusions are important if further damage

is to be modeled.

The model for treating imperfectly bonded inclusions,

presented in this paper, is based on the original idea of Zhao and

Weng [13], Fitoussi et al. [14] and Mihai [15], who replaced

with a perfect interface.

Fitoussi et al. derived the properties of an equivalent anisotropic inhomogeneity (EAUI) by estimating the average stresses in a

perfectly bonded ber and a completely debonded ber. The stiffness of the EAUI was estimated as a debonded interface length

weighted average of these two scenarios. The proposed model of

Fitoussi et al. was developed for sheet molding compound (SMC)

composites which have long bers. For long bers, tip debonding

was deemed to be not very important and therefore they only considered debonding at the equator. Their basic hypothesis of interpolation does not hold true for inclusions with Type A debonded

interface as complicated stress redistribution takes place in such

cases. Zhao and Weng [13] and Mihai [15] proposed that the modulus of EqBI can be estimated by assuming that the load bearing

capacity of the inclusion reduces to zero in the direction perpendicular to the debonded interface surface. Such an assumption is

too simplistic and valid only if the inclusions are spherical.

Unlike spherical inclusions, ellipsoidal inclusion can still bear some

load even if the tip is debonded. In injection molded composites,

the aspect ratio of inclusions is much smaller than in SMCs (but

the inclusions are not spherical either) and consequently the stress

build up in the ber is often not high enough for inducing ber

breakage without initiation of ber matrix debonding rst.

Hence, debonded interfaces at the tip of the inclusion must be

accounted for.

Building on the ideas of Fitoussi et al. [14], a model to deal with

both Types A and B debonded interface is developed. This proposed

model relates the stress redistribution due to debonded interface

to the stiffness of EqBI. The proposed methods in this paper can

account for both the exact extent and region of debonding, can take

into account the friction between the ber and the matrix and also

conrm that the average stresses in the debonded inclusion are

correctly estimated.

There is a signicant amount of literature trying to model the

stress redistribution of debonded inclusions, one of the rst being

a paper by Cox [24] which can take into account friction between

ber and matrix, different volume fraction and lengths of the ber.

There are several other papers proposing advanced theories for

stress redistribution of stresses in inclusions due to loading in

the axial direction [2527]. These methods typically are

694

compared to the Cox model. In this paper we rely on the expressions given by Cox [24] for the axial loading case and develop

simple relationships for the other loading cases. The Cox model

gives reasonable predictions for the average stress in the inclusion

but unlike recent theories, it cannot predict the stress concentrations at the tip of the debond surface. The proposed methods of this

paper depend upon the average stresses in the inclusions with

imperfect interface and therefore the stress concentrations at the

tip of debond surface is not important.

At this point it is important to note that the shape of the

inclusion is assumed to be ellipsoidal in all the Eshelby based formulations including the MT formulation, while the shape of the

inclusion considered in the Cox model is cylindrical. The real shape

of a glass ber in a SFRC might be closer to a cylinder (chopped or

broken long bers). Modeling bers using ellipsoidal shape is considered an acceptable abstraction and both analytic [28] and FE

based [29,30] studies have conrmed that the average stress/strain

in a cylindrical ber and an equivalent ellipsoidal inclusion do not

differ by more than few percentage. In this paper, the expressions

for the EqBI are derived assuming the shape of the inclusions as

cylindrical while also the shape of the inclusion in the FE-VE model

is considered to be a cylinder. On the other hand, for the MT

scheme the shape of the inclusion is ellipsoidal.

Non-linearity in SFRC is caused mainly by ber matrix debonding and matrix cracking; these damage events have been conrmed by a number of experimental studies [3133]. In this

paper the overall stress strain response prediction will be validated

by a new model to treat ber matrix debonding, while the matrix

non-linearity is modeled by the well known secant modulus

approach.

The main contributions of this paper are the derivation of

expressions for the stiffness tensor of the EqBI for both Types A

and B debonded interfaces. The second contribution is the nite

element (FE) based validation of the mechanical equivalence of

EqBI for each of the six different elementary load cases viz. three

uniaxial tensile and three shear loads. We validate not only the

effective response of the EqBI composite but also the average stresses in the EqBI. Additionally the overall stressstrain behavior of

SFRC is validated using experimental data.

In Section 2, we present the derivations of expressions for the

properties of the EqBI. In Section 3 we present the methodology

for creating the FE models, performing the mean eld homogenization and the experimental procedure. The results of the validation

are presented in Section 4 and conclusions are presented in

Section 5.

2. Mathematical formulation

It is proposed in this paper to replace an inclusion with a

debonded interface by an EqBI. To estimate the stiffness tensor of

an EqBI, a VE consisting of a single inclusion is assumed and

approximate expressions for the stress (re)distribution in the

inclusion due to a debonded interface are derived. The average

stresses in the inclusions are then calculated. The diagonal terms

(C 0ii ) of the stiffness tensor of the EqBI are determined as the

product of the corresponding diagonal terms (Cii) of the stiffness

tensor of the original inclusion and the ratio of the average stress

in the inclusion with debonded interface to the average stress that

would exist in the inclusion, if it were perfectly bonded:

C 0ii

hr

C ii

hrii i

0

ii i

relates the average stress rii in a composite to applied strain eii ,

r0ii and rii are stresses in the inclusion with debonded and perfect

interface respectively; h_i indicates averaging. The non-diagonal

terms of the stiffness tensor of the EqBI are also calculated assuming

that the Poissons ratio of the EqBI is the same as the original

inclusion. Ideally the non-diagonal terms of the EqBI, Cij must be

calculated based on the reduced average of the stress component

rjj when the applied strain is ejj. However formulations to calculate

the stress in transverse direction of an inclusion (both bonded and

debonded) when subjected to strain loading in the axial direction

are not available. Therefore the non-diagonal terms of the stiffness

of the EqBI are based on the diagonal terms of the stiffness of the

EqBI and the unchanged Poissons ratio.

In the absence of an analytical solution, it is assumed that the

diagonal terms of the EqBI tensor which are calculated on the basis

of the stress redistribution in the axial direction can also somehow

account for the lowered stress in the transverse direction.

For the rest of the paper, z coordinate dene the axis parallel to

the axial direction of the ber, while x and y are the two transverse

directions.

For uniaxial load in the axial direction, Cox [24] proposed a formula for the stress prole of the inclusion with Type A debonded

interface. The prole of the axial stresses in the interface is given

by the following expression

r0f Ef e1 Ef e1 2 si s m

cosh nzr

coshn s1 m

si lrres m1 Em e1

where r0f are the stresses in the axial direction of the inclusion with

debonded interface. Ef ; m1 are the Youngs modulus and Poissons

ratio of the inclusion, e1 is the applied strain and si is the shear

stress in the interface. rres is the residual stress in the interface, m

is fraction of the inclusion which has debonded interface and z is

the coordinate of the inclusion in the axial direction with the centroid as origin. n is dened by the following expression:

n2

2 Gm

Ef ln Rr

where Gm is the shear modulus of the matrix and the term R/r is the

ratio of the radius of the VE and ber, it is estimated as a function of

the volume fraction of the inclusion and s is the aspect ratio of the

inclusion. The stress r0f is integrated over the length of the inclusion

to get the average value of stress in the inclusion.

For the Type B debonded interface, we assume that there is no

signicant loss of stiffness in the axial direction as the stress transfer has been completed when moving from the tip to the center of

the ber.

When subjected to loading in the transverse direction (y or x),

the stress transfer in the inclusion is limited solely to the regions

with perfect interface while there is negligible stress transfer in

the regions where there is a debonded interface. Thus we assume

that the average stress in the region with debonded interface is

zero whereas the average stress in the regions with perfect interface is assumed to remain unchanged. If the applied load is in

the y-direction, the stress in the inclusion in the y direction is

r0incl 0 for debonded interface

where r0incl is the stress in the inclusion in the applied load direction

(y), rf is the average stress in the inclusion in the applied load direction that would be present if there was perfect interface in the

inclusion. The average stress in the inclusion can thus be derived

as r0f v proj rincl =v incl , where v proj is the projected volume of the

inclusion segment with debonded interface in the normal direction

695

can be done for loading in the second transverse direction, leading

to an expression of stiffness tensor component Cxx of the EqBI.

When an inclusion is subjected to shear loading, then there is

stress transfer in the debonded interface due to sliding friction.

Stress transfer to the inclusion due to sliding friction takes place

in the interface where the interface stresses in the outward normal

direction of the ber are negative. In other parts of the debonded

interface where there is positive normal stress in the interface,

the matrix simply separates from the inclusion and there is zero

stress transfer. The stress transfer in those parts of inclusions

which is perfectly bonded is assumed to remain unchanged.

These assumptions are exactly the same as used by Fitoussi et al.

[14], but the implementation is slightly different. Mathematically,

r0incl lrrr if interface is debonded and rrr is negative

r0incl 0 if interface is debonded and rrr is positive

where r0incl is the stress in the inclusion in the applied load direction,

rf is the average stress in the inclusion in the applied load direction

that would be present if there was a perfect interface in the inclusion. rrr is the stress component in the outward normal direction

of the inclusion if there was perfect interface in the inclusion and

l is the coefcient of friction. The average stress in the inclusion

can then be calculated as a surface area weighted average of the

stresses in the inclusion. A summary of the expressions is presented

in Table 1.

The stiffness tensor of the EqBI thus derived is expressed in the

local co-ordinate system of the inclusion and must be transformed

to the global coordinate system for further application of the MT

formulation. The effect of the orientation of the debonded bers

is accounted for in the MT formulation by means of the image

strain during the implementation of the MT formulation [5].

3. Methodology of numerical experiments and experimental

validation

The material considered for the validation is a Polybutylene

terephthalate (PBT) matrix reinforced with glass ber, with a

Youngs modulus of 2.9 and 72 GPa, respectively and Poissons

ratio of 0.37 and 0.22, respectively.

A number of FE VE was created to validate the mechanical

equivalence of the two composite systems, viz. the composite with

imperfect interface, and the composite containing an EqBI. The

mechanical equivalence here implies that both the effective

response of composite systems and the average stresses in the

inclusions must be similar for every possible type of loading.

According to the interpretation of the MT formulation by

Beneveniste [5], each inclusion is assumed to be surrounded by

matrix and the inuence of the other inclusions are felt indirectly

through the matrix by means of the image strain. Therefore, for the

validation of the mechanical equivalence of EqBI, it is enough to

model a single inclusion surrounded by matrix and then validate

the mechanical equivalence for six elementary load cases (three

uniaxial tensile and three shear loads).

We created a FE-VE with a single inclusion inside a matrix

placed in such a way that the centroids of the matrix cuboid and

the cylindrical inclusion coincide (Fig. 2). The aspect ratio of the

inclusion is taken to be 15 and the volume fraction is taken to be

0.1. This aspect ratio is chosen as it is a typical value of aspect ratio

of inclusions in injection molded SFRC component. The cylindrical

shape of the inclusion in the nite element VE is chosen to ensure

acceptable mesh quality of the inclusion.

Periodic boundary conditions are applied to the cubic cell by

applying the following equations:

ux; y; 0 uz ux; y; L

ux; 0; z uy ux; L; z

u0; y; z ux uaL; y; z

where, u is the displacement vector on the different faces of the

cube and ux, uy, uz depends on the particular loading applied to

the cubic cell. Uniaxial strain ex is applied by ux = (exaL, 0, 0),

uy = (0, uy, 0) and uz = (0, 0, uz). uy and uz is then computed from

R

R

the conditions. X T y dX 0 on y = L and X T z dX 0 on z = L.

Where Ty and Tz are the normal tractions acting on the prism faces

contained in the transverse planes y = L and z = L. Similar boundary

conditions can be applied for different loading directions as well.

Commercial FE solver ABAQUS version 6.13-3 [34] was used for

the calculations.

Table 1

A summary of the expressions of the stresses in inclusions with debonded interface, r0incl .The stiffness of the EqBI is calculated as a function of the reduced stress in the inclusion

with the debonded interface.

Stiffness

component

Czz

Cyy

Type A

cosh nz

r

coshn s1 m

2

G

m

where, si lrres m1 Em e1 and n2

Ef :ln Rr

Average stress is calculated by integration over length of inclusion, z;

other terms have usual meanings

r0incl Ef e1 Ef e1 2 si s m

r0incl 0 if interface is debonded

Type B

No change in average

stress

Same as type A

rf is the average stress in the inclusion that would be present if there was

perfect interface in the inclusion

Cxx

Same as Cyy

Same as Type A

r0incl lrrr if interface is debonded and rrr is negative

r0incl 0 if interface is debonded and rrr is positive

Same as Type A

rrr is the stress component in the outward normal direction of the inclusion if there was perfect interface in the

inclusion

696

Fig. 2. Finite element modeling of the single ber FE VE geometry and contact surfaces to model debonded interfaces. The blue body is ber. The red surface indicates contact

surface used to model debonded interface, (a) Geometry of the FE VE showing inclusion and the matrix and the datum lines used to section the surface of the inclusions

surface. (b) Type A debonded interface with fraction of debonded interface is 4/15. (c) Type B debonded interface with fraction of debonded interface is 4/15. (For

interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

used. The mesh size was chosen by performing a convergence analysis. We choose the seed size for mesh generation to be one-tenth

of the diameter of the cylindrical inclusion, since on further reduction of the seedsize no signicant change was seen in the value of

the average stresses in the inclusions.

Both Types A and B debonded interfaces are modeled by partitioning the inclusion and the matrix and using appropriate contact

surface properties. The fraction of debonded interface length was

chosen in such a way that the increase in the debonded length fraction was progressively higher. Higher number of debonding length

fractions can be studied easily but ve debonded length fractions

were considered enough to compare the average stresses in the

inclusions and to study the trend in loss of load bearing stiffness

due to debonding. Five FE models with debonded interface length

fractions 0, 2/15, 4/15, 8/15 and 14/15 were created for modeling

the Type A debonded interface.

For the Type B debonded interface, the aspect ratio of the rectangle with debonded interface is chosen to be the same as the

aspect ratio of the inclusion. This particular choice of the debonded

surface conguration is chosen so that the debonded interface

debonded interface length). The outward normal of the Type B

interface is across the x-axis with the value of fraction of debonded

interface length same as Type A.

The friction formulation in the debonded interface is chosen as

static-kinetic exponential decay. This formulation allows modeling the friction between the surface of the inclusion and the

corresponding matrix surface with a smooth transition between

the two. The coefcient of static friction is taken to be 0.28; kinetic

friction is 0.1, the values of friction are as reported by Chua and

Piggott [35] and are used also for the calculations of the properties

of the EqBI. The normal behavior of the debonded interface is

modeled as a hard contact, where the two bodies are allowed to

separate, but not penetrate into each other. The homogenization

of the composite containing EqBI is performed by the MT

algorithm. For the Type A debonded interface, the geometry and

location of the debonded interface is transversely isotropic, therefore we performed calculations for four load cases viz., tensile

loads in axial and transverse load directions and shear in

in-plane and out of plane directions. For the Type B debonded

interface, all six possible elementary load cases (three uniaxial

697

tensile and shear) were studied. The average stresses in both the

VE (ber and matrix) and inclusion are calculated by volume averaging the stresses in different regions.

3.2. Experimental tests

For the experimental validations, a BASF Ultradur B4040 G10

compound was injection molded to plates 170 170 2 mm.

This material consists of PBT reinforced with 50% weight fraction

of glass ber (equivalent volume fraction is 35%). The ber volume

fraction is chosen to be as high as possible since it is expected that

the higher content of ber will lead to higher ber related damage,

especially ber matrix debonding. Higher content of ber leads to

higher stresses in the ber and also there is a larger interface area

which can debonded.

Coupons were machined from the plates in three directions,

inclined at angles U = 0, 45 and 90 with respect to the prevailing

the coupons and load controlled tensile tests were performed.

The manufacturing simulation was performed using the software SIGMASOFT [36] to estimate the orientation distribution of

the inclusions. Particular attention was paid to the region comprising the gauge length of the coupon. The simulation results showed

that there was very little variation of the 2nd order orientation

tensor along the gauge length of the coupon. This conrmed that

the orientation distribution of the inclusions is similar in the gauge

length of the coupon and therefore we could treat the entire coupon as a single RVE during further simulation.

The orientation tensor of the 0-degree coupon was found to be

0:81

6

aij 4 0:018

0:018 0:137

0:11

0:137 0:004

7

0:004 5

0:079

The orientation tensor of the 45 and 90-degree coupons were calculated by rotating of the 0 orientation tensor.

3.3. Mean eld homogenization scheme for the composite

A realization of 500 inclusions is generated from the 2nd order

orientation tensor described in previous section using the formulation described by Onat and Leckie [37]. Small load increments are

applied per time step and the onset of debonding is checked at

each time step. The onset of debonding is calculated using the

well-known Modied Coulomb criteria which account for both

normal and shear stress. This criterion has been extensively used

for checking the onset of debonding in ellipsoidal inclusions,

including SFRC [3840]. The yield strength of the PBT matrix is

assumed to be 56 MPa [41], the value of the shear contribution

coefcient is taken to be 0.5 as advised by Huysmans et al. [39].

The modied Coulomb criterion is applied at a number of

equally spaced locations along the three orthogonal cross-section

surfaces of each ellipsoid inclusion (Fig. 4). For the calculations in

this paper, the number of points is set to 100, since it was seen that

there was no difference in the simulated stress strain curve if the

number of points for debonding check is increased.

At the end of each time step, the debonded inclusion is replaced

by EqBI and the MT calculations as well as further damage checks

are performed on a modied RVE which contains both undamaged

inclusions as well as EqBIs. The stiffness of the EqBI is predicted in

the ber co-ordinate system and is transformed to the global RVE

direction before a full MT formulation can be used. Matrix

non-linearity is implemented using the well-known secant

approach originally proposed by Tandon and Weng [42] and implemented for SFRC [40]. The input for modeling the secant model is

the stressstrain curve of the matrix, we have used the stress strain

data of pure PBT matrix (BASF Ultradur B4520) [41].

Two sets of stress strain simulations are performed for each

coupon. In the rst simulation only matrix non-linearity is treated.

While for the second simulation both ber matrix debonding and

matrix non-linearity are considered.

4. Results

In this section we present the validations of the proposed

models for both Types A and B. For both the cases rst we look

Fig. 3. Specimens preparation (a) plates used for injection molding, the point of

injection is the center region in between the two plates. (b) The geometry of the dog

bone specimen with dimensions in mm (c) orientation designation of coupon.

checked. Equally spaced points are considered for each of the three cross sections.

698

formulations (Section 2) and next present the results for the properties of EqBI, average stresses in the VE and the EqBI.

4.1. Type A debonded interface

4.1.1. Stress redistribution

The contour stress plots calculated by the FE calculations are

shown below in Fig. 5(a) and (b) for axial and transverse loading

cases respectively for Type A debonded interface.

A qualitative analysis of the plots conrms the assumptions

made during derivations of expressions (Eqs. (1)(4)). The

FE-calculated stress redistribution in the inclusion with a

debonded interface, which is subjected to axial loading, follows

the trend as predicted by the formulation of Cox [24]. There is negligible stress transfer in the part of the inclusion which has a

the ber and matrix surfaces, which is also accounted for by the

Cox model. A comparison of the stress proles of rzz on the surface

of an inclusion with Type A debonded interface (fraction of the

debonded interface surface is 4/15) predicted by the FE calculations and the Cox model is presented in Fig. 6(a). There is some

noise and scatter in predicted stress values at the tip of interface,

which the Cox model cannot take into account, also it is seen that

the peak stress predicted by the Cox model is slightly higher than

the FE predictions. Also there is some difference in the non-linear

stress prole predicted by the Cox model and the FE calculations.

Barring this there is good match between the FE and Cox model

predictions.

The part of the inclusion which has a perfect interface is

stressed higher but the distribution of stress is not uniform with

maximum stress at the center. The magnitude of stresses in the

Fig. 5. Stress distribution in inclusion with debonded interface type A, fraction of debonded surface is 0, 0.133, 0.266, 0.533 and 0.93, respectively (top to bottom). (a):

Applied strain is 1% in the z-direction. (b) Applied strain is 1% in the x direction.

699

Fig. 6. Comparison of stress distribution by Cox model and FE. (a) Stress distribution in inclusion surface with debonded interface type A, fraction of debonded surface is

0.266. by FE and the Cox model (b) Peak stress in inclusions with debonded interface by the Cox model and FE calculations.

Fig. 7. Stiffness predictions of the EqBI for different fractions of Type A debonded interface.

700

Fig. 8. Average stresses in the inclusions for different loads and different fractions of

Type A debonded interface at the tip of inclusion by both the MT formulation of VE

with EqBI and FE VE consisting of a single inclusion. Aspect ratio of inclusion is 15,

vf = 0.1 (a) applied load, ezz is 1% uniaxial strain. (b) applied load, exx is 1% uniaxial

strain. (c) applied load, exy is 1% shear strain. (d) applied load, eyz is 1% shear strain.

Fig. 9. Average stresses in the VE for different loads and different fractions of Type

A debonded interface at the tip of inclusion by both the MT formulation of VE with

EqBI and FE VE consisting of a single inclusion. Aspect ratio of inclusion is

15, vf = 0.1 (a) applied load, ezz is 1% uniaxial strain. (b) applied load, exx is 1%

uniaxial strain (c) applied load, exy is 1% shear strain. (d) applied load, eyz is 1% shear

strain.

701

Fig. 10. Stress redistribution in inclusion with debonded interface Type B, fraction of debonded surface is 0.133, 0.266, 0.533 and 0.93, respectively (top to bottom). Applied

strain is 1%. (a) loading z-direction. (b) loading y direction. (c) loading x direction.

702

debonded interface increases. There is good match between the

Cox model and FE results for the 5 cases (Fig. 6(b)).

When the inclusion is subjected to the transverse loading there

is negligible stress in the part of the inclusion with debonded interface. The part of the inclusion with perfect interface is uniformly

stressed and the magnitude of stress is independent of the extent

of the debonded interface between the inclusion and matrix.

Fig. 11. Stiffness predictions of the EqBI for different extents of Type B debonded

interface.

The properties of the EqBI are presented in Fig. 7 as function of

the fraction of the debonded surface.

A comparison of the real average stresses, calculated by FE,

and the estimated average stresses using the MT-inclusion

model, after replacing the real debonded inclusions by their EqBI

is presented. Comparison of the predictions of the average stresses

Fig. 12. Average stresses in the inclusions for different loads and different fractions of Type B debonded interface by both the MT formulation of VE with EqBI and FE VE

consisting of single inclusion. Aspect ratio of inclusion is 15, vf = 0.1 (a) applied load, ezz is 1% uniaxial strain. (b) applied load, exx is 1% uniaxial strain. (c) applied load, eyy is 1%

uniaxial strain. (d) applied load, exy is 1% shear strain. (e) applied load, exz is 1% shear strain. (f) applied load, eyz is 1% shear strain.

703

Fig. 13. Average stresses in the VE for different loads and different fractions of Type B debonded interface by both the MT formulation of VE with EqBI and FE VE consisting of

single inclusion. Aspect ratio of inclusion is 15, vf = 0.1 (a) applied load, ezz is 1% uniaxial strain. (b) applied load, exx is 1% uniaxial strain. (c) applied load, eyy is 1% uniaxial

strain. (d) applied load, exy is 1% shear strain. (e) applied load, exz is 1% shear strain. (f) applied load, eyz is 1% shear strain.

calculations and the MT formulation showed that there was a good

match for different types of loading. It is seen that there is a better

match when the average stresses in the VE is compared to the

stresses in the inclusions.

For the loading in the axial direction (Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)) the

average stresses in the EqBI and EqBI composite are slightly higher

than the FE predicted values, this can be ascribed to the fact that

the Cox formulation which was used to predict the stiffness of

the EqBI over predicted the peak stress value. For the other load

cases, the correlation between the EqBI based MT formulation

and FE model is reasonably good.

The biggest errors are noticed when the EqBI based MT formulation and FE predicted average stresses are compared for an

applied load of ryz. However, for a perfectly bonded inclusion

(debonding fraction = 0), the difference in the average stresses in

the inclusions predicted by the MT formulation and FE was also

seen to be the highest when the shear load ryz is considered. The

error in the proposed scheme could be due to the fact that the

inclusion is modeled as a cylinder in the FE model, while the MT

formulation treats the inclusion as an ellipsoid.

It is also seen that the average stresses reduces in a different

manner for different uniaxial loading. This also explains the different trends predicted for the stiffness of the EqBI and conrms

that different components of the stiffness tensor must be treated

in a different manner during the calculations of the stiffness of

the EqBI.

4.2. Type B debonded interface

4.2.1. Stress redistribution

Fig. 10(a)(c) show FE stress contours for axial and the two

transverse loading for VE containing inclusions with Type B

debonded interface.

704

Fig. 14. Experimentally derived and simulated stress strain behavior of injection molded SFRC (Cauchy strain is plotted); (a) 0-degree coupon (b) 45-degree coupon (c) 90degree coupon.

with Type B debonded interface when the VE is subjected to a load

in the axial direction (z-direction). When subjected to the loading

in the transverse direction normal to the debonded interface surface, there is negligible stress in the part of the inclusion with

debonded interface. The part of the inclusion with perfect interface

is uniformly stressed and the magnitude of stress is independent of

the extent of the debonded interface. This conrms the assumptions during the formulation.

4.2.2. EqBI properties and mechanical equivalence

For each of the 5 extents of debonded interface, the normalized

stiffness values of the EqBI were calculated and seen to vary differently (Fig. 11).

Comparison of the predictions of the average stresses in the

inclusion (Fig. 12(a)(f)) and the EqBI composite (Fig. 13(a)(f))

by the full FE calculations and the MT formulation showed that

there is a good match for different types of loading. It is seen that

in general the loss of stress bearing capacity of the composite is

lower than observed for Type A debonding.

It is seen that the match for the average stress (both for EqBI and

EqBI composite) matches well with the FE results for uni-axial

loads. Both the FE and EqBI based MT formulation predict no loss

in load bearing capacity of the composite when subjected to uniaxial load. When the loading is in the transverse direction, the drop in

average stress in the inclusion is gradual for low values of the fraction of debonded interface. There is a sudden drop in the average

stress when the debonded interface fraction is above 0.5. The

EqBI based MT formulation is able to predict exactly the same trend

as the FE calculations.

However, for the shear loads the difference in the average stress

value in the EqBI composite and the inclusion in the FE is slightly

higher. It is unclear whether the difference in the average stress

is due to the different shape considered or it is due to the approximations in the calculation of the EqBI properties. This is because

the difference in the average stresses (particularly in the inclusion)

was highest when the fraction of debonded length considered was

0 (fully bonded inclusion).

From the results it is also clear that the loss of load bearing

capacity is different for each loading type and is estimated by the

proposed method. Subsequently each component of stiffness

matrix of EqBI therefore varies in a different manner and is taken

into account by the proposed model.

4.3. Experimental validation

A good match was also observed in the overall stress strain

behavior prediction for the SFRC coupon when both ber matrix

debonding and material non-linearity are taken into account.

(Fig. 14). It is concluded that modeling ber matrix debonding

together with the matrix non-linearity leads to an improvement

in the predictions of the overall stress strain response. This is particularly true for the 0 and 45 degree coupons but for the

90-degree coupon the major cause of non-linearity is due to matrix

non-linearity.

Tensile failure of the coupon is probably due to complex damage events which is not yet accounted for by the proposed methods

described in this paper.

5. Conclusions

A method for treating debonded interface inclusions under the

MT formulation by the introduction of an EqBI was proposed and

validated in this paper. The proposed method takes into account

the stress distribution and corresponding reduced load bearing

705

stress distribution due to the presence of a debonded interface is

different for different applied loads and subsequently the components of the stiffness tensor of the EqBI vary differently.

Validation of the mechanical equivalence of the EqBI was performed by modeling a VE with debonded interface in FE and comparing the predictions of the average stresses in the VE as well as in

the inclusions. A good match was observed for the average stresses

both for the full VE and in the inclusions for all possible types of

elementary loading. Good predictions were also obtained for overall stress strain behavior of SFRC. The derived algorithms for creation of EqBI are ready to use in MT modeling of SFRC.

Acknowledgments

IWT Vlaanderen is thanked for funding this research as a part of

the project Fatigue life prediction of random ber composites

using hybrid multi-scale modelling methods COMPFAT

Baekeland mandate number 100689. PART Engineering GmbH

opened suitable interfaces in their software Converse to facilitate

the analysis presented in this paper. Stefan Straesser, Dr. Michael

Hack and Christophe Liefooghe from Siemens Industry Software

are thanked for useful discussions and constructive feedback. I.

Verpoest is holder of the Toray Chair in Composites at KULeuven.

References

[1] Thomason JL. Interfacial strength in thermoplastic composites at last an

industry friendly measurement method? Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf

2002;33(10):12838.

[2] Eshelby JD. The determination of the elastic eld of an ellipsoidal inclusion,

and related problems. Proc R Soc London Ser A Math Phys Sci

1957;241(1226):37696.

[3] Mori T, Tanaka K. Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of

materials with mistting inclusions. Acta Metall 1973;21(5):5714.

[4] Jain A, Lomov SV, Abdin Y, Verpoest I, Paepegem WV. Pseudo-grain

discretization and full Mori Tanaka formulation for random heterogeneous

media: predictive abilities for stresses in individual inclusions and the matrix.

Compos Sci Technol 2013;87:8693.

[5] Benveniste Y. A new approach to the application of MoriTanaka theory in

composite-materials. Mech Mater 1987;6(2):14757.

[6] Lawrence P. Some theoretical considerations of ber pull-out from an elastic

matrix. J Mater Sci 1972;7(1):16.

[7] Leung CKY, Li VC. Applications of a 2-way debonding theory to short ber

composites. Composites 1990;21(4):30517.

[8] Takaku A, Arridge RGC. The effect of interfacial radial and shear stress on bre

pull-out in composite materials. J Phys D: Appl Phys 1973;6(17):2038.

[9] Meraghni F, Blakeman CJ, Benzeggagh ML. Effect of interfacial decohesion on

stiffness reduction in a random discontinuous-bre composite containing

matrix microcracks. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56(5):54155.

[10] Desrumaux F, Meraghni F, Benzeggagh ML. Generalised MoriTanaka scheme

to model anisotropic damage using numerical Eshelby tensor. J Compos Mater

2001;35(7):60324.

[11] Zairi F, Nait-Abdelaziz M, Gloaguen JM, Bouaziz A, Lefebvre J-M.

Micromechanical modelling and simulation of chopped random ber

reinforced polymer composites with progressive debonding damage. Int J

Solids Struct 2008;45(20):522036.

[12] Zhao YH, Weng GJ. Plasticity of a two-phase composite with partially

debonded inclusions. Int J Plast 1996;12(6):781804.

[13] Zhao YH, Weng GJ. Transversely isotropic moduli of two partially debonded

composites. Int J Solids Struct 1997;34(4):493507.

[14] Fitoussi J, Bourgeois N, Guo G, Baptiste D. Prediction of the anisotropic

damaged behavior of composite materials: introduction of multilocal failure

criteria in a micromacro relationship. Comput Mater Sci 1996;5(1

3):87100.

[15] Mihai I. Micromechanical constitutive models for cementitious composite

materials. School of Engineering [Ph.D.]. Cardiff: Cardiff University; 2012.

[16] Koyama S, Katano S, Saiki I, Iwakuma T. A modication of the MoriTanaka

estimate of average elastoplastic behavior of composites and polycrystals with

interfacial debonding. Mech. Mater. 2011;43(10):53855.

[17] Nhung LTT. Prevision de la loi de comportement des composites bmc.

Mcanique et Matriaux [Ph.D.]. Paris; 2011.

[18] Carroll DR, Dharani LR. Elastic properties of imperfectly bonded short ber

composites. Compos Struct 1996;35(2):195206.

[19] Benveniste Y. The effective mechanical behaviour of composite materials with

imperfect contact between the constituents. Mech Mater 1985;4(2):197208.

[20] Gorbatikh L, Lomov S, Verpoest I. Elastic compliance of a partially debonded

circular inhomogeneity. Int J Fract 2005;131(3):21129.

706

[21] Ju JW, Lee HK. A micromechanical damage model for effective elastoplastic

behavior of ductile matrix composites considering evolutionary complete

particle debonding. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;183(34):20122.

[22] Lee HK, Pyo SH. Micromechanics-based elastic damage modeling of particulate

composites with weakened interfaces. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44(25

26):8390406.

[23] Yanase K, Ju JW. Effective elastic moduli of spherical particle reinforced composites

containing imperfect interfaces. Int J Damage Mech 2012;21(1):97127.

[24] Cox HL. The elasticity and strength of paper and other brous materials. Br J

Appl Phys 1952;3(72):729.

[25] Amirbayat J, Hearle JWS. Properties of unit composites as determined by the

properties of the interface. Part I: Mechanism of matrix-bre load transfer.

Fibre Sci Technol 1969;2(2):12341.

[26] Nairn JA. A variational mechanics analysis of the stresses around breaks in

embedded bers. Mech Mater 1992;13(2):13154.

[27] Wu W, Verpoest I, Varna J. A novel axisymmetric variational analysis of stress

transfer into bres through a partially debonded interface. Compos Sci Technol

1998;58(12):186377.

[28] Goh KL, Aspden RM, Mathias KJ, Hukins DWL. Finite-element analysis of the

effect of material properties and bre shape on stresses in an elastic bre

embedded in an elastic matrix in a bre-composite material. Proc R Soc A

Math Phys Eng Sci 2004;460(2048):233952.

[29] Buryachenko V. Micromechanics of heterogeneous materials. Springer; 2007.

[30] Giordano S. Analytical procedure for determining the linear and nonlinear

effective properties of the elastic composite cylinder. Int J Solids Struct

2013;50(24):405569.

[31] Arif MF, Meraghni F, Chemisky Y, Despringre N, Robert G. In situ damage

mechanisms investigation of PA66/GF30 composite: effect of relative

humidity. Compos Part B Eng 2014;58:48795.

mechanical behaviour of a glass bre reinforced polyamide 6,6: experimental

investigation. Polym Test 2006;25(4):54452.

[33] Sato N, Kurauchi T, Sato S, Kamigaito O. Microfailure behavior of randomly

dispersed short ber reinforced thermoplastic composites obtained by direct

sem observation. J Mater Sci 1991;26(14):38918.

[34] ABAQUS. A general-purpose nite element software, ABAQUS Inc, Pawtucket

RI, USA; 2005.

[35] Chua PS, Piggott MR. The glass brepolymer interface: pressure and

coefcient of friction. Compos Sci Technol 1985;22(3):18596.

[36] Sigmasoft. SIGMA Engineering GmbH, Aachen. In: http://www.sigmasoft.de/,

editor.; 2014.

[37] Onat ET, Leckie FA. Representation of mechanical behavior in the

presence of change internal structure. Trans ASME J Appl Mech

1988;55(1):110.

[38] Furuhashi R, Huang JH, Mura T. Sliding inclusions and inhomogeneities with

frictional interfaces. J Appl Mech 1992;59(4):7838.

[39] Huysmans G, Verpoest I, Van Houtte P. A damage model for knitted fabric

composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2001;32(10):146575.

[40] Jao Jules SL, Ignace Verpoest, P. Naughton, A. W. Beekman, Van Daele R.

Prediction of non-linear behaviour of discontinuous long glass bres

polypropylene composites. In: 15th ICCM Durban; 2005.

[41] PLASTICS C. CAMPUS a material information system for the plastics

industry. <http://www.campusplastics.com/>; 2014.

[42] Tandon GP, Weng GJ. A theory of particle-reinforced plasticity. J Appl Mech

Trans ASME 1988;55(1):12635.

- som11.docЗагружено:Mohammed Imran
- STRENGHT OF MATERIAL FORMULA'SЗагружено:laiza edding
- E-proceeding ICSEM 2013Загружено:Mehar Babu Ravula
- Analysis of multi layered filament wound composite pipes under internal pressureЗагружено:nhung_33
- Strength-of-Materials.docЗагружено:Mohammed Imran
- Display OpenSeesЗагружено:Matías Garrido
- rtpЗагружено:furqan
- FEM Stress ConceptsЗагружено:Muhammad Faris
- Plate Eqns MSWЗагружено:Andrés Mercado
- TEP QuestionsЗагружено:vempadareddy
- Axially Loaded MembersЗагружено:fr3chill
- 2 Ss Unconfined Compression TestЗагружено:Iqi Iqah
- MicroMeasurement Strain Gauge RosettesЗагружено:nomi
- As Physics Unit 1 Rev Notes on YM, Stress, StrainЗагружено:Elliott Beamish
- Effect of Water Absorption on the Mechanical Properties of HempЗагружено:Bùi Ngọc
- FRANK TRUNK Patent Us 20050032029Загружено:anonymous3259
- ICCM17 Large Structures Failure AnalysisExperimentЗагружено:Chirayu
- General Theory of Elastic Stability_ SouthwellЗагружено:tpadhy
- Http Www.inrisk.ubc.CA Process.php File=STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Truss MembersЗагружено:customerx
- Overcoring MethodsЗагружено:Kevin Escobedo
- Kundu, Tribikram-Ultrasonic and Electromagnetic NDE for Structure and Material Characterization _ Engineering and Biomedical Applications-CRC Press (2012)Загружено:Swarup Barman
- LEP1301_01 Hooke’s law.pdfЗагружено:Jose Galvan
- 1-s2.0-S0266352X18300521-mainЗагружено:serçin
- Strain Gage Preparation Paper REF ASTMD3039Загружено:Namelezz Shadoww
- UBC_1987_A7 S53.pdfЗагружено:Husseinali Hussein
- Test PaperЗагружено:masood
- pat_thesis.pdfЗагружено:Michael Ellis
- Code Aster PossibilityЗагружено:Bartłomiej Minor
- Stiffness MatrixЗагружено:Pablo Fernandez
- Lecture 39Загружено:Shawn Waltz

- Finite Deformation General TheoryЗагружено:khayat
- Lecture Xfem MeshfreeЗагружено:msyexplore
- Guidelines and Parameter Selection for the Simulation of Progressive ionЗагружено:msyexplore
- Influence of Porosity on FatigueЗагружено:msyexplore
- com-hom-2008Загружено:msyexplore
- A generalisation of J2.flow theoryЗагружено:msyexplore
- Ansys Cfx 12 TutorialsЗагружено:shaozhen

- Viscousity Unit EngineeringЗагружено:Machineryeng
- A Review on Grease Lubrication in Rolling BearingsЗагружено:feni4ka
- Volkersen Adhesive CalculationЗагружено:gladuree
- sdarticleЗагружено:hrithikcanadian2002in5750
- fulltextЗагружено:Reza KH
- Prediction of IPR - Heavy OilЗагружено:Sebastian Espin
- Stresses and Strains in Flexible PavementsЗагружено:ingof1000
- Semisolid Proccesing Kirkwood D.H.Загружено:Arturo De La Fuente
- 199ies QЗагружено:Deep Debnath
- CURSO NPTEL - Mechanics of Laminated Composite StructureЗагружено:cargadory2k
- The Influence of Discontinuity Orientation on the Behaviour of TunnelsЗагружено:Nadim527
- Cubic Splines.pdfЗагружено:muco
- LM_SomLab_2Загружено:hammads88
- EMMChapter_01Загружено:Muhammad Zubair
- FM 2e SI Chap02 LectureЗагружено:Shasha AR
- steelЗагружено:Raj Bakhtani
- Ch 3 Shigley SlidesЗагружено:engineer60638
- Rheological Characterization of A201 Aluminum AlloyЗагружено:Wei Wang
- IS-801Загружено:Karthick Venkatesh
- Deep Beam 03Загружено:CF W Fredy
- [Reynold King Watkins, Loren Runar Anderson] Struc(BookSee.org)Загружено:Jesus Maestre
- Module 3Загружено:Debjit Kanrar
- ETABS 9.5 Release NotesЗагружено:Raluca Ghica
- EricSkibbe2010 (Compare Strut and Tie Deep Beam)Загружено:Chong Chee Yen
- SPE-12880-MS- A Practical Hydraulic Fracturing modelЗагружено:Jessica Ceh
- Edge Column According to Aci 318-02 (Nonprestressed Slabs)94-1Загружено:Love Semsem
- Heat TransferЗагружено:kiran.76100
- Rheology of extrusion.pdfЗагружено:Ethan Kocan
- Confined Masonry Buildings.pdfЗагружено:kissistvan
- University of British Columbia - St. Venant TorsionЗагружено:Francisco Contreras

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.