Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
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.
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.
694
C 0ii
hr
C ii
hrii i
0
ii i
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
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
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.
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
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
Same as Type A
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.)
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
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.
698
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
Fig. 11. Stiffness predictions of the EqBI for different extents of Type B debonded
interface.
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.
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.
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
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.