Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
19
2. Literature Review
Tamuzs V, Tarasovs S, and Vilks U. have
investigated the peculiarities of R curve obtained on
traditional DCB loaded by wedged force, the
influence of specimen geometry on R curves and
proposes a scheme of measurements and
calculations to predict the resistance of crack
propagation in specimens of different thickness. H.
Sun, S. Rajendran And D. Q. Song were calculate
the delamination fracture toughness or critical strain
energy release rate (Gc) values for mid-plane,
delamination in double cantilever beam (DCB) and
single leg bending (SLB) specimens made of woven
fabric carbon-epoxy composite with unidirectional
layup by finite element analysis, and experiment.
Andras Szekrenyes, Jozse Uj, have investigates the
interlaminar fracture and fiber- bridging in doublecantilever-beam specimens from the theoretical and
experimental methods. Kyongchan Song, Carlos G.
Davila, Cheryl A. Rose, were discussed Turons
methodology for selecting analysis parameters for
the simulation of delamination propagation using
relatively coarse meshes is reviewed and used to
determine analysis parameters for use with the
Abaqus/Standard cohesive element.
3. Fiber Bridging
Fiber bridging is where the debonding has
taken places but not all the fibers in the crack wake
have fractured and some bridge the faces of the
crack. As the crack opens under the action of
applied stress, some of the stress will be transferred
to the fibers which will deform elastically. The
stresses in the bridging fibers are viewed as crack
closure tractions which reduce the stress at the
crack tip. There is a corresponding reduction in the
stress intensity factor at the crack tip and hence
crack propagation is hindered.
Figure 1: Fiber bridging
The interesting feature of this toughening
mechanism is that it is occurring in the crack wake
and not at the damage, or process, zone at the crack
tip. The damage zone remains approximately
constant in size as the crack grows therefore the
contribution to the toughness from toughening
mechanism which take place in this zone is also
constant. In contrast as crack extends, it region
increases in size and hence the contribution from
wake toughening mechanisms increases until a
steady state toughness value is reached. This
increases resistance to crack growth as the crack
20
d=
(5)
c=
using Esq., (4) and (6)
Figure 2: The geometry of a DCB specimen
(7)
The energy release rate in a DCB specimen is
(1)
Where b is the width of the specimen, a is the
crack length,
is the potential energy
accumulated in the system, P is the force by which
both sides of the specimen are loaded. The
potential energy of a linearly elastic system is equal
to
(2)
Where
and
are the stress and strain,
v is the volume, p(u) is the force applied, which is a
function of displacement. The first term is an
energy stored in the linear elastic body and the
second one is the work produced by applied
external force. The displacement u is a full opening
of DCB specimen at point where p is applied. The
first term is also expressed through the force acting
on the system,
(3)
From the Esq., (1) and (3)
u
+ p
or
(4)
(9)
(10)
G value calculated directly from finite element
analysis with the formulas (7) (10), we can
conclude, that formula (9) performs better.
21
3.
4.
5.
= 0.46.
22
SNo
Load(N)
CMOD(mm)
G (J/m)
10
0.32973
6.18
20
0.66964
24.97
30
1.0217
56.83
40
1.38851
102.32
50
1.77374
162.21
60
2.1826
237.53
70
2.6235
329.80
80
3.1099
441.39
90
3.6692
576.64
10
100
4.3685
745.46
11
110
5.5682
995.10
12
111
5.8407
1039.78
13
111.5
6.0685
1073.05
14
112
40.815
3846.25
15
113
41.213
3917.37
16
17
114
115
41.855
42.162
4004.72
4071.41
23
Load (N)
CMOD (mm)
8.
Future Work
G (J/m)
10
0.11
1.74
20
0.21
6.99
30
0.33
15.84
40
0.44
28.37
50
0.56
44.67
60
0.67
64.87
0.80
89.08
80
0.92
117.45
90
1.06
150.17
10
100
1.19
187.45
11
110
1.34
229.54
12
120
1.49
276.77
13
130
1.65
329.56
14
140
1.82
388.46
15
150
2.00
454.25
16
160
2.20
528.03
17
170
2.43
611.59
18
180
2.71
708.24
19
190
3.05
825.45
20
200
3.66
996.19
21
210
4.15
1156.62
22
211
15.51
2803.91
23
212
15.74
2849.35
24
213
15.69
2862.13
25
214
15.79
2891.43
26
215
15.88
2920.81
SNo
Load
(N)
CMOD
(mm)
G (J/m)
10
0.13
1.45
20
0.27
5.81
30
0.40
13.11
40
0.54
23.38
50
0.68
36.65
60
0.82
52.94
70
0.96
72.30
80
1.10
94.75
90
1.24
120.33
10
100
1.39
149.07
11
110
1.53
181.02
12
120
1.68
216.20
13
130
1.83
254.66
14
140
1.99
296.44
15
150
2.14
341.58
16
160
2.30
390.13
17
170
2.45
442.15
18
180
2.61
497.67
19
190
2.77
556.75
20
200
2.94
619.46
21
210
3.11
685.82
22
220
3.27
755.91
23
230
4.72
1023.54
24
232
6.50
1281.97
25
234
6.59
1308.10
26
236
6.63
1321.30
Theoretical determination of G.
Experimental determination of
diagram and hence evaluation of G
P-
7. Conclusion
The
crack
propagation
analysis
on
unidirectional DCB Epoxy-glass fiber composite
material is numerically done by using ANSYS
software. The CMOD value of the material for
varying loading condition is obtained. The energy
release rate of the material with different thickness
is obtained by using the theoretical formula
derived.
All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT
9 . Nomenclature
DCB
SERR
VCCT
CZM
SIF
4.
5.
6.
Potential energy
Stress
Strain
Volume
P (u)
Force applied
Width of a specimen
Thickness of a specimen
Strain energy
Compliance
EI
Bending stiffness
Fiber direction modulus
&
Transverse modulus
Shear modulus
Poisson ratio
References
1.
2.
3.
25