Computational Methods for Debonding in Composites

10 Elastoplastic Modeling of Multi-phase Metal Matrix Composite 215
σ 33 [MPa]
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 10.6 Results: Ju, Liu and Sun 2006
ε 33 [10 −3 ]
Mises
Gurson−0.02
Gurson−0.08
JLS06−perfectly bonded
JLS06−porous
partially debonding process of metal matrix composites under elastoplastic deformation
[13, 14]. The governing damage parameters are based on four different
debonding modes while the damage evolution is based on the Weibull statistics.
These modes are governed by the so-called “interfacial damage parameters”.
According to the authors, the interfacial damage parameter measures the reduction
of elastic stiffness in certain directions. Quantitatively speaking, it is the ratio of
the projected damaged area to the original interface area in a certain direction. For
results, see Fig. 10.6.
10.5.2 Discussion on the Evaluation Process
The combined TFA-GPM method framework provides good agreement with the
results presented in the literature. More importantly, the evaluation and verification
procedure demonstrated the versatility, capability and flexibility of the proposed
elastoplastic modelling framework formulated and implemented in this paper.
In the paper by Ju and Lee 2000, the authors compared their model to Zhao
and Weng’s model under uniaxial and biaxial loading. In addition, Ju and Lee also
compared the results produced by their model to an experimental result given by
Llorca in 1991. In the above simulation, we compared our model to Ju and Lee’s
results, Zhao and Weng’s results and Llorca’s experimental results. As shown in
Fig. 10.4, our results for the von-Mises case and Gurson-0.02 case lie between the
Ju and Lee’s perfectly bonded curve and Zhao and Weng’s perfectly bonded curve.
On the other hand, the Gurson-0.08 curve lies between the upper bound and lower