11.02.2013 Views

Computational Methods for Debonding in Composites

Computational Methods for Debonding in Composites

Computational Methods for Debonding in Composites

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4 Analytical and Numerical Investigation of the Length of Cohesive Zone 83<br />

toughness can be obta<strong>in</strong>ed from the pure mode fracture toughness of the material<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g the expression proposed by Benzeggagh and Kenane [3]:<br />

Gc = GIc +(GIIc − GIc)B η<br />

(4.25)<br />

where η is a mixed-mode <strong>in</strong>teraction parameter. The equivalent <strong>in</strong>terface strength<br />

under mixed-mode load<strong>in</strong>g, τo , can be related to the pure mode <strong>in</strong>terface strengths<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g the expression [19]:<br />

(τ o ) 2 =(τ o 3 )2 �<br />

+ (τ o shear )2 − (τ o 3 )2� B η<br />

(4.26)<br />

where τ o 3 and τo shear<br />

respectively.<br />

are the <strong>in</strong>terface strengths under mode I and shear mode load<strong>in</strong>g,<br />

4.4 Generalization of the Length of the Cohesive Zone<br />

<strong>for</strong> F<strong>in</strong>ite-Sized Geometries<br />

The models used <strong>for</strong> the estimation of the cohesive length outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Sect. 4.2<br />

assume that the crack propagates unstably when the applied energy release rate is<br />

equal to the fracture toughness of the material, Gc. However, depend<strong>in</strong>g on the specimen<br />

geometry, unstable crack propagation occurs be<strong>for</strong>e the maximum value of the<br />

fracture toughness is atta<strong>in</strong>ed. The alternative method proposed here to predict the<br />

length of the cohesive zone under mode I load<strong>in</strong>g is based on the relation between<br />

this length and the size effect experienced by the structure.<br />

Schematically represent<strong>in</strong>g the R-curve, Fig. 4.2, it is observed that the applied<br />

energy release rate that produces unstable propagation, GIu is equal to the value<br />

where the R-curve and the GI curve are tangent.<br />

The applied energy release rate is a function of the geometry:<br />

GI(a,h)= 1<br />

E ′ σ 2 Nhk(a,h) 2<br />

(4.27)<br />

where σN is a nom<strong>in</strong>al stress [2], h is a geometry-dependent quantity, and k(a,h)<br />

is the shape factor <strong>for</strong> KI. For a double-cantilever beam (DCB) specimen, tak<strong>in</strong>g h<br />

as the thickness of the specimen arm and B the width of the specimen, the applied<br />

energy release rate reads:<br />

GI(a,h)= 12P2a2 (4.28)<br />

E ′ B 2 h 2<br />

By compar<strong>in</strong>g Eqs. (4.27) and (4.28) the nom<strong>in</strong>al stress σN and the shape factor<br />

k(a,h) used <strong>in</strong> Eq. (4.27) are given as:<br />

σN = P<br />

bh<br />

k(a,h)=2 √ 3 a<br />

h<br />

(4.29)<br />

(4.30)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!