1. No category

Analytical cohesive model for Compact Tension specimen
Girona, 22 July 2013
Characterization of the
intralaminar fracture cohesive law
A. Ortega, P. Maimí., E. V. González.
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(1)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Outline
1 – Direct method: analytic model
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition
1.2 – Validation of the model
2 – Inverse problem
3 – Results
4 – Conclusions
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(2)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
Preamble: Why use a cohesive model?
Quasi-brittle materials:
– Exhibit no hardening prior to the material failure.
– Need a relatively high amount of energy to propagate a crack.
– Develop a Fracture Process Zone relatively large compared to other
problem dimensions.
In this scenario, Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
cannot be used to predict the crack growth.
– A cohesive model is introduced to take into account the fracture
mechanics at the FPZ.
– The cohesive law is considered to be a material property.
(3)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1 – Direct method
To obtain the load-displacement (P-u) curve of a Compact
Tension (CT) specimen taking into account the cohesive
stresses at the Fracture Process Zone (FPZ).
(4)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition: a superposition problem
(5)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(6)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition: determination of the
cohesive stresses
(7)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition: determination of the
cohesive stresses
(8)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.1 – Dugdale’s Condition: Inputs and outputs
(9)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
1.1 – Direct method.
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(10)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.2 – Model validation
Excellent agreement with FEM for a linear cohesive law.
(11)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
1.2 – Model validation
As proven, the analytic model is equivalent to a FEM solution
Advantages of analytic model over FEM:
– Extremely fast computing time (<1s vs ~10min).
– Any random CL shape.
Advantages of FEM over analytic:
– Easier to implement for any geometry.
– Analytic only solved for isotropic material (can be implemented for
orthotropic materials).
(12)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(13)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: The FPZ formation
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(14)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: The FPZ formation
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(15)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: The FPZ formation
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(16)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(17)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(18)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(19)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(20)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(21)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(22)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(23)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(24)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
2 – Inverse problem: Solution algorithm
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(25)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
3 – Results
Quasi-isotropic woven glass fabric [(0/45)5]S.
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(26)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
3 – Results
The CL shape depends on the number of points used to do
the fitting.
(27)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
3 – Results
The CL shape depends on the number of points used to do
the fitting.
(28)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
3 – Results
The CL shape depends on the number of points used to do
the fitting.
(29)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
Madrid, 8th April 2015
3 – Results
The CL shape depends on the number of points used to do
the fitting.
(30)
Characterization of the intralaminar fracture cohesive law
4 – Overview
Madrid, 8th April 2015
(31)
Analytical cohesive model for Compact Tension specimen
Thank you for your
attention.
Girona, 22 July 2013
(32)
Analytical cohesive model for Compact Tension specimen
Girona, 22 July 2013
(33)