🗊Презентация Stress analysis versus modes of fracture in composites

Stress analysis versus modes of fracture in composites

Location

Major long-term Industrial partnerships with: Major long-term Industrial partnerships with: Rolls-Royce Airbus Boeing BAe Systems DSTL European Space Agency EADS Smiths Industries GlaxoSmithKline ICI, Unilever AstraZeneca, Novartis, QinetiQ, IBM…. Cytec Engineered Materials

Faculty of Engineering Automatic Control & Systems Engineering (5*A) Electronic and Electrical Engineering (5*A) Engineering Materials (5*A) Mechanical Engineering (5A) Aerospace Engineering Computer Science (5B) Civil and Structural Engineering (5B) Chemical and Process Engineering (4B)

RR UTCs, AMRC and CamTec Four R-R UTCs are located at UoS

Giic Summit Problem Statement We have found out that some particles are able to deliver excellent toughening as constantly demonstrated by the superior CAI and low damage area that can be achieved using this technology, if compared with standard commercial interlaminar particles. However, despite the good CAI, Giic performance could not be improved consistently. What can we do to keep the crack in the interlaminar region?

Key Questions Why is the crack slipping from the interlaminar region to the intralaminar region? What is the main cause for this to happen? Is our interlaminar region “too tough”? Is the modulus of our particles too high or inadequate? Can the fibre matrix interface strength be playing a role? Is it related to test? (We are using the ENF method, to evaluate Giic – we know that propagation is not stable). If the test is important why do some materials work better than others? What happens in real life? How does the Giic test method (ENF) compare with real life structure problems (i.e. cobonded structures/ structures having radii…etc.)? How does Giic correlate to other properties? Literature provides correlations to CAI (that in our case does not seem to apply). What about Gic, ILS, CILS? How should our particles and resin be designed to maximise Giic while keeping the balance of the other properties?

Question How is the laminate stress related to fracture toughness?

Strains and Curvatures Inserting plate deformation equations into the strain-displacement relations and simplifying yields: Strains in terms of midplane strains and curvatures

Stress Resultants for a ply/laminate

Plate Stiffness and Compliance stress strain relationships for a single ply

Laminate Stiffness and Compliance Inserting plate stiffness relationships into laminate stress and moment resultant equations in terms of strains and curvatures

ABD Matrices where i,j =1,2,6 zk is the coordinate of the top and bottom of ply surface 18 Constants

The extent of Laminate Theory in design against delamination Elastic constants are used to calculate Q matrices for each ply Q matrices are used to calculate A, B and D matrices Coefficients from A & D matrices are used to calculate the effective stiffness of the beam’s cross-section Loads and dimensions are used to calculate moment resultant, and deflection Curvature is calculated and strains are calculated for each ply (all values are very close and can be approximated into a single strain value) Stresses are calculated from strains and Q matrices Max stresses identified Failure criterion applied to selected (or all) plies Onset of delamination predicted, mode unknown Position of the ply-to-fail unknown

Question What is a crack, what are the parameters of crack propagation?

Background theory In infinite plates with a crack opening defined with a and b: max/ a = 1 + (2a/b) Or max = 2a (a/)1/2 Where stress concentration factor: KT = 2(a/)1/2

Failure in composites Under crack propagation, there can be two types of failure in composite materials: Cohesive, crack propagation through matrix phase without interfacing with fibres Adhesive, without matrix residue on the fibre: this failure mode is the basis for all assumptions in fracture mechanics Adhesive crack propagation assumes very sharp crack tip in order to avoid cohesive failure Thickness of the crack must be in the order of one ply (laminae) KT must be high After deriving stress through Griffith criterion, stress intensity factor is defined as: K = Kc =  (a)1/2

Introducing crack in composites 3 Principal failure modes, retarded by design, regardless of the type of applied load: Intraply cracking Interlaminar delamination Fibre breakage Other failure modes: Debonding Voids, wrinkles inclusions Fibre misalignment Even if the layer orientation remains the same, different stacking sequence will produce a different effect and a different failure mode (under any applied load, with or without blast).

Delamination Major life-limiting failure process in composite laminate Produced by: Out-of-plane loading Eccentricities in load paths Discontinuities in the structure Consequences: Stiffness loss Local stress concentration Local instability Buckling failure under compression

Methods Crossman: the onset of free-edge delamination: a* = E0Gc/c2 Effective modulus Critical stress a* is usually one ply thickness for carbon/epoxy The strain energy release rate Laminate plate theory is used to analyse the onset of delamination Delamination induced stiffness reduction is proportional with strain energy release rate Crack is initiated when strain reaches critical value c c = [2Gc/t(E1-E*)]1/2 where E* = iti/t stiffness of delaminated laminate

Methods continued Stress approach: detailed analysis near the free edge and use of failure criterion In angle-ply laminates, all max stresses are localised around the free edge region Crack tip induces additional stress concentration The average value of each stress component is the effective stress level that dictates the failure at the free edge Values of max stresses are averaged along the length of one ply thickness from the free edge

Methods continued Tsai-Wu quadratic failure criterion Introducing R = ult/app When R=1, failure occurs (Fzzzz2 + Fttxz2 + Fuuyz2 )R + (Fzz )R – 1 = 0 Where Fzz = 1/zz’, Ftt = 1/StSt’, Fuu = 1/SuSu’, Fz = 1/z – 1/z’ Z,z’ - interlaminar tensile and compressive strength St, St’ – the positive and negative shear strength in x and z Su Su’- - … in y and z In angle ply laminates for = 15° dominant failure is by mixed shear (xz and yz),and by increasing angle, normal stress in z becomes significant If greater than 37.5° ,transverse tension If greater than 45°, initial failure moves to midplane

Fracture propagation Governed by one or two dominant intensity factors or critical strain energy release rates Several criteria using mode I and II Input: GIc and GIIc Input: static strength data Required: experimental values (mode I – DCB and mode II – ENF test) Sharp cracks only

Effect of delamination Stiffness loss of a partially delaminated laminate: E = (E* - E1)A/A* + E1 E*: stiffness of completely delaminated laminate, E1 : extensional stiffness, A*: total interfacial area, A: delaminated area Loss in modulus leads to iterative and complex failure mechanism under dynamic load - prediction complexity requires stable and accurate parameters to be determined before blast effect can be analysed

Question Giic: is it related to the interface?

Giic: crack propagation notes Crack does not ‘know’ that it is running in a composite material – it recognises its local zone only Three phases: matrix, particles & interface Stress distribution in a composite is different for each ply (ply orientation) Stress distribution changes as the crack propagates and it is not continuous Modulus and stiffness of the plate change as the crack propagates In statically indeterminate systems, the stronger member (or phase) carries more stress In a changing modulus environment, the stress values will also change

Giic: ENF 3ENF has been used to measure Giic however high instability is reported, and the difficulty in following the crack path (tip) 4ENF has been assessed as a more stable method, however difficulties with friction and the crack observation continue Giic = 9Pc2a2C/2W(2C3 + 3a3) C = (2L3 + 3a3)/(8EhW) Pc: critical load of delamination E: flexural modulus The method currently limited to 0° ply laminates

Giic: fibre matrix debonding The fibre and the matrix deform differentially causing local Poisson contraction Large local stresses are built up in the fibre at the same time The level of shear force at the interface exceeds the apparent interfacial shear bond strength and causes debonding (max shear strength criterion) Debonding toughness is evaluated by the total elastic strain energy stored in the fibre over the debond length, and fracture toughness as the work of debonding over the cylindrical debond area: Rd = Vf (f*)2 ld/2Ef Gic = d2d/8Ef

Giic: Gic The principle in the opening mode I is similar as the beam theory is used again: Gic = Pc2a2/WEI = 3Pc2C/2Wa Both Gic and Giic are correlated to the elastic laminate properties in bending Pc is expected to be different for mode I and mode II Crack propagation is measured – thus the causes leading to the crack initiation and propagation are not determined by these tests

De Moura: crack bridging & Gic

Giic: ENF vs. multidirectional plies Multidirectional lay-ups: crack branching and deviations from central plane observed No dependence on the delaminating interface Recent round-robin test report on 0/90 and angle ply laminates identified 50% invalid tests in the report due to: Deviation from the mid-plane Delamination oscillation between adjacent 0 plies Friction contribution which may vary between 2-20% as reported in various studies Matrix cracking in angle-ply laminates introduces coupling between extension and shear

Giic: ENF vs. Real life structures Giic reported higher for multidirectional composites, with the same initiation value Premature yielding and intraply failure Locally mode I dominated with 45 degree microcracks growth from the thickness direction Contradictory data reports for angle ply laminates In a study by Tao & Sun, delamination always ‘jumped’ to 0°/ interface in ENF

Giic: round robin (Tanaka, 2nd VAMAS)

Giic: Inter-intra jumping Two adjacent lamina with two different fibre angles induce extensional and bending stiffness mismatch In combination with the matrix, this region becomes sensitive to delamination at interfaces Crack front propagation does not correlate to failure criteria which are ply-stress determined Crack front is ‘attracted’ to the highest stress value in the vicinity of the crack The zone of influence: ply thickness

Question Why is Giic sometimes correlated with CIA?

Compressive strength prediction Fibres under compression fail by local buckling Two possible modes: extensional and shear Extensional: stretch and compression of the matrix in an out-of-phase manner. cu ~ 2Vf [(VfEmEf)/(3(1-Vf))]0.5 Shear mode: the fibres buckle in phase and the matrix is sheared. Buckling stress: cu ~ Gm/(1-Vf)

Transverse Strength and Failure Modes

Points for further discussion Can we assume the elastic properties mismatch a genuine composite phenomenon, ignore causes for intraply failure and focus on prevention by design? Can Cytec provide any experimental data for discussion and analysis? To prevent a complete modulus loss in a cracked lamina, should self-healing methodologies be considered?