4.7 Article

Failure analysis of syntactic foams: A computational model with cohesive law and XFEM

Journal

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 18-26

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.10.044

Keywords

Foams; Interface/interphase; Microstructures; Finite element analysis (FEA)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11222218, 11321202, 11402228]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB711103]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LZ14A020001]
  4. Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Education Department [N20080161]
  5. US Army Research Office (ARO Grant) [W911NF-13-1-0211]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The interface debonding and damage progression from voids in glass epoxy syntactic foams are two of the most common types of detrimental processes that have significant negative impact on the composites strength. In this paper, the effects of these progressive damage processes on the mechanical properties of syntactic foams are numerically investigated using a micromechanical approach. In particular, the tensile strength as a function of the interface properties and voids content of syntactic foams has been analyzed in detail using axisymmetric computational models with explicit consideration of the matrix cracking and the interface debonding, which are modeled using the Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) and the cohesive zone method (CZM), respectively. The numerical results agree well with the available experimental data. Further parametric studies show that the interface properties play a major role in the failure behavior of syntactic foams, while the voids can reduce their tensile strength. In addition, the tensile strength decreases with the volume fraction of hollow particles, but increases with the particle shell thickness. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available