4.7 Article

A discrete element modelling approach for fatigue damage growth in cemented materials

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 68-88

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2018.08.007

关键词

Discrete element method; Fatigue damage; Cemented materials; Couple damage plasticity; Fatigue model

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP130100884, DP 160100775]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP130100884] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a modelling approach capable of capturing both the fatigue response and localisation of failure in cemented materials. This modelling approach takes advantage of Discrete Element Method (DEM) to reproduce the heterogeneous microstructure and crack development in cemented materials. In conjunction with this, a new constitutive model is developed to characterise the fatigue behaviour of the materials at the grain scale. The model formulation is based on coupling damage mechanics and plasticity theory and combining with a fatigue damage evolution law to describe the degrading response of cemented materials subjected to cyclic loading. The proposed model is employed to govern the explicit behaviours of DEM bonding contacts representing cement bridges between aggregates in the physical materials. The macro-behaviour is then obtained in DEM simulations as the collective response of all contacts and particles in the material domain. Through numerical experiments, the proposed modelling approach is shown to capture well the fatigue behaviour and cracking process in cemented materials subjected to cyclic loading. The microstructural effects on the fatigue response of the materials are naturally reproduced in simulations thanks to the discrete nature of DEM. These results demonstrate the capability of the proposed modelling approach as well as its potential to be a faithfully numerical technique for modelling and investigating fatigue damage in cemented materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据