4.7 Article

An improved ordinary state-based peridynamic model for cohesive crack growth in quasi-brittle materials

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 402-415

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.02.019

关键词

Quasi-brittle materials; Ordinary state-based peridynamics (OSBPD); Cohesive effect; Tension softening behavior; Crack propagation; Quasi-static loading

资金

  1. Science and Technology Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality [JCYJ20160229165310679]
  2. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [CityU 11204414]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ordinary state-based peridynamics (OSBPD) is a well-established peridynamic (PD) model, but its applications are restricted in brittle fracture because the failure models proposed in OSBPD are mainly to describe brittle fracture rather than quasi-brittle fracture. This work attempts to propose a damage model to overcome this limitation for the investigation of damage and crack propagation in quasi-brittle materials. To this aim, a PD version of the cohesive zone model (CZM) is established in OSBPD for the fracture analysis of quasi-brittle materials. A degradation curve is proposed in the damage model to represent the cohesive effect in fracture process zone (FPZ), which is similar to the tension softening curve in CZM. The damage model can be uniquely determined once the tensile strength, the elastic modulus, the specific fracture energy, and tension softening constitutive law are given. Moreover, several representative examples of mode-I and mixed mode concrete fractures are simulated using OSBPD to validate the proposed damage model. The predicted load-displacement curves and crack paths in all the cases are in good agreement with the experimental results or other numerical results. In addition, a reloading approach is proposed to obtain the descending part of load-displacement curve when the load-controlled loading procedure is adopted.

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