4.7 Article

A compressible plasticity model for pulp fibers under transverse load

期刊

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103672

关键词

Pulp fibers; Micromechanics; Poisson's ratio; Nanoindentation; Atomic force microscopy; Compression

资金

  1. Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs
  2. National Foundation for Research Technology and Development
  3. Mondi Group
  4. Canon Production Printing
  5. Kelheim Fibres GmbH
  6. SIG Combibloc Group AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that the transverse behavior of pulp fibers exhibits plastic deformation and nonlinear elasticity, attributed to the nanoporous structure of fibers. Based on this finding, a numerical model was established, showing good agreement with experimental data, indicating the characteristics of pulp fibers.
In the progress of understanding the mechanical behavior of pulp fibers, advanced material models have to be developed alongside experimental investigations. The transverse behavior of pulp fibers is tested by atomic force microscopy (AFM)-based nanoindentation experiments to record both, the volume reduction and the force displacement curve. Our measurements clearly indicate a compressible plastic behavior in conjunction with a highly nonlinear elastic behavior, both which are attributed to the nanoporous structure of pulp fibers. We therefore advocate a numerical model based on a compressible plastic model combined with a hyper-foam model. Our evaluation yields three key findings for the transverse behavior of pulp fibers: first, the compression behavior is dominated by plastic deformation and nonlinear elasticity, in agreement with the experimental indentation results; second, we found evidence that a compressible plasticity model is justified, with an estimated Poisson's ratio of 0.23; and third, a good agreement of our numerical model with out-of-plane compaction experiments from the literature for a sheet of paper was achieved.

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