3.8 Article

Micromechanical Modeling of Unidirectional CFRP Composites with Proportional Stressing

期刊

JOURNAL OF MULTISCALE MODELLING
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S1756973721430022

关键词

Representative volume element; CFRP composites; proportional stressing; finite element analysis; damage progression

资金

  1. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore [162 150 0018, A19C9a0044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a computational micromechanical analysis of unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced plastics using representative volume elements. Different stress states were systematically studied, with the conclusion that the failure envelope converges as the fiber volume fraction increases. The developed framework can be extended to conveniently examine the failure criteria for UD CFRP composites comprehensively.
In this paper, we present a computational micromechanical analysis of unidirectional (UD) carbon fiber-reinforced plastics (CFRPs) using representative volume elements (RVEs). The RVEs consist of randomly distributed fibers, matrix, and interfaces between the fibers and matrix. Periodic boundary conditions (PBCs) and proportional stressing are implemented to facilitate micromechanical analysis of the composites under controlled stress states. In particular, the failure mechanisms of the RVEs under combined transverse and in-plane shear stressing are investigated. The ratio of in-plane shear stress over transverse stress is kept constant during each simulation. By varying this ratio, the mechanical responses of composites under different stress states are systematically studied and the failure envelopes for different fiber volume fractions are extracted. We find the failure envelope converges as the fiber volume fraction increases. The framework developed in this study can be extended to different stress states allowing us to conveniently examine the failure criteria for UD CFRP composites comprehensively.

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

3.8
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