4.7 Article

On microscopic analysis of fracture in unidirectional composite material using phase field modelling

期刊

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 220, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109242

关键词

Micromechanics; Phase field modelling; Composite materials; Failure modes; Fracture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study fills the gaps in understanding the implications and requirements of using the phase-field model (PFM) in studying fracture in composite materials. It analyzes the role of critical parameters, the effects of length-scale interactions, and concerns about convergence. By weakening the matrix/fibre interface, the PFM proves to be an important tool in toughening composite materials.
The demand for composite materials is higher than ever before. Effective and reliable modelling techniques allowing for better understanding of their failure are critical for designing future optimised light-weight structures. However, failure of composite at the microscopic level is a complex phenomenon and it has often been analysed using empirical approaches. A promising alternative, that instead takes a physics-based approach, is the phase-field model (PFM). This approach has been applied comprehensively to homogeneous materials and has briefly been extended to composite laminae, as modelled by Kanninen's local heterogeneous region (LHR). Despite this progress, a systematic investigation of the implications and requirements of using PFM for studying fracture in composite materials seems incomplete and missing links between the physical and the numerical aspects. This work aims to fill that gap and discusses in detail the role of the critical parameters in a PFM analysis of fracture, including length-scale interactions and concerns on convergence. The present analysis is framed around the problem of toughening of composites by weakening the matrix/fibre interface. Here, the PFM proves very efficient tool allowing recognition of multiple failure modes.

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