4.6 Article

Windows to trigger crack branching for cracked solids under mixed Mode-I/II loading

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.111605

关键词

Crack initiation angle; GPPS; Crack-kinking; Crack-branching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present investigation reveals that six energy-based driving forces act on the six subintervals around a crack tip under mixed Mode-I/II loading, controlling fracture configurations including complex crack branching. An efficient method for identifying the driving forces and determining the number of subintervals is proposed. Experimental findings are consistent with the theoretical predictions, providing valuable insights into crack branching under mixed Mode-I/II loading.
For a cracked solid under mixed Mode-I/II loading, the present investigation shows that six energy-based driving forces act respectively on the six subintervals around a crack tip, which controls the underlying fracture configurations, including complex crack branching. Using the geometrical modelling that describes multiple cracks initiation from a crack tip and a mixity parameter fn, subinterval division for crack tip boundary to maximized the energy release rate has been proposed. This is an efficient way to reveal theoretically energy-based driving forces acting on the local boundaries around a crack tip, and to show that the number of the subintervals is no greater than six. Three windows are suggested, within which the crack multiple-branching is more likely to be triggered. Compact tension shear (CTS) specimens made from general-purpose Polystyrenes (GPPS) under mixed Mode-I/II loading for a given fn are considered to investigate fracture behaviors. The typical experimental findings are consistent with some typical fracture behaviors predicted by the present modelling. The current theoretical and experimental investigations could be helpful to refresh the understanding of crack branching under quasi-static or dynamic mixed Mode-I/II loading.

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

4.6
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