4.7 Article

An anisotropic cohesive phase field model for quasi-brittle fractures in thin fibre-reinforced composites

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 252, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112635

关键词

Quasi-brittle fracture; Fibre reinforced composites; Anisotropic cohesive phase-field model; Experimental verification; Finite element simulation

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie SAFE-FLY project [721455]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thin unidirectional-tape and woven-fabric composites are widely utilized in the aerospace and automotive industries due to their enhanced fatigue life and damage resistance. Providing high-fidelity simulations of intra-laminar damage in such laminates is a challenging task both from a physics and a computational standpoint, due to their complex and largely quasi-brittle fracture response. This is manifested by matrix cracking and fibre breakage, which result in a sudden loss of strength with minimum crack openings; subsequent fibre pull-outs result in a further, although gradual, strength loss. To effectively model this response, it is necessary to account for the cohesive forces evolving within the fracture process zone. Furthermore, the interaction of the failure mechanisms pertinent to both the fibres and the matrix necessitate the definition of anisotropic damage models. We propose a cohesive phase-field model to simulate intra-laminar fracture in fibre reinforced composites. To capture damage anisotropy, distinct energetic crack driving forces are defined for each pertinent composite damage mode together with a structural tensor that accounts for material orientation dependent fracture properties. The material degradation is governed by a 3-parameter quasi-quadratic degradation function, which can be calibrated to experimentally derived strain softening curves. The proposed damage model is implemented in Abaqus and is validated against experimental results.

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