4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Initiation of cracks with cohesive force models: a variational approach

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICS A-SOLIDS
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 649-669

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2006.05.002

关键词

fracture; Calculus of Variations; stability; cohesive forces; yield stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the spirit of the variational approach of Fracture Mechanics initiated in [Del Piero, G., 1997. One-dimensional ductile-brittle transition, yielding and structured deformations. In: P. Argoul, M. Fremond (Eds.), Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium Variations de domaines et frontieres libres en mecanique, Paris, 1997, Kluwer Academic] and [Francfort, G.A., Marigo, J.-J., 1998. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46 (8), 1319-1342], we define the loss of stability of the elastic response of the body as the criterion of initiation of cracks. The result is very sensitive to the choice of the surface energy density. On one hand, if we adopt the Griffith assumption, then the elastic state is generally always stable. On the other hand, in the case of a surface energy of the Barenblatt type, i.e. a surface energy depending non-trivially on the jump of the displacement and inducing cohesive forces, the elastic response remains stable only if the stress field does not reach a critical value. In the full three-dimensional context of an isotropic material, we prove that this yield stress criterion is equivalent to a maximal traction criterion and a maximal shear criterion if the surface energy density is Frechet differentiable at the origin. When the surface energy density is only Gateaux differentiable, we obtain a yield stress criterion based on an intrinsic curve in the Mohr diagram. In any case, the domain of the admissible stress tensors is convex, unbounded in the direction of the hydrostatic pressures and depends only on the extreme eigenvalues of the stress tensor. (C) 2006 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

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