4.7 Article

Dynamic mixed-mode I/II delamination fracture and energy release rate of unidirectional graphite/epoxy composites

期刊

ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS
卷 72, 期 10, 页码 1531-1558

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.08.008

关键词

mixed mode; delamination; dynamic interlaminar fracture; split Hopkinson pressure bar; energy release rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed-mode open-notch flexure (MONF), anti-symmetric loaded end-notched flexure (MENF) and center-notched flexure (MCNF) specimens were used to investigate dynamic mixed I/II mode delamination fracture using a fracturing split Hopkinson pressure bar (F-SHPB). An expression for dynamic energy release rate G(d) is formulated and evaluated. The experimental results show that dynamic delamination increases linearly with mode mixing. At low input energy E-i <= 4.0 J, the dynamic (G(d)) and total (G(T)) energy rates are independent of mixed-mode ratio. At higher impact energy of 4.0 <= E-i <= 9.3 J, G(d) decreases slowly with mixed I/II mode ratio while GT is observed to increase more rapidly. In general, Gd increases more rapidly with increasing delamination than with increasing energy absorbed. The results show that for the impact energy of 9.3 J before fragmentation of the plate, the effect of kinetic energy is not significant and should be neglected. For the same energy-absorption level, the delamination is greatest at low mixed-mode ratios corresponding to highest Mode II contribution. The results of energy release rates from MONF were compared with mixed-mode bending (MMB) formulation and show some agreement in Mode II but differences in prediction for Mode I. Hackle (Mode II) features on SEM photographs decrease as the impact energy is increased but increase as the Mode I/II ratio decreases. For the same loading conditions, more pure Mode II features are generated on the MCNF specimen fractured surfaces than the MENF and MONF specimens. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. 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