0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

22 visualizzazioni39 paginecomposite materials

Jun 15, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

composite materials

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

22 visualizzazioni39 paginecomposite materials

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 39

variety of failure modes:

- fiber breaking: occurs mainly under tensile loads

- matrix crazing: the appearance of microscopic cracks in

the polymer matrix

- matrix cracking: similar to crazing but the cracks are

larger

- fiber debonding: occurs when the fiber-matrix bond

fails

design. Thus a simpler alternative is to use empirical failure

criteria

to fit experimental data (obtained on simple tests (Fig 6) of

failure of single-layer composite

F1c = longitudinal compressive strength

F1t = transverse tensile strength

F2c = transverse compressive strength

F6 = inplane shear strength

F4, F5 = interlaminar shear strength

Maximum strain criterion

Tsai-Hill failure criterion

Tsai-Wu failure criterion

Truncated-maximum strain criterion

(similar to safety factor), R is defined : R = sultimate / sapplied

(strength over stress applied)

R > 1, stress level is below the strength of the material

R < 1, stress value is higher than the strength and failure is predicted

Since linear elastic behaviour is assumed, multiplying all the applied loads by a factor R

increases or reduces the stresses proportionally, so that the new value of strength ratio = 1

Failure load can be computed simply by analysing the structure with an arbitrary reference

load, then multiplying the reference load by the value of R

Predicts failure of a layer when at least one of the stresses in

material coordinates (s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6) exceeds the

corresponding experimental value of strength.

true:

s1 > F1t

if s1 > 0

abs (s1) > F2c if s1 < 0

s2 > F2t if s2 > 0

abs (s2) > F2c if s2 < 0

abs (s4) > F4

abs (s5) > F5

abs (s6) > F6

6

F1t, F1c, F2t, F2c, F4, F5, F6 are ultimate values, can also be replaced by

allowable values; if ultimate values are used, a safety factor needs to be

used in the design, if allowable, already have safety factors built in

(allowable = ultimate / safety factor)

A graphical representation of the maximum stress criterion can be obtained

when only 2 stress components are different from zero.

Fig 7 case of s1 = s4 = s5 = 0

No failure as long as s2, s6 define a point (called design state) inside

the rectangle

Failure is predicted when s2, s6 reach any point on the rectangle

(failure envelope)

The rectangle limits the design space

If allowable strength values are used instead of ultimate strength, the

design space becomes the safe region

R1 = F1t / s1 if s1 > 0

R1 = - F1c / s1 if s1 < 0

R2 = F2t / s2 if s2 > 0

R2 = - F2c / s2 if s2 < 0

R4 = F4 / abs (s4)

R5 = F5 / abs (s5)

R6 = F6 / abs (s6)

The strength ratio for the layer is the minimum of all Ri

computed

failure

(ii) detect overdesign

laminate can be changed to reduce likelihood of failure mode in

that.

against the identified mode of failure or

in the desired orientation

laminate

add more material

laminate

10

Its not conservative for stress states that are not dominated by

one component of stress

Point P in Figure 7; both s2 and s6 are positive, their value

are close but still lower than the corresponding strength

values F2t and F6, predicts no failure. But experimental data

from biaxial strength tests show that there are interactions

effects which produce failure when two or more stress

components are close to their limits

When s2 becomes negative (compression), the maximum stress

criterion maybe too conservative (point Q) or it may

overpredict the strength of the structure (point R) as it does in

this example for tensile transverse load

11

Example 7.1

Use the maximum failure criterion to compute the tensile strength ratio for

a layer of carbon-epoxy subject to s1 = 200 MPa, s6 = 100 MPa, s2 = -50

MPa, s4 = s5 = 0. The strength values for the composite are: F1t = 1.826 GPa,

F1c = 1.134 GPa, F2t = 19 MPa, F2c = 131 MPa, F6 = 75 MPa. Give a

justification for the result.

Ans:

Compute the values of strength ratio corresponding to each orientation.

Since the stress is tensile along the fibre direction:

R1 = F1t / s1 = 1826 MPa / 200 MPa = 9.13

In the transverse direction, the stress is in compression, so

R2 = - F2c / s2 = -131 MPa / -50 MPa = 2.62

Since there is only one shear stress different from zero,

R6 = F6 / s6 = 75 MPa / 100 MPa = 0.75

and R4 and R5 are not used. Finally, the minimum strength ratio for the layer

is R = R6 = 0.75 and the mode of failure is inplane shear. The layer will fail

when the applied load is only 0.75 of the reference value, but the laminate is

overdesigned for the applied load because it could carry 9.13 times the

applied longitudinal load.

12

Most popular failure criterion in industry

In terms of strength ratio, the maximum strain criterion reads

R1 = e1t / e1 if e1 > 0

R1 = - e1c / e1 if e1 < 0

R2 = e2t / e2 if e2 > 0

R2 = - e2c / e2 if e2 < 0

R4 = g4u / abs (e4)

R5 = g5u / abs (e5)

R6 = g6u / abs (e6)

where e1t, e1c , e2t , e2c , g4u , g5u , g6u are strains to failure

13

are directly related to the ultimate strength values by:

e1t = F1t / E1

e1c = F1c / E1

e2t = F2t / E2

e2c = F2c / E2

g4u = F4 / G23

g5u = F5 / G13

g6u = F6 / G12

In both criteria, the maximum stress and strain give close but

not identical predictions of failure (Fig 8 represents the failure

envelope in the space e1 , e2; g4 = g5 = g6 = 0 Maximum strain

criterion is a rectangle defined by the elongations to failure e1t,

e2t, e1c, e2c)

14

stress criteria in strain space e2 - e6 for carbon-epoxy

15

strain criteria, the maximum stress and strain is represented in

Fig 8, assuming that the material is linear up to failure

A material with a stress given by point P is predicted to fail by

the maximum strain criterion but considered not to fail by the

maximum stress criterion

One of the reason for the use of the maximum strain criterion

is the non-linear behaviour of the composite

( Most polymer matrices exhibit either elastic non-linear or

plastic behaviour after a certain elongation)

16

Tsai-Hill Criterion

The maximum stress and strain criteria separate the failure

modes into fibre modes, represented by the fibre-direction

strengths, and matrix modes, represented by the transverse

strengths ----- they look at failure based on one stress (or

strain) at a time, ignoring the interaction between two stress

components

Tsai-Hill criterion is not conservative when 2 stress (or strain)

components are close to their ultimate values and both

stresses hasten the same type of failure (e.g. matrix failure)

example, in Fig 9, the presence of transverse stress deteriorates

the shear strength and vice versa

17

experimental data in the first quadrant

18

address the interaction. However, including interaction

between 2 unrelated modes of failure (e.g. fibre failure and

matrix cracking) may be counterproductive and lead to poor

results --- development of separated failure criteria for the

matrix and fibres (discuss later)

Failure criteria are nothing more than curve fits for

experimental data. Along this lines, the following equation (eq.

1) is proposed to fit the experimental data:

stress (sf1, sf2, sf6, sf4, sf5) is a state of stress that produces

failure (on the failure envelope)

19

those five stress components generate a closed surface (the

failure envelope) that separate the no-fail region from the

failure region

When only 2 stress components are different from zero, the

failure envelope generate by equation above is an ellipse as

shown in Fig 9. Good comparison between the predicted and

experimental data of failure stresses--both stresses s2 and s6

cause the same type of failure (matrix dominated failure)

(clearly) in the second term of equation above, even though s1

and s2 correspond to remarkably different modes of failure

led to poor fit

20

failure envelope the material does not fail, outside means

failure and some changes are needed, but the magnitude of

the necessary changes is not known

In order to have a useful criteria, eq. 1 is rewritten using the

strength ratio, R:

reference load (eq. 2)

21

specified to be tensile or compressive strengths because this

criterion cannot incorporate different behaviour in tension and

compression

The strength values that are used in the Tsai-Hill criterion have

to be chosen to be either the tensile or the compressive

strength values

If the state of stress is tensile only (as in the case of a thin

pressure vessel under internal pressure), the tensile values (F1 =

F1t, F2 = F2t) can be used and similarly compressive only, the

compressive strength can be used

22

along each direction would have to be used for safety, which

may lead to a very conservative design

0.65 is used in Fig 10 to compare various failure criteria. The

state of stress is such that s2 and s6 are applied simultaneously

while s1 = s4 = s5 = 0. Tsai-Hill correlates well with the data as

long as s2 > 0, using experimental strength data F2 = F2t = 40

MPa and F6 = 60 MPa in eq.1. Using compressive strength, F2c =

148 MPa produces poor correlation in the second quadrant (s2)

and leads to non-conservative predictions in the first quadrant

(s6). It is clear that this criterion is not adequate for materials

having different tensile and compressive strengths

23

experimental data

24

Disadvantages:

(i) the mode of failure is no longer identified as it was in the

case of maximum stress or strain criteria.

(ii) does not take into account different behaviour in tension

and compression (shown in experimental data previously)

25

For this example, the maximum stress criterion predicts the minimum value of

R is R2 = F2t / s2 = 19/25 = 0.76 corresponding to failure in the transverse

direction (tensile), while R1 = 1826/50 = 36.52. Such large R1 indicates that a

hoop fibre orientation is not ideal for a pressure vessel.

26

Tsai-Wu Criterion

This criterion uses a complete quadratic expression to draw a

failure envelope that attempts to fit the experimental data

The criterion is written as (eq.3):

27

With

(eq.4)

28

In eq.3, sf1, sf2, sf6, sf4, sf5 are the components of stress at any

point of the failure envelope (Fig 10). That is, any such state of

stress corresponds to failure of the material

As it can be seen from the definition of coefficients (eq.4), TsaiWu criterion accounts for different behaviour in tension and

compression

with an independent coefficient f12 that must be measured

independently of the remaining strength properties.

29

interaction coefficient, experimental data are not easily

available. An approximation of the interaction coefficient can

be obtained by requiring the interaction term in eq.3 to be

numerically equal to the interaction term in Tsai-Hill equation

(eq.1), or

leading to

(eq.5)

30

set to -1/2, and the behaviour of the material is identical in

tension and compression (or all the stresses have the same

sign), then the Tsai-Wu criterion yields identical results as the

Tsai-Hill criterion

The Tsai-Wu criterion is superior to the Tsai-Hill criterion

because the differences in tension and compression behaviour

of the material are accounted for automatically. Furthermore,

there is still possibility of measuring the interaction coefficient,

thus improving the fit to the experimental data.

31

by (eq.6):

defined, the Tsai-Wu criterion is rewritten in a way that is

convenient for design

Since linear elastic behaviour up to failure is assumed, the

components stress at failure sif can be replaced by the product

of the strength ratio times the nominal stress R si , obtained by

performing an analysis with a reference load, the Tsai-Wu

failure criterion become (eq.7):

32

Solving the roots and taking the positive value, the strength

ratio is (eq.9)

experimental data (Fig 10). A single value of strength ratio is

obtained with a simple quadratic equation, and it accounts for

different behaviour in tension and compression. The maximum

stress or strain criterion could be computed simultaneously to

provide information about the most likely mode of failure,

which will guide the designer in the optimisation of the

laminate

33

eq.9

34

of burst pressure with respect to example 7.2 can be explained

as follows. The failure in example 7.2 was dominated by the

tensile strength F2t = 19 MPa, as it was indicated by the

maximum stress criterion. By changing the state of stress to a

compressive stress s2, a much higher compression strength F2c

= 131 MPa allows a higher burst pressure of vessel

35

1. Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu criteria do not explicitly differentiate

matrix failure from fibre failure quadratic criteria fit well

experimental data under biaxial loading as long as 2 interacting

stresses affect the same failure mechanism (example in Fig 9,

both stresses produce matrix failure)

When the 2 interacting failure mechanisms are different, such

as longitudinal failure F1t and transverse failure F2t, the

quadratic criteria forces an artificially smooth transition from

one failure into the other (example 7.1, F1t of carbon-epoxy is

so high compared with F2t that failure is unlikely affected by

insignificant transverse stresses)

36

of stress depends on strength data of completely unrelated

failure modes, since the quadratic criteria describe failure by

one equation that contains all the strength values (example,

tensile properties, F1t and F2t influence the failure predictions

for all s1 and s2, even in the compression-compression

quadrant (s1 < 0, s2 < 0) where real failure is unlikely to be

related to tensile properties)

37

smooth surface, represented as an eclipse (Fig 9) implies that

there are no abrupt changes in failure mechanism when the

various components of stress or strain change sign each

failure mechanism is assumed to have a gradually increasing

influence on the neighboring failure modes, proportional to the

values of the stress components and inversely proportional to

the strength values (eq.2) unlikely cause there are drastic

differences among the various failure modes

38

expressions can be divided into 2 separate criteria. Using

notation of eq.4 and eliminating the interaction term, f12,

decomposes in 2 equations:

Fibre failure

(f11s12)R2 + (f1s1)R 1 = 0

Matrix failure

(f22s22 + f66s62 + f44s42 + f55s52 )R2 + (f2s2)R 1 = 0

Both of which can be solved for the strength ratio R. This

gives the designer the choice to evaluate the two major

modes of failure separately

39

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.