0
RESEARCH PAPERS: Special Issue on Time-Dependent Behaviors of Polymer Matrix Composites and Polymers

Analysis of Interfacial Debonding in Three-Dimensional Composite Microstructures

[+] Author and Article Information
Shriram Swaminathan

Department of Mechanical Engineering The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210

N. J. Pagano

 AFRL/MLBC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7750

Somnath Ghosh1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210ghosh.5@osu.edu

1

Corresponding author. Suite 255, 650 Ackerman Road, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43202. Tel: +1-614-292-2599; Fax: +1-614-292-3163.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 128(1), 96-106 (Mar 18, 2005) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1925293 History: Received January 17, 2005; Revised March 18, 2005

This paper is aimed at analyzing stresses and fiber-matrix interfacial debonding in three-dimensional composite microstructures. It incorporates a 3D cohesive zone interface model based element to simulate interfacial debonding in the commercial code ABAQUS. The validated element is used to examine the potential debonding response in the presence of fiber–fiber interactions. A two-fiber model with unidirectional fibers is constructed and the effect of relative fiber spacing and volume fraction on the stress distribution in the matrix is studied. In addition, the effect of fiber orientation and spacing on the nature of initiation and propagation of interfacial debonding is studied in a two-fiber model. These results are expected to be helpful in formulating future studies treating optimal fiber orientations and payoff in controlling fiber spacing and alignment.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a ) 3D model of a two-fiber model with parallel fibers (b ) cohesive interface finite element surfaces with the local coordinate system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Effect of fiber orientation on (a ) macroscopic stress–strain (ε¯xx−σ¯xx) plots for applied ε¯xx=3.0e−03; (b ) macroscopic strain, ε¯xx for debonding initiation; (c ) fraction of damaged interface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Effect of the center to center distance between fibers on (a ) macroscopic stress–strain (ε¯xx−σ¯xx) plots for applied ε¯xx=3.0e−03; (b ) macroscopic strain, ε¯xx for debonding initiation; (c ) fraction of damaged interface, for a specified orientation angle of 48deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

A two layer composite laminate with layers aligned perpendicular with one another

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a ) Traction displacement relation (Tn−δn) of the bilinear cohesive zone model for normal direction with δt1=δt2=0, (b ) traction displacement relation (Tt−δt) for tangential direction with δn=0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of 3D Abaqus model and 2D VCFEM model for (a ) σxx distribution along the length of the two-fiber model; (b ) macroscopic stress–strain (ε¯xx−σ¯xx) plots for applied uniaxial displacement corresponding to ε¯xx=3.2e−03

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Effect of fiber separation on the distribution of (a ) hydrostatic stress; (b ) Von Mises stress; and (c ) maximum principal stress for an applied uniaxial displacement corresponding to ε¯xx=1 and for a fiber radii, r=1.75μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

(a ) Three-dimensional two-fiber RVE with fibers placed alongside each other and oriented with respect to one another; (b ) top view of the RVE defining the fiber orientation and the orientation angle θ°

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Two-fiber RVE with one fiber placed above the other fiber and oriented with respect to each other: (a ) top view defining the fiber orientation and the angle θ°; (b ) gray-shaded region of interfacial debonding at the end of loading

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Effect of fiber orientation on (a ) macroscopic stress–strain (ε¯xx−σ¯xx) plots for applied ε¯xx=3.0e−03; (b ) macroscopic strain, ε¯xx for debonding initiation; (c ) fraction of damaged interface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Effect of fiber separation on the distribution of (a ) hydrostatic stress; (b ) Von Mises stress; and (c ) maximum principal stress for an applied biaxial displacement corresponding to ε¯xx=1 and ε¯yy=1 and for a fiber radii, r=1.75μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Effect of fiber separation on the distribution of (a ) hydrostatic stress; (b ) Von Mises stress for an applied uniaxial displacement corresponding to ε¯xx=1 for a fiber radii, r=3μm

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In