4.7 Article

A micromechanics based damage model for composite materials

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 549-569

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2009.09.002

关键词

Ductile fracture; Mean-field homogenization; Voids and inclusions; Aluminum alloys

资金

  1. FNRS, Belgium
  2. Belgian State, Belgian Science Policy [P6/24]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The predictive capacity of ductile fracture models when applied to composite and multi-phase materials is related to the accuracy of the estimated stress/strain level in the second phases or reinforcements, which defines the condition for damage nucleation. Second phase particles contribute to the overall hardening of the composite before void nucleation, as well as to its softening after their fracture or decohesion. If the volume fraction of reinforcement is larger than a couple of percents, this softening can significantly affect the resistance to plastic localization and cannot be neglected. In order to explicitly account for the effect of second phase particles on the ductile fracture process, this study integrates a damage model based on the Gologanu-Leblond-Devaux constitutive behavior with a mean-field homogenization scheme. Even though the model is more general, the present study focuses on elastic particles dispersed in an elasto-plastic matrix. After assessing the mean-field homogenization scheme through comparison with two-dimensional axi-symmetric finite element calculations, an extensive parametric study is performed using the integrated homogenization-damage model. The predictions of the integrated homogenization-damage model are also compared with experimental results on cast aluminum alloys, in terms of both the fracture strain and overall stress-strain curves. The study demonstrates the complex couplings among the load transfer to second phase particles, their resistance to fracture, the void nucleation mode, and the overall ductility. (C) 2009 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