Abstract

We focus on the mode-I quasi-static crack propagation in adhesive joints or composite laminates, where inelastic behaviour is due to damage on a relatively thin interface that can be effectively modelled with a cohesive-zone model (CZM). We studied the difference between the critical energy release rate, Gc, introduced in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), and the work of separation, Ω, i.e. the area under the traction-separation law of the CZM. This difference is given by the derivative, with respect to the crack length, of the energy dissipated ahead of the crack tip per unit of specimen width. For a steady-state crack propagation, in which that energy remains constant as the crack tip advances, this derivative vanishes and Ω=Gc. Thus, the difference between Ω and Gc depends on how far from steady-state the process is, and not on the size of the damage zone, unlike what is stated elsewhere in the literature. Therefore, even for very ductile interfaces, Gc=Ω for a double cantilever beam (DCB) loaded with moments and their difference is extremely small for a DCB loaded with forces. We also show that the proof that the critical value of the J integral, Jc, is equal to the nonlinear energy release rate is not valid for a non-homogeneous material. To compute Gc for a DCB, we use a method based on the introduction of an equivalent crack length, aeq, where the solution is a product of a closed-form part, which does not require the measurement of the actual crack length, and of a corrective factor where the knowledge of the actual crack length is required. However, we also show that this factor is close to unity and therefore has a very small effect on Gc.

Highlights

  • In the last few years, the validity of data-reduction methods derived from linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), for the experimental determination of the fracture resistance during adhesive joint debonding or composite delamination in presence of ‘largescale’ fracture processes, has been seriously questioned (Sarrado et al, 2016; Sørensen and Jacobsen, 2003; Zhao et al, 2016; Campilho et al, 2015; Dimitri et al, 2017)

  • In ASTM D5528 (2013) it is mentioned that a round-robin testing performed by ASTM showed that the values of Gc determined using corrected beam theory (CBT), experimental compliance method (ECM) and modified compliance calibration’ (MCC) differed no more than 3.1%

  • From the results presented one can already conclude that J-integral predictions, which require the difficult measurement of rotations, are not more accurate than the formulae for GEc or GTc, which are based on LEFM and do not require the measurement of the crack length or rotations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the last few years, the validity of data-reduction methods derived from linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), for the experimental determination of the fracture resistance during adhesive joint debonding or composite delamination in presence of ‘largescale’ fracture processes, has been seriously questioned (Sarrado et al, 2016; Sørensen and Jacobsen, 2003; Zhao et al, 2016; Campilho et al, 2015; Dimitri et al, 2017). What is certainly not recognised in any of these alternative approaches is that, during quasi-static crack propagation, Gc is the derivative of the total potential energy with respect to the actual crack length, a, not with respect to aeq This normally results in an error in the determination of Gc which should be taken into account in an investigation on the accuracy of these methods, such as the one presented in this paper.

Linear elastic interface
Extension to the case of nonlinear potential-based constitutive law
Extension to the case of linear elastic behaviour with progressive failure
Determination of Gc and Jc for a DCB specimen
DCB with prescribed displacement
DCB with prescribed rotations
Characterisation of fracture resistance based on the J integral
Virtual experiments considered and details of the FE simulations
Rising R-curve
Comparison of LEFM and formulae for Gc used in standards on real experiments
Conclusions
Summary of results of practical interest for engineers
Summary of results in terms of fundamental concepts
Findings
Future work
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call