Crack Paths 2009

1i * il‘

__

+E1lE2=2

E 12

—u—E1lE2=4

‘;

E1IE2=10

—x—E1/E2=15

—x-E1IE2= — _

10

x

"if 7

8 _

6 .

.

.

.

i

.

.

0

2

4

a

a

10

12

x [mm]

Figure 4. Development of the crack paths For different stillness ratios

A detailed analysis of" the kinking angle in the first simulation step (Figure 5) shows

a monotonic increase with an increase of the stiffness mismatch at the interface. Even

For relatively small ElfEg-ratios of 2 a pronounced Mixed-Modeloading situation and

thus a kinking ol‘ (p:2{)° can be detected. However. obviously the slope ol‘ the curve

tends to Zero. so that beyond stiffness ratios of E|/E;=ll) no significant growth of‘ the

kinking angle can be Found any more.

a m

<%

MU

K[amnklgn°tgeq];

0U1

N O

l5

l0

5

0

i i

-

I

I f r

r

i

i

-

O

2

4

6

8

1D

12

14

16

13

20

Figure 5. Kinking angles ofthe crack tbr different stiffness ratios

731