PSI - Issue 18
Alexey N. Fedorenko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 18 (2019) 432–442 A.N. Fedorenko, B.N. Fedulov, E. V. Lomakin / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
434
3
shown in Eq. (2):
11 C E E E E E E G G G G G G 1 11 22 2 22 33 2 33 12 2 12 13 2 13 23 2 23 1 2 12 13 1 2 13 23 1 2 23 , , , , , , , , C C C C C C C C 12
(2)
where index C denotes a current value of elastic constants, corresponding to current level of damage of the material. Eventually, constitutive relations for damaged material can be written as:
1
0
0
0
2 31
2 21
E
E
E
1 11
22
33
1
0
0
0
2 32
2 12
11 22 33 12 13 23
11 22 33 12 13 23
E
E
E
11
2 22
33
1
2 13 2 23
0
0
0
E
E
E
11
22
2 33
(3)
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 12 G
1
0
0
0
0
0 1
2 13 G
0
0
0
0
0
2 23 G
A simple failure criterion based on commonly available values from standard unidirectional tests represents a condition for failure envelope:
, X Y
,
X
Y
S
11
22
12
C
T C
T
where X c – compression failure stress in fiber direction X t – tension failure stress in fiber direction Y c – compression failure stress in transversal direction Y t – tension failure stress in transversal direction S – in-plane shear failure stress
(4)
Next step is to determine the damage evolution low for parameters 1 and 2 . Let us assume that only parameter 2 is varied to keep a stress vector within the failure envelope. The stress vector response to material loading is shown schematically in Fig. 1. Once after stress el ij reaches outer side of failure envelope, corresponding elastic constants are multiplied by damage parameter 2 in such a way to return stress vector back on envelope in consistency with Eq.(3), as shown in Fig.1. If it is not possible and value of 11 exceeds corresponding critical values X c or X t , the material is considered failed and 1 is assumed equal to zero 1 ( 0) .
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker