PSI - Issue 2_B

Mar Mun˜oz-Reja et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 2022 – 2029

2027

Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

6

Fig. 3. The critical remote applied load σ ∞ /σ c versus the distance between two fibers for σ ∞ x = σ

∞ and σ ∞

y = 0.

3.3. Loading Case 3: σ ∞

∞ and σ ∞

∞

x = − σ

y = σ

A tension-compression biaxial state is considered herein because according to Ta´vara et al. (2016) it may be the most dangerous biaxial situation. Remote load σ ∞ is applied in both directions, as tensile stress parallel to the y -axis and as compressive stress parallel to the x -axis. (a) (b)

Fig. 4. (a) The crack onset angle θ o and (b) the critical remote applied load σ ∞ /σ c versus the distance between two fibers for σ ∞ x = − σ ∞ and σ ∞ y = σ ∞ . In Figure 4, the influence of d on θ o and σ ∞ is depicted. The tendencies shown are similar to the loading case 1. Nevertheless, θ o values are much higher for the present loading case. Notice that θ o may be di ff erent from 0 o even for the single fibre case. σ ∞ values are considerably lower than for the loading case 1. Results confirm that a transverse compression acting as secondary load makes the crack onset e asier. Finally, θ c values are the same as for the previous loading cases. 3.4. Caso 4, con σ ∞ x = σ ∞ and σ ∞ y = − σ ∞ A tension-compression biaxial state is considered herein. Remote load σ ∞ is applied in both directions, as tensile stress parallel to the x -axis and as compressive stress parallel to the y -axis. The results for the present loading case are shown in Figure 5. The critical load evolution has a similar tendency as in the loading case 2, but with lower values (due to the second ary compression e ff ect). While the crack onset position