Syllabus

1
Syllabus

• 1. INTRODUCTION GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND BASIC
  CONCEPTS
• Composites in the real world Classification of
  composites scale effects the role of
  interfacial area and adhesion three simple
  models for a-priori materials selection the role
  of defects Stress and strain thermodynamics of
  deformation and Hookes law anisotropy and
  elastic constants composites mechanics and
  symmetry Lectures 1-3
• 2. MATERIALS FOR COMPOSITES FIBERS, MATRICES
• Types and physical properties of fibers
  flexibility and compressive behavior variability
  of strength Limits of fiber performance types
  and physical properties of matrices combining
  the phases residual thermal stresses Lectures
  4-7
• 3. DESIGN EXAMPLE
• A composite flywheel Lecture 8
• 4. INTERFACES IN COMPOSITES
• Basic issues, wetting and contact angles,
  interfacial adhesion, the fragmentation
• phenomenon, microRaman spectroscopy,
  transcrystalline interfaces, stress transfer
• and Cox model. Lectures 9-10
• 5. FRACTURE PHYSICS OF COMPOSITES
• Griffith theory of fracture, current models for
  idealized composites, stress concentration,
  simple mechanics of materials, composite
  toughness Lectures 11-12
• 6. THE FUTURE
• Composites based on nanoreinforcement,
  composites based on biology, ribbon- and
  platelet-reinforced materials, biomimetic
  concepts Lectures 13-14

2

• Material Strength Griffiths early approach
• Homogeneous and isotropic solid
• Goal to calculate the strength of the solid and
  compare with experimental results.
• The application of a stress causes an increase in
  the energy of the system.
• Around the equilibrium point (the minimum of the
  potential energy), the stress varies linearly
  with distance ( Hookes behavior).
• However, for larger distances, the stress reaches
  a maximum at the point of inflection of the
  energy-separation curve.

3
smax
a0
l/2
4
Orowan (1949 Polanyi (1921)

• Theoretical strength is seen to increase if
  interatomic spacing decreases, and if Youngs
  modulus and fracture energy increase. Thus, when
  looking for strong solids, atoms with small ionic
  cores are preferred Beryllium, Boron, Carbon,
  Nitrogen, Oxygen, Aluminum, Silicon etc - the
  strongest materials always contain one of these
  elements.
• Using the O-P expression above, it is found that
  the theoretical strength can be approximated by
  (for most solids)

In practice, the tensile strength is much less
than E/10 because of the omnipresence of defects.
5
Example a hole in a plate (Inglis, 1913)
(b)
Note Purely geometric effect!
6
(No Transcript)
7
Griffiths theory

• Brittle solids contain defects
• Griffiths original query
• What is the strength of a brittle solid if a
  realistic, sharp crack of length a is present?
• Alternatively At which applied stress will a
  crack of length a start to propagate?
• Remember the prediction

This gave too high a prediction because no defects
8
Griffiths Assumptions Sharp crack in infinite,
thin plate (thickness t) Self-similar crack
propagation
Solution A balance must be struck between the
decrease in potential energy and the increase in
surface energy resulting from the presence of a
crack. (The surface energy arises from the fact
that there is a non-equilibrium configuration of
nearest neighbor atoms at any surface in a
solid).
9
Basic idea around the crack 2a, a volume
approximately equal to a circular cylinder
carries no stress and thus there is a reduction
in strain energy
s

2a
s
In fact, Griffith showed that the actual strain
energy reduction is
10
There exists an energy balance between (1) strain
energy decrease as the crack extends (negative),
and (2) surface energy increase necessary for the
formation of the new crack surfaces
The total energy balance is thus
The following plot shows the roles of the
conflicting energetic contributions
11
Plot of total energy UT against crack length
Below the critical crack length, the crack is
stable and does not spontaneously grow. Beyond
the critical crack length (at equilibrium), the
crack propagates spontaneously without limit.
12
The condition for spontaneous propagation is
(Griffith, 1921)
This is a (thermodynamics-based) necessary
condition for fracture in solids. Note the math
is similar to nucleation in phase transition Note
that if the Orowan-Polanyi expression
is combined with Inglis expression for an
ellipse
13
We obtain
Griffith
Correction factor
The correction factor amounts to about 0.6 if r
a0, and to about 0.8 if r 2a0. This gives
confidence in the result.
In 1930, Obreimoff carried out an experiment on
the cleavage of mica, using a different
experimental configuration. Contrasting with the
Griffith experiment, the equilibrium
configuration used by Obreimoff proves to be
stable
14
(No Transcript)
15
Griffiths model clearly demonstrates that large
cracks or defects lower the strength of a material

• But then, what is the physical meaning of the
  strength
• of a material?? Is this parameter meaningful at
  all?
• The strength is not a material constant !
• Deeper insight is necessary to quantify fracture
  in a more universal way
• This leads to the field of Linear Elastic
  Fracture Mechanics (or LEFM), developed in the
  1950s by Irwin and others

16
FIRST WAY OF REWRITING GRIFFITHS EQUATION
Two variables s and a
Only material properties This is a constant
Fracture criterion Fracture occurs when the
left-hand side product reaches the critical value
given in the right-hand side expression, which is
a new material constant with non-intuitive units
(MPa m1/2)
17
The Stress intensity factor (a variable)
The fracture toughness (a constant)
Fracture occurs when K becomes equal to Kc
18
SECOND WAY OF REWRITING GRIFFITHS EQUATION
Two variables s and a
Only material property This is a constant
Fracture criterion Fracture occurs when the
left-hand side product reaches the critical value
given in the right-hand side expression, which is
a new material constant with energy units
19
The energy release rate Or Crack driving force (a
variable)
The materials resistance to crack extension (a
constant)
Fracture occurs when G becomes equal to Gc
20
Fracture of Composites

• Is LEFM applicable to composites?
• Assumption macroscopically homogeneous
  materials with anisotropic features
• The basic LEFM approach is difficult to apply
  because crack propagation is often not
  self-similar (because of anisotropy and the
  presence of weak interfaces), and crack length is
  not well defined composites are often
  notch-insensitive materials.

21

• Alternative approach micromechanical models
• When a crack propagates into a composite, various
  mechanisms of energy dissipation become active.
  These are quantified by micromechanical methods,
  and compared to experiments

22
Major mechanisms

• FIBER PULL-OUT MODEL Cottrell Kelly
• Compute the work done against fiber-matrix
  friction in extracting broken fibers from the
  matrix

(length of pulled-out fibers abt 40 mm)
23
Work done on fiber
For N fibers, the average work ltWgt is
But since z varies between 0 and lc/2
(for the maximum possible value of z)
24
If A is the specimen cross-section, then the
fiber volume fraction is
Finally, using the Kelly-Tyson relationship we
get
25
Therefore, the p-o energy can be increased by
increasing the fiber p-o length or by decreasing
the interfacial strength.

• FIBER DEBONDING MODEL Outwater Murphy
• Work done by the creation of a debond length
  L

• FIBER FAILURE AND RELAXATION MODEL Phillips
  Beaumont

• SURFACE FORMATION MODEL Marston

26
Therefore, the total (maximum) energy absorbed
during composite fracture is
When one of the micromechanisms is not active, it
is simply omitted. EXAMPLE Glass/epoxy
composite sf 1.2 GPa Ef 70 GPa lc 2.3
mm gmatrix 300 J/m2
The following plot is produced
27
Pull-out
Surfaces
Relaxation
Debonding
28
Conclusions

• All energy dissipation mechanisms are
  proportional to the volume fraction and inversely
  proportional to interface strength. Thus, the
  higher the amount of fibers, the better And the
  weaker the interface strength, the better.
• All mechanisms work more or less simultaneously
  (but not necessarily with the same amplitude),
  and are not independent from each other
• The sequence of events is important
• Effects of statistical distribution of defects on
  fiber, and strength of interface
• Simplified failure chart J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 14
  (1979), p.500

29
Matrix failure
Strong interface?
yes
Fiber failure
Brittle Composite
no
Interface failure
Fiber loading
Defects ?
Fiber failure in crack plane
no
yes
Diffuse failure and p-o
30
Third approach stochastic fracture of composites

• The Weibull distribution is a fairly good model
  for the statistical failure of various types of
  single fibers
• We also studied the statistical strength of loose
  bundles.
• QUESTION How do we extend these concepts to the
  modeling of composites?

31
Fracture physics of composite materials

• A detailed understanding of the damage and
  failure physics of composite materials is
  required. This subject has been investigated for
  years, but the detailed mechanics of 3-D failure
  is still unexplained.

How does the fracture of composite
occur? EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE FAILURE PROCESS
32
Example progressive fracture of the
cross-section of a composite
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35

• Modeling of the failure of unidirectional 2-D
  composites
• References
• R.L. Smith, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A372 (1980),
  539.
• A. Kelly, Concise Encyclopedia of Composite
  Materials, pp. 254-261

ASSUMPTIONS

• Single fibers follow a Weibull strength model
• Fibers experience pure tension only, matrix
  transfers stress by shear
• Fibers are linear elastic and brittle
• Fiber-matrix interfaces have infinite strength
  no debonding

36
Short segment of composite, length d and N
fibers
37
Small stress x (per fiber), the probability of at
least one failure in the composite segment is
(approx) N times the probability of a single
failure. Since the latter follows a Weibull
distribution, we have (remember that e-x 1 x
)
And the probability of at least one failure
(singlet) in the composite segment is
38

• Given one failure, the probability that one of
  its 2 nearest
• neighbors fails under enhanced stress K1s is

(K1 is a stress enhancement factor)

• The probability that there is at least one
  pair of adjacent fiber failures (a doublet) is
  therefore

This progressive failure process continues given
two adjacent failures, the probability that at
least one of their two adjacent neighbors fail is
39
Where K2 is the stress enhancement factor due to
the release of the load from two adjacent fiber
breaks. The probability of a triplet of breaks is
therefore equal to the product
And so on.
40
The probability of a k-plet of breaks ( a group
of k adjacent failures) is, for small s
This does not go on forever of course as soon as
k reaches a critical value k -which depends on
the material properties of the system-, the
stress concentrations become so large that
further fiber failures are almost certain ! This
defines the probability of failure of the segment
of composite 2-D layer of length d under a stress
s Fd(s), which is the same as the probability of
occurrence of a critical group of k adjacent
failures given above Note do not confuse k and
the Kis
41
Thus, with some rearrangements
By rewriting this, one has for the 2-D segment of
length d
where b kb, and
()
42
To extend this result Fd(s) for a segment of
length d to the probability of failure FL(s) for
the full composite, one uses the weakest-link
rule
And by combining this last result with
we obtain an approximate result for the
probability of failure of a microcomposite 2-D
layer of length L
where aL is given by eq. () multiplied by
L(-1/b)
43
If this last equation is viewed as the first term
of a MacLaurin series, the probability of failure
of a 2-D composite of length L takes the final
form
This has the Weibull form!
It is immediately seen that the concept of a
single critical defect in a fiber is replaced by
that of a critical group of k defects adjacent
to each other. The Weibull form is thus
obtained for the strength of a 2-D composite with
shape and scale parameters given as functions of
the shape and scale parameters of the single
fiber Weibull distribution, and other material
parameters.
44

• From an experimental viewpoint, they key
  parameters
• to focus on are the Kis, b, a, d and k.
• The stress concentration factors can also be
  obtained from a-priori load-sharing rules

• The equal load-sharing rule (ELS) Kr 1
  (r/2), where r ( 0, 1, 2,) is the number of
  failed elements adjacent to the surviving element
  (counting on both sides). This rule is very
  severe, more severe in fact than the true
  situation which is better described by
  Hedgepeths rule.
• Hedgepeths rule

45

• 2-D failure sequence
• under increasing stress

No
46
Failure of 3D composites

• The failure process of 3-D microcomposites is
  more complex.
• Few theoretical schemes for the failure of 3-D
  composites
• Computer methods (heavy!)
• Analytical methods (Smith, Phoenix)
• Experiments designed to monitor progressive
  fracture in 3-D microcomposites were never
  conducted.

47
Objectives of current experimental research

• Experimental determination of a, b, d and k in
  2-D
• and 3-D composites.
• Assess the validity of the k concept for 2-D and
  
• 3-D composites
• Monitor the failure process in 3-D composites
• by means of x-ray synchrotron tomography.

48
Methods

• a, b and d Single fiber and fragmentation
  tests
• a, b Bundle tests
• k 1. kb/b
• 2. Direct observation (2-D)

Microtomography (3-D image reconstruction) Monitor
ing of the fracture process Assessment of the k
concept in 3-D.
49
Work at ESRF synchrotron in Grenoble (2002-2003)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)