Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics
Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Future Work 6.1 Face/Core Debond Propagation in Sandwich Structures under Static Loading In the first chapters of this thesis a methodology for the estimation of face/core debond propagation load in sandwich structures under static loading was developed and validated against experiments. The developed finite element scheme involves three overall steps: 1) Generating a global model of cracked structures, and estimating the global response of the structures with a coarse mesh around the crack tip. 2) Generating a sub model of the crack tip (front) with a very fine mesh, interpolating the boundary conditions in the cutting boundaries of the submodel and solving the detailed finite element model of the debond front for the interpolated boundary conditions. 3) Extracting the energy release rate and mode-mixity at the crack tip from the submodel using the Crack Surface Displacement Extrapolation (CSDE) method (Berggreen et al, 2005). By application of the developed scheme, debond initiation loads were predicted in debonded sandwich columns and panels. Initially, the compressive failure of foam cored sandwich columns containing a face/core debond was investigated using the developed scheme. Compression tests were performed on sandwich columns to validate the finite element model. Sandwich columns with glass/epoxy face sheets and H45, H100 and H200 PVC foam cores with different debond lengths were tested under static compressive loading. It was observed that most of the debonded columns failed by unstable debond propagation at the face/core interface towards the column ends. However, face sheet compression failure was observed in all columns with H200 core and smallest debond length, 128
due to the proximity of the debond propagation load and the compression failure load of the face sheets. Bifurcation type buckling of the debonded face sheet was not observed and the debond opening occurred gradually, which can be attributed to large initial imperfections. Slight kinking of the debond into the core was observed in the columns with a low-density H45 and H100 core. Modified Tilted Sandwich Debond (TSD) specimens were tested under different tilt angles to measure the fracture toughness of the interface at the calculated mode-mixity phase angles for the column specimens associated with the debond propagation. The measured interface fracture toughness was used to determine crack propagation loads from the finite element model of the columns. Instability and crack propagation loads of the columns were predicted on the basis of a geometrically non-linear finite element analysis and linear elastic fracture mechanics. Fair agreement was achieved for the comparison of the measured outof-plane deflection, instability, and debond propagation loads from the experiments and the finite element analysis. For most of the investigated column specimens, it was shown that the instability and debond propagation loads are very reasonable estimates of the ultimate failure load, unless the other failure mechanisms occur prior to buckling instability. To examine the accuracy of the developed scheme in case of sandwich panels, debond propagation in sandwich panels with a circular debond at the centre was modelled. To validate the finite element model of the debonded panels, intact and debonded sandwich panels with glass/polyester face sheets and H130, H250 and PMI foam cores were tested under static inplane compressive loading. The following damage mechanisms were observed during the experiments: 1) All debonded panels failed by the propagation of the debond to the edges of the panels. 2) All intact panels with H130 and H250 core failed by the compressive failure of a face sheet very close to the wooden inserts, which can be attributed to additional peeling stresses arising due to the junction between the wooden insert and the core and to a slight unintentional mismatch between the core and the thicknesses of the insert. 3) Intact panels with PMI core failed by a combination of shear crimping and global buckling. This time instead of using the TSD specimen, characterisation tests were performed on Mixed Mode Bending (MMB) specimens to measure the fracture toughness of the face/core interface for a span of mode-mixity phase angles. As expected it was shown that the fracture toughness is increasing with increasing magnitude of the mode-mixity phase angle. The obtained fracture toughness data was used to determine the crack propagation load in the debonded sandwich panels. Instability and crack propagation loads of the panels were estimated on the basis of geometrically non-linear finite element analysis and linear elastic fracture mechanics. It was shown that the FEA predictions in few cases are much higher than the experimental ones (a maximum deviation of 46%), which can be attributed to the large scatter in the measured fracture 129
- Page 100 and 101: B 2 1/ 2 ( S44 S55 S45) (4.17) wh
- Page 102 and 103: 75), which illustrates possible ina
- Page 104 and 105: Figure 4.18 (a) presents the deflec
- Page 106 and 107: Debond radius (mm) 100 90 80 70 60
- Page 108 and 109: using the cycle jump method, more t
- Page 110 and 111: Chapter 5 Face/Core Interface Fatig
- Page 112 and 113: of this chapter, sandwich panels wi
- Page 114 and 115: H250 Specimen H100 Specimen H45 Spe
- Page 116 and 117: Figure 5.5: Test setup. Initially,
- Page 118 and 119: H100 Specimen Fibre bridging Figure
- Page 120 and 121: propagation, the crack continues to
- Page 122 and 123: Figure 5.14: Kinking of the crack i
- Page 124 and 125: Crack length [mm] Crack length [mm]
- Page 126 and 127: mode-mixity phase angle was chosen
- Page 128 and 129: should be taken into account for a
- Page 130 and 131: Figure 5.25: Kinking of the crack i
- Page 132 and 133: log (da/dN) (mm/cycle) 10 log G (J/
- Page 134 and 135: erroneous extrapolations in the tra
- Page 136 and 137: compared to the 65% efficiency obta
- Page 138 and 139: the case of uneven debond growth, t
- Page 140 and 141: Load (kN) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Panel 1 Pan
- Page 142 and 143: Figure 5.42: Zero and ninety degree
- Page 144 and 145: G(J/m 2 ) 180 150 210 120 150 100 5
- Page 146 and 147: 110 q=qG=0.4 Test #1 100 Test #2 Te
- Page 148 and 149: panels were determined for differen
- Page 152 and 153: toughness using MMB fracture toughn
- Page 154 and 155: For the specimens with H250 core th
- Page 156 and 157: Development of testing methods for
- Page 158 and 159: This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 160 and 161: Bezazi A., Mahi A. E., Berthelot J.
- Page 162 and 163: Kanny K. and Mahfuz H. (2005), Flex
- Page 164 and 165: Ratcliffe J. and Cantwell W. J. (20
- Page 166 and 167: This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 168 and 169: Out-of-plane displacement (mm) 1 0.
- Page 170 and 171: Out-of-plane displacement (mm) 3 2
- Page 172 and 173: A.5 Out-of-plane deflection of Debo
- Page 174 and 175: (a) Figure A.14: Out-of-plane defle
- Page 176 and 177: (a) (b) Figure A.18: Out-of-plane d
- Page 178 and 179: Load (kN) 250 200 150 100 50 250 30
- Page 180 and 181: Displacement (mm) 4 3 2 1 0 8 9 (a)
- Page 182 and 183: (a) (b) Figure B.11: Out-of-plane d
- Page 184 and 185: (a) (b) Figure B.15: Out-of-plane d
- Page 188: DTU Mechanical Engineering Section
due to the proximity <strong>of</strong> the debond propagation load <strong>and</strong> the compression failure load <strong>of</strong> the face<br />
sheets. Bifurcation type buckling <strong>of</strong> the debonded face sheet was not observed <strong>and</strong> the debond<br />
opening occurred gradually, which can be attributed to large initial imperfections. Slight kinking<br />
<strong>of</strong> the debond into the core was observed in the columns with a low-density H45 <strong>and</strong> H100 core.<br />
Modified Tilted S<strong>and</strong>wich Debond (TSD) specimens were tested under different tilt angles to<br />
measure the fracture toughness <strong>of</strong> the interface at the calculated mode-mixity phase angles for<br />
the column specimens associated with the debond propagation.<br />
The measured interface fracture toughness was used to determine crack propagation loads from<br />
the finite element model <strong>of</strong> the columns. Instability <strong>and</strong> crack propagation loads <strong>of</strong> the columns<br />
were predicted on the basis <strong>of</strong> a geometrically non-linear finite element analysis <strong>and</strong> linear<br />
elastic fracture mechanics. Fair agreement was achieved for the comparison <strong>of</strong> the measured out<strong>of</strong>-plane<br />
deflection, instability, <strong>and</strong> debond propagation loads from the experiments <strong>and</strong> the finite<br />
element analysis. For most <strong>of</strong> the investigated column specimens, it was shown that the<br />
instability <strong>and</strong> debond propagation loads are very reasonable estimates <strong>of</strong> the ultimate failure<br />
load, unless the other failure mechanisms occur prior to buckling instability.<br />
To examine the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the developed scheme in case <strong>of</strong> s<strong>and</strong>wich panels, debond<br />
propagation in s<strong>and</strong>wich panels with a circular debond at the centre was modelled. To validate<br />
the finite element model <strong>of</strong> the debonded panels, intact <strong>and</strong> debonded s<strong>and</strong>wich panels with<br />
glass/polyester face sheets <strong>and</strong> H130, H250 <strong>and</strong> PMI foam cores were tested under static inplane<br />
compressive loading. The following damage mechanisms were observed during the<br />
experiments:<br />
1) All debonded panels failed by the propagation <strong>of</strong> the debond to the edges <strong>of</strong> the panels.<br />
2) All intact panels with H130 <strong>and</strong> H250 core failed by the compressive failure <strong>of</strong> a face<br />
sheet very close to the wooden inserts, which can be attributed to additional peeling<br />
stresses arising due to the junction between the wooden insert <strong>and</strong> the core <strong>and</strong> to a slight<br />
unintentional mismatch between the core <strong>and</strong> the thicknesses <strong>of</strong> the insert.<br />
3) Intact panels with PMI core failed by a combination <strong>of</strong> shear crimping <strong>and</strong> global<br />
buckling.<br />
This time instead <strong>of</strong> using the TSD specimen, characterisation tests were performed on Mixed<br />
Mode Bending (MMB) specimens to measure the fracture toughness <strong>of</strong> the face/core interface<br />
for a span <strong>of</strong> mode-mixity phase angles. As expected it was shown that the fracture toughness is<br />
increasing with increasing magnitude <strong>of</strong> the mode-mixity phase angle. The obtained fracture<br />
toughness data was used to determine the crack propagation load in the debonded s<strong>and</strong>wich<br />
panels. Instability <strong>and</strong> crack propagation loads <strong>of</strong> the panels were estimated on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
geometrically non-linear finite element analysis <strong>and</strong> linear elastic fracture mechanics. It was<br />
shown that the FEA predictions in few cases are much higher than the experimental ones (a<br />
maximum deviation <strong>of</strong> 46%), which can be attributed to the large scatter in the measured fracture<br />
129