An Elastic-Interface Model for Delamination Buckling in Laminated Plates

2001 ◽  
Vol 221-222 ◽  
pp. 293-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Bennati ◽  
Paolo S. Valvo
Metals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad Dadej ◽  
Jarosław Bieniaś ◽  
Paolo Sebastiano Valvo

An experimental campaign on glass-fiber/aluminum laminated specimens was conducted to assess the interlaminar fracture toughness of the metal/composite interface. Asymmetric end-notched flexure tests were conducted on specimens with different fiber orientation angles. The tests were also modeled by using two different analytical solutions: a rigid interface model and an elastic interface model. Experimental results and theoretical predictions for the specimen compliance and energy release rate are compared and discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 2478-2496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Javili

The objective of this contribution is to elaborate on the notion of “traction continuity” across an interface at finite deformations. The term interface corresponds to a zero-thickness model representing the interphase between different constituents in a material. Commonly accepted interface models are the cohesive interface model and the elastic interface model. Both the cohesive and elastic interface models are the limit cases of a generalized interface model. This contribution aims to rigorously analyze the concept of the traction jump for the general interface model. The governing equations of the general interface model in the material as well as spatial configurations are derived and the traction jump across the interface for each configuration is highlighted. It is clearly shown that the elastic interface model undergoes a traction jump in both the material and spatial configurations according to a generalized Young–Laplace equation. For the cohesive interface model, however, while the traction field remains continuous in the material configuration, it can suffer a jump in the spatial configuration. This finding is particularly important since the cohesive interface model is based on the assumption of traction continuity across the interface and that the term “traction” often refers to the spatial configuration and not the material one. Thus, additional care should be taken when formulating an interface model in a geometrically non-linear framework. The theoretical findings for various interface models are carefully illustrated via a series of two-dimensional and three-dimensional numerical examples using the finite element method.


2018 ◽  
Vol 774 ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Muñoz-Reja ◽  
L. Távara ◽  
Vladislav Mantič

A procedure based on the Linear Elastic Brittle Interface Model (LEBIM) combined with the Coupled Criterion of Finite Fracture Mechanics (CCFFM) is successfully implemented in a 2D Boundary Element Method (BEM) code. In the original LEBIM formulation, the values of the interface strength, fracture toughness and stiffness are dependent on each other. Therefore, for a large interface stiffness, when the elastic interface tends to a perfect (infinitely stiff) interface, LEBIM is not able to properly characterize the crack propagation. The use of the CCFFM applied to LEBIM, with both the stress and energy criteria imposed as independent fracture conditions, allows to uncouple the interface fracture toughness and strength, obtaining realistic predictions for crack propagation even for stiff interfaces. This code is successfully applied to the problem of debond onset and growth in the pull push test. A benchmark problem is solved, focusing on the convergence of the load-displacement curve and crack-tip solution for h-refinements of BE meshes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 72-79
Author(s):  
Stefano Bennati ◽  
Paolo Fisicaro ◽  
Paolo S. Valvo

1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 1069-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herzl Chai ◽  
Charles D. Babcock ◽  
Wolfgang G. Knauss

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1711
Author(s):  
Stefano Bennati ◽  
Paolo Fisicaro ◽  
Luca Taglialegne ◽  
Paolo S. Valvo

We, the authors, wish to make the following corrections to our paper [...]


Author(s):  
Andrii Kondratiev ◽  
Viktor Kovalenko ◽  
Anton Tsaritsynskyi ◽  
Tetyana Nabokina

1991 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1321-1337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Xie Mukherjee ◽  
Zhicheng Xie ◽  
Anthony R. Ingraffea

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1303-1322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Javili

The objective of this contribution is to formulate generalized interfaces in a variationally consistent manner within a finite deformation continuum mechanics setting. The general interface model is a zero-thickness model that represents the finite thickness “interphase” between different constituents in a heterogeneous material. The interphase may be the transition zone between inclusion and matrix in composites or the grain boundaries in polycrystalline solids. The term “general” indicates that the interface model here accounts for both jumps of the deformation as well as the traction across the interface. Both the cohesive zone model and elastic interface model can be understood as two limits of the current interface model. Furthermore, some aspects of material modeling of generalized interfaces are elaborated and a consistent model is proposed. Finally, the proposed theory is elucidated via a series of numerical examples.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document