Micro-mechanics of failure

Last updated September 09, 2021

The theory of micro-mechanics of failure aims to explain the failure of continuous fiber reinforced composites by micro-scale analysis of stresses within each constituent material (such as fiber and matrix), and of the stresses at the interfaces between those constituents, calculated from the macro stresses at the ply level.^[1]

As a completely mechanics-based failure theory, the theory is expected to provide more accurate analyses than those obtained with phenomenological models such as Tsai-Wu ^[2] and Hashin^[3]^[4] failure criteria, being able to distinguish the critical constituent in the critical ply in a composite laminate.

Basic concepts

The basic concept of the micro-mechanics of failure (MMF) theory is to perform a hierarchy of micromechanical analyses, starting from mechanical behavior of constituents (the fiber, the matrix, and the interface), then going on to the mechanical behavior of a ply, of a laminate, and eventually of an entire structure.

At the constituent level, three elements are required to fully characterize each constituent:

The constitutive relation, which describes the transient, or time-independent, response of the constituent to external mechanical as well as hygrothermal loadings;
The master curve, which describes the time-dependent behavior of the constituent under creep or fatigue loadings;
The failure criterion, which describes conditions that cause failure of the constituent.

The constituents and a unidirectional lamina are linked via a proper micromechanical model, so that ply properties can be derived from constituent properties, and on the other hand, micro stresses at the constituent level can be calculated from macro stresses at the ply level.

Unit cell model

Starting from the constituent level, it is necessary to devise a proper method to organize all three constituents such that the microstructure of a UD lamina is well-described. In reality, all fibers in a UD ply are aligned longitudinally; however, in the cross-sectional view, the distribution of fibers is random, and there is no distinguishable regular pattern in which fibers are arrayed. To avoid such a complication cause by the random arrangement of fibers, an idealization of the fiber arrangement in a UD lamina is performed, and the result is the regular fiber packing pattern. Two regular fiber packing patterns are considered: the square array and the hexagonal array. Either array can be viewed as a repetition of a single element, named unit cell or representative volume element (RVE), which consists of all three constituents. With periodical boundary conditions applied,^[5] a unit cell is able to respond to external loadings in the same way that the whole array does. Therefore, a unit cell model is sufficient in representing the microstructure of a UD ply.

Stress amplification factor (SAF)

Stress distribution at the laminate level due to external loadings applied to the structure can be acquired using finite element analysis (FEA). Stresses at the ply level can be obtained through transformation of laminate stresses from laminate coordinate system to ply coordinate system. To further calculate micro stresses at the constituent level, the unit cell model is employed. Micro stresses $\sigma$ at any point within fiber/matrix, and micro surface tractions $t$ at any interfacial point, are related to ply stresses ${\bar {\sigma }}$ as well as temperature increment $\Delta T$ through:^[6]

{\begin{array}{lcl}\sigma _{\mathrm {f} }&=&M_{\mathrm {f} }{\bar {\sigma }}+A_{\mathrm {f} }\Delta T\\\sigma _{\mathrm {m} }&=&M_{\mathrm {m} }{\bar {\sigma }}+A_{\mathrm {m} }\Delta T\\t_{\mathrm {i} }&=&M_{\mathrm {i} }{\bar {\sigma }}+A_{\mathrm {i} }\Delta T\end{array}}

Here $\sigma$ , ${\bar {\sigma }}$ , and $t$ are column vectors with 6, 6, and 3 components, respectively. Subscripts serve as indications of constituents, i.e. ${\mathrm {f} }$ for fiber, ${\mathrm {m} }$ for matrix, and ${\mathrm {i} }$ for interface. $M$ and $A$ are respectively called stress amplification factors (SAF) for macro stresses and for temperature increment. The SAF serves as a conversion factor between macro stresses at the ply level and micro stresses at the constituent level. For a micro point in fiber or matrix, $M$ is a 6×6 matrix while $A$ has the dimension of 6×1; for an interfacial point, respective dimensions of $M$ and $A$ are 3×6 and 3×1. The value of each single term in the SAF for a micro material point is determined through FEA of the unit cell model under given macroscopic loading conditions. The definition of SAF is valid not only for constituents having linear elastic behavior and constant coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE), but also for those possessing complex constitutive relations and variable CTEs.

Constituent failure criteria

Fiber failure criterion

Fiber is taken as transversely isotropic, and there are two alternative failure criteria for it:^[1] a simple maximum stress criterion and a quadratic failure criterion extended from Tsai-Wu failure criterion:

{\begin{array}{lcl}{\text{Maximum stress failure criterion:}}-X_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }<\sigma _{1}<X_{\mathrm {f} }\\{\text{Quadratic failure criterion: }}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{6}\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{6}F_{ij}\sigma _{i}\sigma _{j}+\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{6}F_{i}\sigma _{i}=1\end{array}}

The Coefficients involved in the quadratic failure criterion are defined as follows:

F_{11}={\cfrac {1}{X_{\mathrm {f} }X_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}\ ,\ F_{22}=F_{33}={\cfrac {1}{Y_{\mathrm {f} }Y_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}

F_{44}={\cfrac {1}{S_{\mathrm {f} 4}^{2}}}\ ,\ F_{55}=F_{66}={\cfrac {1}{S_{\mathrm {f} 6}^{2}}}

F_{1}={\cfrac {1}{X_{\mathrm {f} }}}-{\cfrac {1}{X_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}\ ,\ F_{2}=F_{3}={\cfrac {1}{Y_{\mathrm {f} }}}-{\cfrac {1}{Y_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}

F_{12}=F_{21}=F_{13}=F_{31}=-{\cfrac {1}{2{\sqrt {X_{\mathrm {f} }{X}_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }Y_{\mathrm {f} }Y_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}}}\ ,\ F_{23}=F_{32}=-{\cfrac {1}{2Y_{\mathrm {f} }Y_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }}}

where $X_{\mathrm {f} }$ , $X_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }$ , $Y_{\mathrm {f} }$ , $Y_{\mathrm {f} }^{\prime }$ , $S_{\mathrm {f} 4}$ , and $S_{\mathrm {f} 6}$ denote longitudinal tensile, longitudinal compressive, transverse tensile, transverse compressive, transverse (or through-thickness) shear, and in-plane shear strength of the fiber, respectively.

Stresses used in two preceding criteria should be micro stresses in the fiber, expressed in such a coordinate system that 1-direction signifies the longitudinal direction of fiber.

Matrix failure criterion

The polymeric matrix is assumed to be isotropic and exhibits a higher strength under uniaxial compression than under uniaxial tension. A modified version of von Mises failure criterion suggested by Christensen^[7] is adopted for the matrix:

{\begin{array}{lcl}{\cfrac {\sigma _{Mises}^{2}}{C_{\mathrm {m} }T_{\mathrm {m} }}}+\left({\cfrac {1}{T_{\mathrm {m} }}}-{\cfrac {1}{C_{\mathrm {m} }}}\right)I_{1}=1\end{array}}

Here ${T}_{\mathrm {m} }$ and ${C}_{\mathrm {m} }$ represent matrix tensile and compressive strength, respectively; whereas $\sigma _{Mises}$ and ${\mathrm {I} }_{1}$ are von Mises equivalent stress and the first stress invariant of micro stresses at a point within matrix, respectively.

Interface failure criterion

The fiber-matrix interface features traction-separation behavior, and the failure criterion dedicated to it takes the following form:^[8]

${\begin{array}{lcl}\left({\cfrac {\left\langle {t}_{n}\right\rangle }{{Y}_{n}}}\right)^{2}+\left({\cfrac {{t}_{s}}{{Y}_{s}}}\right)^{2}=1\end{array}}$

where ${t}_{n}$ and ${t}_{s}$ are normal (perpendicular to the interface) and shear (tangential to the interface) interfacial tractions, with ${Y}_{n}$ and ${Y}_{s}$ being their corresponding strengths. The angle brackets (Macaulay brackets) imply that a pure compressive normal traction does not contribute to interface failure.

Further extension of MMF

Hashin’s Failure Criteria

These are interacting failure criteria where more than one stress components have been used to evaluate the different failure modes. These criteria were originally developed for unidirectional polymeric composites, and hence, applications to other type of laminates and non-polymeric composites have significant approximations. Usually Hashin criteria are implemented within two-dimensional classical lamination approach for point stress calculations with ply discounting as the material degradation model. Failure indices for Hashin criteria are related to fibre and matrix failures and involve four failure modes. The criteria are extended to three-dimensional problems where the maximum stress criteria are used for transverse normal stress component. The failure modes included in Hashin's criteria are as follows.

Tensile fibre failure for σ11 ≥ 0
Compressive fibre failure for σ11 < 0
Tensile matrix failure for σ22 + σ33 > 0
Compressive matrix failure for σ22 + σ33 < 0
Interlaminar tensile failure for σ33 > 0
Interlaminar compression failure for σ33 < 0

where, σij denote the stress components and the tensile and compressive allowable strengths for lamina are denoted by subscripts T and C, respectively. XT, YT, ZT denotes the allowable tensile strengths in three respective material directions. Similarly, XC, YC, ZC denotes the allowable compressive strengths in three respective material directions. Further, S12, S13 and S23 denote allowable shear strengths in the respective principal material directions.

Endeavors have been made to incorporate MMF with multiple progressive damage models and fatigue models for strength and life prediction of composite structures subjected to static or dynamic loadings.

Related Research Articles

A composite material is a material which is produced from two or more constituent materials. These constituent materials have notably dissimilar chemical or physical properties and are merged to create a material with properties unlike the individual elements. Within the finished structure, the individual elements remain separate and distinct, distinguishing composites from mixtures and solid solutions.

Fracture Split of materials or structures under stress

Fracture is the separation of an object or material into two or more pieces under the action of stress. The fracture of a solid usually occurs due to the development of certain displacement discontinuity surfaces within the solid. If a displacement develops perpendicular to the surface of displacement, it is called a normal tensile crack or simply a crack; if a displacement develops tangentially to the surface of displacement, it is called a shear crack, slip band, or dislocation.

Mohr–Coulomb theory is a mathematical model describing the response of brittle materials such as concrete, or rubble piles, to shear stress as well as normal stress. Most of the classical engineering materials somehow follow this rule in at least a portion of their shear failure envelope. Generally the theory applies to materials for which the compressive strength far exceeds the tensile strength.

In applied mechanics, bending characterizes the behavior of a slender structural element subjected to an external load applied perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the element.

The stress intensity factor, $, is used in fracture mechanics to predict the stress state near the tip of a crack or notch caused by a remote load or residual stresses. It is a theoretical construct usually applied to a homogeneous, linear elastic material and is useful for providing a failure criterion for brittle materials, and is a critical technique in the discipline of damage tolerance. The concept can also be applied to materials that exhibit small-scale yielding at a crack tip.$

Three-point flexural test Standard procedure for measuring modulus of elasticity in bending

The three-point bending flexural test provides values for the modulus of elasticity in bending $, flexural stress, flexural strain and the flexural stress-strain response of the material. This test is performed on a universal testing machine with a three-point or four-point bend fixture.The main advantage of a three-point flexural test is the ease of the specimen preparation and testing. However, this method has also some disadvantages: the results of the testing method are sensitive to specimen and loading geometry and strain rate.$

The J-integral represents a way to calculate the strain energy release rate, or work (energy) per unit fracture surface area, in a material. The theoretical concept of J-integral was developed in 1967 by G. P. Cherepanov and independently in 1968 by James R. Rice, who showed that an energetic contour path integral was independent of the path around a crack.

A yield surface is a five-dimensional surface in the six-dimensional space of stresses. The yield surface is usually convex and the state of stress of inside the yield surface is elastic. When the stress state lies on the surface the material is said to have reached its yield point and the material is said to have become plastic. Further deformation of the material causes the stress state to remain on the yield surface, even though the shape and size of the surface may change as the plastic deformation evolves. This is because stress states that lie outside the yield surface are non-permissible in rate-independent plasticity, though not in some models of viscoplasticity.

Methods have been devised to modify the yield strength, ductility, and toughness of both crystalline and amorphous materials. These strengthening mechanisms give engineers the ability to tailor the mechanical properties of materials to suit a variety of different applications. For example, the favorable properties of steel result from interstitial incorporation of carbon into the iron lattice. Brass, a binary alloy of copper and zinc, has superior mechanical properties compared to its constituent metals due to solution strengthening. Work hardening has also been used for centuries by blacksmiths to introduce dislocations into materials, increasing their yield strengths.

The Hill yield criterion developed by Rodney Hill, is one of several yield criteria for describing anisotropic plastic deformations. The earliest version was a straightforward extension of the von Mises yield criterion and had a quadratic form. This model was later generalized by allowing for an exponent m. Variations of these criteria are in wide use for metals, polymers, and certain composites.

The Drucker–Prager yield criterion is a pressure-dependent model for determining whether a material has failed or undergone plastic yielding. The criterion was introduced to deal with the plastic deformation of soils. It and its many variants have been applied to rock, concrete, polymers, foams, and other pressure-dependent materials.

The Bresler–Pister yield criterion is a function that was originally devised to predict the strength of concrete under multiaxial stress states. This yield criterion is an extension of the Drucker–Prager yield criterion and can be expressed on terms of the stress invariants as

Material failure theory is an interdisciplinary field of materials science and solid mechanics which attempts to predict the conditions under which solid materials fail under the action of external loads. The failure of a material is usually classified into brittle failure (fracture) or ductile failure (yield). Depending on the conditions most materials can fail in a brittle or ductile manner or both. However, for most practical situations, a material may be classified as either brittle or ductile.

The Tsai–Wu failure criterion is a phenomenological material failure theory which is widely used for anisotropic composite materials which have different strengths in tension and compression. The Tsai-Wu criterion predicts failure when the failure index in a laminate reaches 1. This failure criterion is a specialization of the general quadratic failure criterion proposed by Gol'denblat and Kopnov and can be expressed in the form

A fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) is a composite building material that consists of three components:

the fibers as the discontinuous or dispersed phase,
the matrix as the continuous phase, and
the fine interphase region, also known as the interface.

Sandwich theory describes the behaviour of a beam, plate, or shell which consists of three layers—two facesheets and one core. The most commonly used sandwich theory is linear and is an extension of first order beam theory. Linear sandwich theory is of importance for the design and analysis of sandwich panels, which are of use in building construction, vehicle construction, airplane construction and refrigeration engineering.

The Christensen failure criterion is a material failure theory for isotropic materials that attempts to span the range from ductile to brittle materials. It has a two-property form calibrated by the uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths T $and C .$

In solid mechanics, a reinforced solid is a brittle material that is reinforced by ductile bars or fibres. A common application is reinforced concrete. When the concrete cracks the tensile force in a crack is not carried any more by the concrete but by the steel reinforcing bars only. The reinforced concrete will continue to carry the load provided that sufficient reinforcement is present. A typical design problem is to find the smallest amount of reinforcement that can carry the stresses on a small cube. This can be formulated as an optimization problem.

Toughening is the improvement of the fracture resistance of a given material. The material's toughness is described by irreversible work accompanying crack propagation. Designing against this crack propagation leads to toughening the material.

The Tsai–Hill failure criterion is one of the phenomenological material failure theories, which is widely used for anisotropic composite materials which have different strengths in tension and compression. The Tsai-Hill criterion predicts failure when the failure index in a laminate reaches 1.

References

1 2 Ha, S.K., Jin, K.K. and Huang, Y. (2008). Micro-Mechanics of Failure (MMF) for Continuous Fiber Reinforced Composites, Journal of Composite Materials, 42(18): 1873–1895.
↑ Tsai, S.W. and Wu, E.M. (1971). A General Theory of Strength for Anisotropic Materials, Journal of Composite Materials, 5(1): 58–80.
↑ Hashin, Z. and Rotem, A. (1973). A Fatigue Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforced Materials, Journal of Composite Materials, 7(4): 448–464.
↑ Hashin, Z. (1980). Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 47(2): 329–334.
↑ Xia, Z., Zhang, Y. and Ellyin, F. (2003). A Unified Periodical Boundary Conditions for Representative Volume Elements of Composites and Applications, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40(8): 1907–1921.
↑ Jin, K.K., Huang, Y., Lee, Y.H. and Ha, S.K. (2008). Distribution of Micro Stresses and Interfacial Tractions in Unidirectional Composites, Journal of Composite Materials, 42(18): 1825–1849.
↑ Christensen, R.M. (2007). A Comprehensive Theory of Yielding and Failure for Isotropic Materials, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 129(2): 173–181.
↑ Camanho, P.P. and Dávila, C.G. (2002). Mixed-Mode Decohesion Finite Elements for the Simulation of Delamination in Composite Materials, NASA/TM-2002-211737: 1–37.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[SKHa-1] 1 2 Ha, S.K., Jin, K.K. and Huang, Y. (2008). Micro-Mechanics of Failure (MMF) for Continuous Fiber Reinforced Composites, Journal of Composite Materials, 42(18): 1873–1895.

[SWTsai-2] Tsai, S.W. and Wu, E.M. (1971). A General Theory of Strength for Anisotropic Materials, Journal of Composite Materials, 5(1): 58–80.

[Hashin1-3] Hashin, Z. and Rotem, A. (1973). A Fatigue Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforced Materials, Journal of Composite Materials, 7(4): 448–464.

[Hashin2-4] Hashin, Z. (1980). Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 47(2): 329–334.

[ZXia-5] Xia, Z., Zhang, Y. and Ellyin, F. (2003). A Unified Periodical Boundary Conditions for Representative Volume Elements of Composites and Applications, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40(8): 1907–1921.

[KKJin-6] Jin, K.K., Huang, Y., Lee, Y.H. and Ha, S.K. (2008). Distribution of Micro Stresses and Interfacial Tractions in Unidirectional Composites, Journal of Composite Materials, 42(18): 1825–1849.

[Christen-7] Christensen, R.M. (2007). A Comprehensive Theory of Yielding and Failure for Isotropic Materials, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 129(2): 173–181.

[Camanho-8] Camanho, P.P. and Dávila, C.G. (2002). Mixed-Mode Decohesion Finite Elements for the Simulation of Delamination in Composite Materials, NASA/TM-2002-211737: 1–37.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]