Cyclic behavior and modeling of small fatigue cracks of a polycarbonate polymer

Testing and analysis of solid polymers under large monotonic and long-term cyclic deformation

“…Yu et al (2017) showed that their model for an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene is accurate under low-cycle loadings. Considering the longer fatigue lives and ratcheting of polymers, the focus has been on uniaxial cyclic loadings, Kim and Lu (2008); Xi et al (2015); Wang et al (2016); Kanters et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017); Holopainen et al (2017); Holopainen and Barriere (2018); Barriere et al (2019); Krairi et al (2019). The experimentation and models for PC proposed in James et al (2013); Ravi Chandran (2016) are studied under uniaxial cyclic loadings and are implemented to detect crack growth in tiny zones (not applied at component level) to define long-term fatigue lives.…”

Experimental Observation on the Pure Torsional Ratchetting of Polycarbonate Polymer at Room Temperature

“…In recent years, due to the more and more extensive applications of polymeric materials in engineering, many researchers began to pay attention to the study of cyclic deformation behavior of these materials; for example, Chen et al [7] investigated the influence of humidity on cyclic deformation behavior and cyclic heat generation of polyamide-6 polymer. e results show that the change of humidity will not change the inherent cyclic softening/ hardening features of the material but obviously affects the degree of cyclic softening/hardening of the material; Liu et al [8] discussed the effects of stress cycling on the physical aging of polycarbonate polymer; Holopainen et al [9] proposed a model to simulate the ratchetting and fatigue interaction behavior of polycarbonate polymer in the framework of continuum mechanics; Hughes et al [10] experimentally studied the fatigue behavior of polycarbonate polymers and proposed a multistage fatigue model to evaluate the crack evolution; Zhang et al [11] proposed a method to accelerate ratchetting testing based on the time-temperature equivalence principle and verified the effectiveness of the proposed method with the uniaxial ratchetting test of polycarbonate polymer; Li et al [12] studied the effect of cyclic deformation on the mechanical properties of polycarbonate polymer. e results reveal that, during the initiation of fatigue damage, the fracture toughness of the material decreases with the increasing number of cyclic loadings significantly, while the yield strength is almost unaffected; Fang et al [13] conducted cyclic deformation experiments on polycarbonate (PC) and polycarbonate/acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (PC/ABS) and discussed the effects of cyclic loading on the uniaxial tensile properties of the two kinds of materials.…”

A compact constitutive model to describe the viscoelastic-plastic behaviour of glassy polymers: Comparison with monotonic and cyclic experiments and state-of-the-art models

“…Despite the importance of polymer components, their cyclic deformation behavior is still under-researched, and much effort is needed to improve their cyclic deformation properties and to develop capable tools for their failure assessment. Considering solid or glassy polymers, the distinguished and recent models are mainly focused on large strain plasticity (group 1), Boyce et al (1989); Wu and Van der Giessen (1993); Anand and Gurtin (2003); Anand and Ames (2006); Bouvard et al (2010); Gudimetla and Doghri (2017), or serve a micro-mechanically motivated damage evolution (group 2), Tomita and Uchida (2003); Engqvist et al (2016); Deng et al (2017); Jiang et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018), or are applied in the research of crack-controlled failure (group 3), Ritchie (1999); James et al (2013); Ravi Chandran (2016); Awaja et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018); George et al (2018). Models in group 2 consider damage processes that emerge in micro-level failures, such as polymer chain breakage and propagation of microscopic flaws termed microvoids and -cracks, Tomita and Uchida (2003); Jiang et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018).…”

“…Models in group 2 consider damage processes that emerge in micro-level failures, such as polymer chain breakage and propagation of microscopic flaws termed microvoids and -cracks, Tomita and Uchida (2003); Jiang et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018). The research in group 3 is focused on the coalescence of said microflaws when macroscopic cracks may originate and affect the final rupture, James et al (2013); Ravi Chandran (2016); Awaja et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018). Most models in group 3 have been implemented to detect crack growth in tiny zones and have not been applied at component level, James et al (2013); Awaja et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017).…”

“…The research in group 3 is focused on the coalescence of said microflaws when macroscopic cracks may originate and affect the final rupture, James et al (2013); Ravi Chandran (2016); Awaja et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017); Talamini et al (2018). Most models in group 3 have been implemented to detect crack growth in tiny zones and have not been applied at component level, James et al (2013); Awaja et al (2016); Hughes et al (2017). Only the models proposed in James et al (2013); Ravi Chandran (2016) are being studied under cyclic loadings, although they are based solely on fatigue life (Wöhler curve).…”