2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpreting the single fiber fragmentation test with numerical simulations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With values for τ sh , G IIc and the cohesive zone length l cz , the interface strength X sh can be estimated through a finite element model with a one-dimensional fiber with slip degrees of freedom embedded in a periodic resin slice (the reader is referred to [28] for details on the model formulation). From Fig.…”
Section: Single-fiber Fragmentation Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With values for τ sh , G IIc and the cohesive zone length l cz , the interface strength X sh can be estimated through a finite element model with a one-dimensional fiber with slip degrees of freedom embedded in a periodic resin slice (the reader is referred to [28] for details on the model formulation). From Fig.…”
Section: Single-fiber Fragmentation Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This, of course, implies that the FE model is not yet fully predictive, but the difficulties in obtaining accurate experimental values for some of the input parameters (especially fracture energies) are well known and were also present in previous modelling attempts. [21][22][23][24] However, once the model is confirmed to be representative of the experiment (e.g., in terms of number of breaks at saturation), it can be used to study many aspects of the problem (i.e., stress distributions, fibre break statistics etc.). The value (for the critical fracture energy of the interface) arrived at by enforcing agreement of number of breaks at saturation was 2.9 J/m 2 (Table 3) which is within the experimental range of values determined in Varna et al 51…”
Section: Interface Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These contributions, however, did not incorporate the stochastic distribution of fibre strengths along the fibre as is evident from each new break occurring at the centre of fibre fragments (which is contrary to the random break locations that occur experimentally). FE models that have included the key stochastic (Weibull) distribution of fibre strengths along the length of the embedded fibre include van der Meer et al 24 and Nishikawa et al 25 and these models also included matrix plasticity. However, the modelling results in 24 and 25 (and those in 22,23 ) were not compared to equivalent SFFT experiments to determine how well the models capture certain key behaviour such as evolution of the distribution of fibre break locations and distribution of fragment lengths during the test (Budiman et al 21 were concerned only with the first break so did not use their model to study break evolution).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The finite element model created was a 2-D planar model of a short section of the fibre and the surrounding matrix, and it was assumed that the fibre and matrix are perfectly bonded. Van der Meer et al [5] have presented a numerical investigation into one of the tests that has been proposed for measuring interfacial properties between fibre and matrix. They have introduced a new cohesive zone model with friction, as well as an original numerical framework for modelling embedded fibres.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%