A Micromechanics method to predict the fracture toughness of cellular materials

PDF ( 4 MBs ) ( .pdf )

choi_s_Page_53.txt

choi_s_Page_49.txt

choi_s_Page_19.txt

choi_s_Page_20.txt

choi_s_Page_05.txt

choi_s_Page_68.txt

choi_s_Page_55.txt

choi_s_Page_57.txt

choi_s_Page_52.txt

choi_s_Page_26.txt

choi_s_Page_50.txt

choi_s_Page_62.txt

choi_s_Page_16.txt

choi_s_Page_40.txt

choi_s_Page_03.txt

choi_s_Page_51.txt

choi_s_Page_06.txt

choi_s_Page_32.txt

choi_s_Page_64.txt

choi_s_Page_39.txt

choi_s_Page_30.txt

choi_s_Page_13.txt

choi_s_Page_35.txt

choi_s_Page_45.txt

choi_s_Page_36.txt

choi_s_Page_31.txt

choi_s_Page_38.txt

choi_s_Page_15.txt

choi_s_Page_37.txt

choi_s_Page_07.txt

choi_s_Page_08.txt

choi_s_Page_63.txt

choi_s_Page_24.txt

choi_s_Page_59.txt

choi_s_Page_43.txt

choi_s_pdf.txt

choi_s_Page_47.txt

choi_s_Page_18.txt

choi_s_Page_61.txt

choi_s_Page_10.txt

choi_s_Page_25.txt

choi_s_Page_46.txt

choi_s_Page_58.txt

choi_s_Page_48.txt

choi_s_Page_28.txt

choi_s_Page_11.txt

choi_s_Page_44.txt

choi_s_Page_56.txt

choi_s_Page_22.txt

choi_s_Page_04.txt

choi_s_Page_01.txt

choi_s_Page_42.txt

choi_s_Page_54.txt

choi_s_Page_14.txt

choi_s_Page_21.txt

choi_s_Page_67.txt

choi_s_Page_02.txt

choi_s_Page_66.txt

choi_s_Page_23.txt

choi_s_Page_33.txt

choi_s_Page_17.txt

choi_s_Page_60.txt

choi_s_Page_34.txt

choi_s_Page_65.txt

choi_s_Page_41.txt

choi_s_Page_12.txt

choi_s_Page_09.txt

choi_s_Page_27.txt

choi_s_Page_29.txt

A MICROMECHANICS METHOD TO PREDICT
THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CELLULAR MATERIALS
















By

SUKJOO CHOI


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002






























Copyright 2002

by

Sukjoo Choi































This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Sunggu Choi and Jinsil Yang














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Dr. Bhavani V. Sankar for providing me the opportunity to

complete my M.S. studies under his exceptional guidance and financial support. He is not

only my academic advisor but also a great influence in my life. Throughout this research,

I have greatly appreciated his consistent encouragement, patience and positive attitude.

Also, I would like to thank to Dr. Chen-Chi Hsu, graduate coordinator, for his advice.

Because of great help and advice, studying here was a delightful experience.

Many thanks should go to my colleagues, Donald Myers, Nicoleta Apetre and

Huadong Zhu. Moreover, I would like to thank my school seniors, Jongyoon Ok,

Chungsoo Ha and Kilsoo Mok, who provided me invaluable academic feedback,

encouragement and companionship. I would like to thank my girlfriend, Sungshin Kang,

who allowed me to devote myself to studying. I would like to express my deepest

appreciation to my parents for continuous support and love. I am also thankful to God for

giving me the opportunity to extend my education at the University of Florida.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ...................................................... ................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............. .................................... ........ ........... vii

LIST OF FIGU RES ...................................... .................. ............ .. viii

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... ...................... xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C TIO N ..................................................................... .......... .... .... 1

2 ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE FOAM...................................................................4

Formulation of Micro-Mechanics Properties.............. .............................................. 4
Finite Element Verification of Analytical Models ............. ...................................... 7

3 FINITE ELEMENT METHODS OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS ...............................11

B boundary D isplacem ent at a C rack Tip ....................................................................... 11
M o d el S etu p ................................................................. ......... .............. 12
C onvergence A analysis for M ode I ....................................................................... ... 13
Mode I Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam ................................. .............. 17
Mode II Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam ................................................... 19
Fracture Toughness of Mixed Mode on Open Cell Foam .......................................... 20
Formulation of Fracture Toughness for Mode I and Mode II.................................. 22
Analytical Model for Mode I Fracture Toughness ............................................ 22
Analytical Model for Mode II Fracture Toughness........................................... 25
Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness with Angled Crack.................................. 26
Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Tensile Loading ............................ 27
Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Shear Loading .................................... 29
M ode I Fracture Toughness of Inclined Cracks............... ............... .................. 31

4 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CARBON FOAM........................ ...............34

M material Properties of Carbon Foam ................................... .................... 34
Mode I Fracture Toughness Test (4-Pt. Bending Tests)............................................. 34
Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Toughness .............................. ................. 38









Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Solid M odel .......................................................... 38
Micromechanics Analysis for Young's Modulus and Shear Modulus................... 39
Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Beam M odel............................................................ 43
Fracture Toughness Estimation of the Solid Model .............................................. 44
Fracture Toughness of the Beam Model ..................................... .............. 45

5 RE SU L TS A N D D ISCU SSION ......................................................................... ...... 47

Elastic C onstants of O pen-cell Foam .................................................. ... ................. 47
Numerical Analysis of Fracture Toughness ............... ..................................... 47
Fracture Toughness w ith an A ngle Crack............................................... .... .. .............. 48
Fracture Toughness of Carbon Foam .................................... .......................... ........ 48

APPENDIX

A ANALYTICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE SOLIDITY OF SOLID MODEL ..50

B CRACK TIP DISPLACEMENT FIELDS FOR ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL.......... 52

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ ........................................................... .. 5 5

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................56















LIST OF TABLES

Table page
1.1 Material properties of the Zoltex carbon fiber...................... ............................... 3

3.1 Foam m odel properties for convergence analysis.................................................... 13

4.1 Mechanical properties of carbon foam ............................................. ........... 34

4.2 D ensities of various form s of carbon................................................. .. ... ......... 34

4.3 Fracture toughness with specimen properties of carbon foam.................................. 36

5.1 Constants of fracture toughness curves............... ......................................... 48

5.2 R results of fracture toughness .......................................................................... .... 49















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page
1.1 SEM images of low (left) and high (right) density carbon foam............................. 2

1.2 The packing of polyhedra to fill space: tetrakaidecahedra ................ ......... ...... 2

1.3 O pen rectangular cell m odel ............................................... ............................. 3

2.1 Applied stress for a open-cell foam .......................... ....... ......................... 4

2.2 Deformed shape of struts on open-cell foam ......................................................... 5

2.3 Stress distribution of tensile loading on open-cell foam .......................... ................ 8

2.4 Shear applied on open-cell foam ........................................................ .............. 9

2.5 Stress distribution of shear loading on open-cell foam ............................................... 9

3.1 Open-cell foam model with a crack .............................. .............. 12

3.2 Variation of fracture toughness with various model sizes................................... 14

3.3 Axial stress variation from a crack tip for various model sizes ........................... 15

3.4 Log-log plot of axial stress along a crack tip for various model sizes................... 16

3.5 Fracture toughness in various crack lengths........................................................ 17

3.6 Stress distribution of Mode I fracture (c=200 |tm, h=20 m) .............. ................. 18

3.8 Stress distribution of Mode II fracture (c=200|tm,h=20[tm)............................ 19

3.9 Numerical result of fracture toughness for M ode II ................................ .............. 20

3.10 Stress distribution on the mixed mode fracture (c=200[tm, h=20m)..................... 21

3.11 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant length of cell edges............................ 21

3.12 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant cell wall thickness............................ 22









3.13 Crack tip forces and moments in the actual foam and corresponding crack tip
stresses in the idealized homogeneous continuum ............................................... 22

3.14 Variation of a (/1c) with relative density for Mode I........................................ 25

3.15 Variation of a ( /c) with relative density for Mode II..................... ............ 26

3.16 Forces in a ligament under combined loading ................................................ 27

3.17 Variation of maximum tensile stress ,y as a function of angle between the xy
coordinate system and the principal material directions.................. ........... 29

3.18 Variation of maximum shear stress (shear strength) as a function of angle between
the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions ............................ 31

3.19 Stress distribution with various crack angles for Mode I fracture........................... 32

3.20 Mode I fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal
m material direction .................................... ........................... ... ........ 32

3.21 Stress distribution for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture.................. 33

3.22 Mode II fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal
m material direction .................................. ........................... ... ........ 33

4.1 SEN B specim en geom etry ................................................ ............................. 36

4.2 Four-point bending test setup on a material testing machine .................................. 37

4.3 Load-displacement curves of four-point bending tests on carbon foam.................. 37

4.4 U nit cell of solid m odel........ .................................... ..... ...... .. 38

4.5 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress
distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction ............................... 41

4.6 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress
distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction ............................... 41

4.7 Elastic modulus E* as a function of relative density (solidity) for E, = 2.6 GPa....... 42

4.8 Shear modulus G as a function of relative density (solidity) for E, = 2.6 GPa. ....... 42

4.9 U nit cell of beam m odel ......................................... ..................... .............. 43









4.10 Maximum principal stress distribution of solid and beam models for a unit KI at the
cra ck tip .................. ................................... ....... ......... ...... 4 5

4.11 Variation of fracture toughness of carbon foam with relative density................... 46

A 1 U nit cell of solid m odel......................... ................. ....................... .............. 50

B.1 Polar coordinate oriented from crack tip.............. ................... ............. 54














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

A MICROMECHANICS METHOD TO PREDICT
THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CELLULAR MATERIALS

By

Sukjoo Choi

December 2002

Chairman: Dr. Bhavani V. Sankar
Major Department: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cellular materials, such as carbon foam, are ideal core materials for sandwich

composites in many applications because of their thermal resistance, low density, impact

damage tolerance and cost effectiveness. Moreover, carbon foam is a good material for

heat exchangers and thermal protection systems.

The Mode I, Mode II and mixed mode fracture toughness of a cellular medium is

predicted by simulating the crack propagation using a finite element model. For the sake

of simplicity, the cellular medium is considered as a rectangular open cell structure, and

the struts are assumed to be beams of square cross section. On the macro-scale, the

cellular solid is considered as an orthotropic material. A crack parallel to one of the

principal material directions is assumed to exist in the solid and a small region

surrounding the crack tip is modeled using beam finite elements. Displacements are

imposed on the boundary of the region such that the crack tip is subjected to a given

stress intensity factor for orthotropic materials. The struts are assumed to fail in a brittle









manner when the maximum tensile stress becomes equal to the strength of the strut

material, and the corresponding stress intensity factor is taken as the fracture toughness of

the cellular medium. Based on the finite element results a semi-empirical formula is also

derived to predict the Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness of cellular solids as a

function of relative density. Results are also presented for mixed mode fracture, and a

simple mixed mode fracture criterion is derived for cellular solids. It is found that the

fracture toughness is a strong function of the relative density, but the cell size also has a

significant effect. Cracks inclined to the principal material directions were also

considered, and the Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness was calculated as a function

of the crack inclination angle.

Fracture toughness of carbon foam was estimated by experimental analysis and

also finite element method. Mode I fracture toughness of open cell carbon foam was

measured using single edge notched four-point bend specimens. A micromechanical

model was developed assuming a rectangular prism as the unit-cell. The cell walls were

modeled using three-dimensional solid element. Aforementioned finite element

micromechanical analysis was performed to predict the fracture. The micromechanical

simulations were used to study the variation of fracture toughness as a function of relative

density of the foam. The good agreement between the finite element and experimental

results for fracture toughness indicates that micro-mechanics can be an effective tool to

study crack propagation in cellular solids.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Cellular materials are made up of a net work of beam or plate structures leaving

an open space or cell in between. Cellular materials, e.g., carbon and polymeric foams,

offer several advantages of thermal resistance, durability, low density, impact damage

tolerance and cost effectiveness. They have great potential as core materials for

sandwich construction, heat exchangers and thermal protection systems in the military

and commercial aerospace structures.

An excellent treatise on the structure and properties of cellular solids has been

written by Gibson and Ashby [1]. While analytical methods of thermal and mechanical

properties of carbon foam are well documented, research on fracture behavior of various

foams is still in its infancy. Gibson and Ashby [1] have presented approximate formulas

for Mode I fracture toughness of cellular solids in terms of their relative density and

tensile strength. These are limited to cracks parallel to the principal material direction.

Also, fracture behavior under mixed mode was not studied.

A SEM was used to capture the images of carbon foam as shown in Figure 1.1. In

microscopic observation, the open-cell foams are irregularly sized and spaced. For high-

density carbon foam (300 to 800 kg/m3), the length of cell edges is in the range of 1,000

|tm to 2,000 |tm. For low-density carbon foam (160 to 300 kg/m3), the cell length is in

the range of 200 |jm to 600 |tm.










- q


Figure 1.1 SEM images of low (left) and high (right) density carbon foam

The geometry of the foam is categorized by tetrakaidecahedra cells containing 14

faces, 36 edges and 24 vertices as depicted in Figure 1.2.
















Figure 1.2 The packing of polyhedra to fill space: tetrakaidecahedra

In this study, finite element models are used to predict the fracture toughness of

some cellular media under mixed mode conditions. Based on the microscopic

observation of carbon foam in Figure 1.1, both cracks parallel to principal material

direction and angled crack are considered. For the sake of simplicity, the cellular medium

is considered as a rectangular open cell structure, and the struts are assumed to be beams

of square cross section of a side h as shown in Figure 1.3.


&A L





























Figure 1.3 Open rectangular cell model

On the macro-scale level, the cellular solid is considered as an orthotropic material. A

crack parallel to one of the principal material directions is assumed to exist in the solid

and a small region surrounding the crack tip is modeled using beam finite elements. For

carbon foam, material properties of cellular structure are referred from pure carbon.

Therefore, the Zoltex Panes 30MF High Purity Hilled carbon fiber (Table 1.1) is chosen

because of the high percentage of carbon component weight (99.5%).

Table 1.1 Material properties of the Zoltex carbon fiber

Density 1750 kg/m3
Modulus of Elasticity 207 Gpa
Poisson Ratio 0.17
Ultimate Tensile Strength 3600 Mpa










CHAPTER 2
ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE FOAM
In order to estimate the Young's modulus E1 in the principal material direction we
subject the foam to a uniform macro-stress din the 1 direction (see Figure 2-1) where
superscript of describes the macromechanics properties and the subscript ofs is
micromechanics properties.
Formulation of Micro-Mechanics Properties
The total tensile force acting on a strut is given by F = c2 a*, where c is the
length of the unit cell. The micro-stress (actual stress) in the strut can be derived as
F C2-*
a, h2 (2.1)
h2 h2


Ik. h




T-] T


Figure 2.1 Applied stress for a open-cell foam


n

lr


1~









where h is the cross sectional dimension of the square strut. It should be noted that both

the macro-strain E* and micro-strain E are assumed to be equal. The micro-strain is given

by


E= (2.2)
E

Substituting for os from Eq. (2.1) into Eq. (2.2) we obtain

C2
co
O- h2 C2"
ES, .. 2ES (2.3)
E E hES

where Es is elastic modulus of the strut material. The Young's modulus of the foam can

be obtained from Eq. (2.3) as


E = 7 .. E s (2.4)
E* c2a
h 2E






B B'



o '
o-/2 '- A .



7c/2

Figure 2.2 Deformed shape of struts on open-cell foam

To calculate the shear modulus G12, the unit-cell is subjected to a state of uniform

shear as shown in Figure 2.2. The deformed shape of the struts is shown in thin lines. Due

to anti-symmetry the curvature of the deformed beam at the center of the strut must be









equal to zero and hence the bending moment at the center of the strut must also be equal

to zero [2]. This fact can be used to find a relation between F and M as M=Fc/2. Now

half-of the strut, either OA or OB, can be considered as a cantilever beam subjected to a

tip force F. The transverse deflection is given by



2 c
S= 2 (2.5)
3EI

h4
where I, the moment of inertia of the strut cross section is given by I =
12

The macroscopic shear stress c* is related to the shear force F as


= (2.6)
C2

The macroscopic shear strain y* can be calculated as

28 48
2- (2.7)
C c
2

The shear modulus of the foam G22 is defined as the ratio of the macroscopic shear stress

c* and macro-shear strain y*. Then from Eq. (2.6) and Eq. (2.7) we obtain

z* 1 h4
G12 Es (2.8)
S2

From the expressions for E* and G*2 a relationship between the shear modulus and the

Young's modulus can be derived as

h2
E* sc2 C
2 (2.9)
G* 1 h4 h2
E,
2 c4









Due to the symmetry of the structure it is obvious that E2=E3=E1 and G23=G31=G12.

Further, since we are using beam theory to model the struts, all the Poisson's ratios

referred to the principal material directions, v12, V23, and v31 are equal to zero.

The relative density p p,, where ps is the solid density or the density of the strut

material, is a measure of solidity of the cellular material. The density of the foam can be

obtained form the mass m and volume V of the unit-cell as shown below:

m p(3h2c 2h3
S*3 3h2c 2h3) h 2 h3
p p3 3 -c 3 (2.10)
Ps Ps Ps c C C

If the aspect ratio of the strut h/c <<1, the relative density can be approximated as

p* h2 h3 Ih2
--== -2 h3 (2.11)
P, c c C3

Finite Element Verification of Analytical Models

A portion near the crack tip of the foam was modeled using finite elements. Each

strut was modeled as an Euler-Bernoulli beam. Each beam element has 3 integration

points. Although we could have one unit-cell with periodic boundary conditions by

Marrey and Sankar [2], a larger portion of the cellular medium was modeled as the

computational cost is not very high for this case. The model shown in Figure 2.3 consists

of 100x100 cells. The cell length c of the unit-cell is 200 num and the strut is assumed to

have a square cross section with a side equal to 20 num. A uniform displacement (2=

0.01 m) is applied at nodes on the top edge of the model. The total force in the 2

direction is computed from the FE results. The average tensile stress (macro-stress 0-2)

can be obtained by












> F
-- 'T (2.12)
Lc


where the E sign denotes summation of all nodal forces and L is the width of the foam


considered in the FE model (see Figure 2.3).


S, Max. Princi-al
Bottom Left Corner
(Ave. Crit.: 75%)
+1.035e+11
+9.487e+10
+8.625e+10
+7.762e+10
+6.900e+10 . . .
+6.037e+10
+5.175e+10
+4. 312e+10
+3.450e+10
+2.587e+10
+1 .725e+10
+8.625e+09
-5.356e-1 3






















Figure 2.3 Stress distribution of tensile loading on open-cell foam


The Young's modulus E2 of a foam can be determined by the stress-strain definition as






g FS
E o-* -' (2.13)
E ] ---------










L


For the case considered the FE model gave a value Ea = 2.09 GPa and the analytical


model Eq. (2.4) yielded a value of 2.07 GPa. The difference of results is 1%.


































UB

L




Figure 2.4 Shear applied on open-cell foam


S, Max. Principal
Bottom Left Corner
(Discontinuities)
4-2 .922e4-10
+2. 679e+10
-2 .435e-10
+2 192e+10
+1.948e+10
+1.705e+10
+1.461e-10
+1.218e+10
4-+9. 742e4-09
+7. 306e+09
4 871eS409
+2 .435e+09
+0 00Oe+00







2
CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSTS FOR CELLULAR MODEL
ODB: fraba.odb ABAQUS/Standard 6.2-1 Fri Oct 19 03:14:09
Step: Step-
Increment 1: Step Time 2.220DE-16
Primary Var: S, Max. Principal
n) r.--r v-. n n- -f-rm-t -- ,- 1- F7A tnr-. -1 nnn--ni


Figure 2.5 Stress distribution of shear loading on open-cell foam


To estimate the shear modulus by numerical analysis, a constant horizontal


displacement Us is applied to all the nodes on the topside of the foam as shown in Figure


2.4. The shear stress c* can be obtained by the sum of reaction forces F divided by the



area of the top surface:










r* (2.14)
Lc

where L is the length of the foam considered in the FE model and c is the unit-cell

dimension. The shear strain y* can be calculated as

u
Y = (2.15)
L

Thus, shear modulus G2 of the foam can be estimated as


IF

G L -(2.16)
Y U us C
L

The deformed shape of the cellular solid under shear is shown in Figure 2.5. From the

FE model the shear modulus of the foam was estimated as 10.25 MPa, whereas the

aforementioned analytical model Eq. (2.8) yields 10.35 MPa. The difference between the

two results is about 1%. The FE model is slightly compliant because of lack of

constraints on the side and applying periodic boundary conditions would have yielded

values closer to the analytical solution.














CHAPTER 3
FINITE ELEMENT METHODS OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS

In this section, we describe a finite element based micromechanics model for

estimating the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. The crack is assumed to be parallel

to one of the principal material axes, and Mode I, Mode II and mixed mode fracture are

considered. To determine the fracture toughness a small region around the crack tip is

modeled using beam elements. A constant mode mixity KI/KII is assumed to be applied.

The boundary of the cellular solid is subjected to displacement (ui and u2) boundary

conditions corresponding to an arbitrary value of Ki (or KII). The rotational degree of

freedom at each node of the beam element on the boundary of the solid is left as

unknown and no couples are applied at these nodes. The calculation of boundary

displacements for a given stress intensity factor is described in the next section.

Boundary Displacement at a Crack Tip

The displacement components in the vicinity of a crack tip in a homogenous

orthotropic material are derived in Appendix B and they are as follows:

Displacement field for Mode I:


i = KI 2r Re 1 [sp2 (cos0 +Ssin 0)) -s2p1(cosO+s1 sin ) 2]
(3.1)
Y = K 2r Re 1 [sq2(cos+s2 sin)12 -s2q,(cos0+s sin)12
V 7 S1 -S2 J

Displacement field for Mode II:









u = K 2r Re{ [2 (csO1 +cos +ssO p sin O)2 ]}2 (32
Z S1 -S2
(3.2)
u, K, 2r Re [q2 (cos +s sin ) qi(cos s + sinO') }


In deriving the above expressions, the crack is assumed to be parallel to the x axis,

and r-O is the polar coordinate system oriented at the crack tip. The complex parameters p,

q, and s depend on the elastic constants of the homogeneous orthotropic material as

described in the Appendix B.

Model Setup

The commercial FE program ABAQUS is used to conduct numerical analysis. A

FE model of open cell foam is taken around the small portion of the crack tip in Figure

3.1. The boundary condition of small portion is determined by using the solution for

boundary displacements in the previous section. A crack in the FE model is created by

removing beam elements.

kd Cell Length c




Crack CrackT

Length a





Figure 3.1 Open-cell foam model with a crack

To reduce the modeling cost, a FORTRAN code was written to generate nodal

and element properties with user specified unit-cell configuration. The code calculates









boundary displacements at corresponding boundary nodal coordinates. After execution,

it exports an ABAQUS input file so that the ABAQUS can read the input directly.

The maximum tensile stress in the struts is calculated from the finite element

method. The FE analysis outputs axial force, bending moment and shear force at each

node of the beam elements, and the maximum tensile stress was calculated using a

separate program. Usually the maximum stress occurs at the crack tip strut. From the

result the value of Ki (or KII) that will cause rupture of the strut is estimated, which then is

taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular solid.

Before we describe an analytical model for estimating the fracture toughness, we

will discuss the results from the FE simulation. At first, we will check the validity of

applying continuum fracture mechanics. It was found that a model consisting of 100x100

cells (total 10,000 cells) gave a converged result for fracture toughness and the same

model is used throughout the study. The run time for this model is about 1312 minutes in

a 1.7 GHz Intel Pentium 4 computer.

Convergence Analysis for Mode I

The convergence analysis is performed to evaluate variation of fracture toughness

with various sizes of foam models, 1.2cm x 1.2cm (3,600 cells), 2cm x 2cm (10,000

cells), 4cm x 4cm (40,000 cells) and 8cm x 8cm (160,000 cells). The foam model

properties are shown in Table 3.1.

Table. 3.1 Foam model properties for convergence analysis

Length of cell edge 200 |tm
Cell wall thickness 20 |tm
Relative density 0.0280
Tensile strength 3600Mpa







14


As the model size increases, fracture toughness becomes stable at approximately

4.67x105 Pa m1/2 in Figure 3.2. For a foam model containing from 10,000 to 160,000

cells, variation in fracture toughness is 2.7%. Therefore, the 10,000 cell model is chosen

for further numerical analysis to maintain output accuracy with less CPU time. For the

10,000 cell model, a computer with 1.7GHz Intel Pentium 4 takes 131/2 minutes to

complete the job, but the 160,000 cells takes 2 hours more.

Fracture toughness variation with number of cells used
4.70E+05
F4.66E+06 -----------------------------------------I---------- ---------------
a 4.65E+05
E
.m 4.60E+05 -
m

4.55E+05 --------------

S4.50E+05 ------- ------ ------------------------------------------ --

S4.45E+05 --
LL
4.40E+05 I
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000

Total number of cells used for simulation

Figure 3.2 Variation of fracture toughness with various model sizes

The axial stress along the crack path from a crack tip is shown in Figure 3.3. In the result,

smaller models produce higher axial stress at the crack tip. Further from the crack tip,

variation in axial stresses becomes insignificant for all model sizes.












Maximum principal stress variation alone crack path under Mode 1 fracture


3600 cells (e0603)
--------------------- ------------ -10000---------- cells (e1005)
10000 cells (e1005)
-40000 cells (e2010)
160000 cells (e4020)


-------------------- -- -- -






------------------- ---


A Ar lI.f II.U U 1


"I. I U t+UJ -I--
0.00E+00


4.00E-04


8.00E-04 1.20E-03
Distance from crack tip (m)


Figure 3.3 Axial stress variation from a crack tip for various model sizes


The log-log plot of maximum strut stress variation from the crack tip is shown in Figure


3.3, the curve is fitted to the equation


41.69
o-az
Vr


(3.3)


Using the relation between micro and macro stresses in Eq. (2.1), Eq. 3.4 can be written


as


1.05

o2 -r


(3.4)


indicating that the macro stress in tensile factor is equal to 1.05 which is approximately


equal to the applied the stress intensity factor Ki of unity.


2.35E+03



(A
. 2.10E+03 -
4o)

S1.85E+03
Q.


S1.60E+03
E


2 1.35E+03


1.60E-03


2.00E-03







16


Log-log plot of maximum principal stress variation alone
crack path under Mode 1 fracture
3.5E+00

(C
3.3E+00 -------------------------------





I-Q
S 3.1E+00 -
5 -y= -0.51x +1.62
S* 3,600 cells
C* 10,000 cells
E -35E+00 -2E+00 -- -3E+00 --
40,000 cells
E x 160,000 cells

S2.7E+00 --------

02.7E+00 i--------------------------------------------------------------------
0


2.5E+00
-3.5E+00 -2.9E+00 -2.3E+00
Log distance from crack tip (m)

Figure 3.4 Log-log plot of axial stress along a crack tip for various model sizes

If the fracture toughness estimated by using the present method is truly a

material(macroscopic) property, then it should be independent of the crack length. Hence

the crack length was varied in the micromechanical method. The results are shown in

Figure 3.5. The predicted fracture toughness was plotted as a function of percentage of

crack length in the model. The results clearly show that idea of modeling the foam as a

homogenous material is quite acceptable.











Variation of Crack Length on Mode I fracture

5E+05
$ _- -_-_ -- -_ -_- _- _-_- _- -_ .-. _.. -

4E+05





a-
L.

Y" 3E+05

CU

2E+05 -
CU




1E+05
I-








OE+OO .
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Crack Length (%)


Figure 3.5 Fracture toughness in various crack lengths

Mode I Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam

Since the relative density depends on the length of the strut c and a cell wall

thickness h, the fracture simulation is conducted in two cases. In the first case, c is varied

and h is kept constant. The second case, h varied while c is constant.

The results of the FE simulation are axial force, bending moment and shear force

in each element, which are used to calculate the maximum principal stress at the crack tip,

and then the fracture toughness. A sample stress distribution due to Mode I fracture is

shown in Figure 3.6.




































Figure 3.6 Stress distribution of Mode I fracture (c=200 pm, h=20 pm)


The variation of fracture toughness with relative density is shown in Figure 3.7.


The results of fracture toughness in Figure 3.7 are fitted to a curve with a power of 1.045


for constant wall thickness and 0.7879 for constant length of strut. To obtain a higher


fracture toughness, increasing cell wall thickness h is more effective while cell length c is


constant.


Re


2.0E+06

1.8E+06

1.6E+06

1.4E+06

1.2E+06

1.0E+06

8.0E+05

6.0E+05-

4.0E+05

2.0E+05

O.OE+00


lative Densityvs Fracture Toughness for Mode 1


000 0.02 0.04 0.06 008 010 012 014 0.16 018
Relative Density


Figure 3.7 Mode I fracture toughness for two cases


-- ----y= 1 91E+07X-'-'- ----- -


y = 7.82E+06x788EO'

-------.-------- ---------------------
---------- ----------





Constant Thickness
Constant Length
------- .------ ----- --.-------- Power [Constant Thickness
S Power (Constant Length]
-- - - - - - -


I









Mode II Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam

The analysis of Mode II fracture toughness is performed in same manner as the

Mode I fracture analysis in previous section. Unlikely to Mode I fracture, the boundary

displacements are not symmetric about the crack plane as shown in Figure 3.8.


Figure 3.8 Stress distribution of Mode II fracture (c=200[tm,h=20[tm)

The results of Mode II fracture toughness are fitted in a curve with power of

1.0654 for constant wall thickness h and 1.3231 for the constant cell length c in Figure

3.9. Therefore, to obtain the higher fracture toughness, increasing cell wall thickness h is

more effective than increasing cell length c for Mode II.











Relative Densityvs. Fracture Toughness for Mode 2
4.0E+05
Constant Thickness
3.5E+05 Constant Length -------. --------- -------------_ -------
Power (Constant Thickness)
S3.0E+05 Power (Constant Length] r, '
1.5E+05 --- --- -- --- --- --- --------- I------------ ------ -----------------
E ," y-1 32. E+00 ,
2.5E+05 ------------------------ -y =6.95E+06x --.......... ........

S2.E+05 ------------ __----------- __------------ ------ ----- -- -------- ------------

1.5E+05 -------------- --

S 1.E+05 ----------------------- ----- ------------ -------------------------


5.0E+04


O.OE+00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Relative Density


Figure 3.9 Numerical result of fracture toughness for Mode II

Fracture Toughness of Mixed Mode on Open Cell Foam

For the mixed mode fracture analysis, the boundary displacements for Mode I and

Mode II are superposed for various ratios of Mode I and Mode II in Figure 3.10. A

sample deformation under missed mode is shown in Figure 3.10.

Fracture toughness for mixed mode is shown for constant length of cell edge in

Figure 3.11 and constant wall thickness in Figure 3.12. The fracture toughness for mixed

mode is inversely linearly proportional.


K, + = 1 (3.5)



where the constants a and b are 1. The combinations of Ki and KII for fracture are shown

in Figure 3.11 for constant cell length and in Figure 3.12 for constant cell wall thickness.








































Figure 3.10 Stress distribution on the mixed mode fracture (c=200rtm, h=20[tm)



Fracture Toughness of Constant Cell Length for Mixed Mode

3.OE+05
rel density--.104 (1100t20)
2.5E+05 -------------------------------- rel density-0.028 (1200t20)
E rel density-0.0127 (1300t20)
e rel density-0.0073 (1400r20)
= 2.0E+05



.) E+04
o 1.5E+05 ---------- .-------------------- ------------





0O.E+0




S1.0E+05 2.E+05 4.OE+05 6..E+05 B..E+05 1.OE+06 1.2E+06 1.4E+06
0-c-
'^ 5 .0 E + 0 4 . . . . .. .....-- - - - - -.. .

0.0E+00 4-,-,

0.OE+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1 .OE+06 1.2E+06 1.4E+06

Fracture Toughness of Mode 1 KI (Pa m1)


Figure 3.11 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant length of cell edges









Fracture Toughness of Constant Thickness for Mixed Mode
4 OE+05
rel density0.0073 (1200tl 0)
Q 3.5E+05 -------------------------- rel density-0.0280 (1200t20)
E rel density-0.0608 (1200t30)
3.0E+05 ------ ----------------------- rel densit-0 1040 (1200t40)

S 2.E+05 -------------
0
m 2 0E+05 .
0)
CD 1 5E+05 ---

0 1.0E+05
I-
^~ ~~~ 15 +5 ^----------- .------------------- ----------- --------
j 5.0E+04 ------ ------ ----------------------- ------------

O.OE+00
O.OE+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.5E+06 2.0E+06

Fracture Toughness of Mode 1 KI (Pa m1r)

Figure 3.12 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant cell wall thickness

Formulation of Fracture Toughness for Mode I and Mode II

Analytical Model for Mode I Fracture Toughness


I II Ie II_








F Actual Foam Ideal Homogeneous Material

Figure 3.13 Crack tip forces and moments in the actual foam and corresponding crack tip
stresses in the idealized homogeneous continuum

In order to derive an analytical model for fracture toughness, the stress intensity

factor of the homogeneous model should be related to the actual stresses in the crack tip

ligament of the foam. This can be obtained by assuming that the internal forces and

bending moment in the crack tip strut are caused by a portion of the crack tip stress field









ahead of the crack tip in the homogeneous model. Let us define a non-dimensional factor

a that describes the effective length I as follows:

= ac (3.9)

The ideal stress distribution cy ahead of crack tip is described as follows:

K1
a- (3.10)


where r is the distance from the crack tip. The axial force in the crack tip ligament is

obtained by integrating the tensile stress cy over the effective length

1 K F21
F = cl dr = K c (3.11)


The bending moment M is given by

KM=cc d Kic 13/2 2 13/2
M =cra dr =r dr 1 -c (3.12)
f y 2)r r f 2 3

Assuming fracture occurs when the maximum bending stress equals the tensile strength

of the ligament material, a relationship between the tensile strength and fracture

toughness can be derived as

Mh
Sy 2 6M 6 2 13/2 22 13/2
a= K I-- c= K c (3.13)
I h2 h3 h3 3 t I h3
12

By substituting for I in terms of a from Eq. (3.9), the fracture toughness can be related to

the tensile strength as

2,1-32 c 3/2
S= Ka3/2 c (3.14)
Then the fracture toughness of the cellular material can be derived as
Then the fracture toughness of the cellular material can be derived as











K, h h (3.15)
KI = 2./2a3/2 C5/2 = u 2_/2,3/2 C )
22a c c2"2 2 a32 c c)

The non-dimensional distance a can be found from the FE results for fracture toughness

KI, and the tensile strength of the ligament material as follows:


a = 2 52 2/3 (3.16)
K 2 fc

The results for a as a function relative density are plotted in Fig. 3.14. It may be noted

that a increases with relative density and the variation can be accurately represented by a

power law. Interestingly both constant wall thickness case and the constant spacing case

we have studied so far fit accurately into a single power law. The effective crack tip

distance is about 10% of the cell spacing for low-density foam and about 305 for high-

density foam.

Alpha versus Relative densityfor mode 1
0.350



0.250 ----------- ----- ---------------------



0.150 ---





m constantwall thickness h
0.050 ------------------ --- ---- ----- O constant ell------------------en th-- --------
0.200 -------. --------- .----.--- -------- -------- -------- -. -------. -------- --------



0.100 -- -------- -------- --------

)K constant wall thickness h
0.050 --------------------------- -------- constant cell length c ----
----- Power (constant wall thickness h)
0.000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Relative Density









Figure 3.14 Variation of a (/1c) with relative density for Mode I

Analytical Model for Mode II Fracture Toughness

The effective crack tip distance for Mode II can be derived following steps similar

to that in the preceding section for Mode I. The shear stress (Txy) distribution ahead of the

crack tip is given by:

K1
Z (3.17)


The total shear force F over the effective distance / can be derived as


F=cJr dr=K K c (3.18)
0 '

The maximum bending moment in the crack tip element is the product of force F and the

length c/2:

2/ c
M = K c (3.19)


The maximum bending stress is derived as

h
My 2 6M 21 c
a= 2 3KI, (3.20)
I h h3 ,h
12

An expression for fracture toughness KII in terms of strut tensile strength, strut

dimensions and the effective distance can be derived as

CU.h3 7 n n
K11 32 (3.21)


Since, fracture toughness can be expressed in terms of the non-dimensional distance a:


K, h3c-2 r (3.22)
3C2 2ac 3 2c










From (3.33) an expression for a can be derived as


ch,3 h- Z T h 6
a= 1- 2 -- (3.23)
3K c2 I2 18K- c


The constant a can be evaluated using the FE results of fracture toughness. The value of

a as a function of relative density is plotted in Fig. 3.15. Again, it can be noted that a

power law description is adequate for Mode II also. Further the value of a depends only

on the relative density and not on individual cell or strut dimensions. The effective

distance seems to be slightly less for Mode II. It is about 5% of the strut spacing for low

density and about 22% for high density foams.

Alpha versus Relative density for mode 2






y = 0 6765X.472
0.150 ------------ ------------- ------- --


0.100 ---- -



S constant cell length c
0 .0 5 0 ,--- -- -- -- -- ---- -

---- Power (constant cell length c)
0.000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Relative Density

Figure 3.15 Variation of a (1/c) with relative density for Mode II

Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness with Angled Crack

So far our attention has been focused on cracks parallel to the principal material

direction. The next step will be to study crack inclined at an angle to the principal

direction. Before that, an understanding of how the material will fail under combined









loading will be beneficial. In the following we describe methodologies to predict the

failure of the cellular medium under combined loading. The results will then be used to

predict the tensile and shear strength in an arbitrary coordinate system.

Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Tensile Loading

When the cellular medium is subjected to combined loading under plane stress

conditions, the ligaments in a typical representative volume element will be subjected to

axial force, shear force and bending moment as shown in Fig. 3.16.






|/2 X F






Figure 3.16 Forces in a ligament under combined loading

From the equation (2.1), axial stress can be obtained as

,h2
a = (3.25)


The relation between maximum bending moment and the shear force is given by

3* 3
M = F r=2 C 12 (3.26)
2 2 2

The maximum stress due to the bending moment can be derived as

c2 c3 h
beg My 2 3 -*,c (3.27)
Ibending J 4 h
12









It should be noted that we have assumed that only o component of the macro-stress

exists. The ligament stresses in Eq. 3.25 and Eq. 3.27 can be expressed in terms of

macro-stresses referred to the x-y coordinate system as:

a-1 = sin2o (3.28a)

72 = "y cos2 U (3.28b)

T12 = -cay sin 0 cos O (3.28c)

Then the micro-stress ou under combined loading can be derived as


oaal = h) =c sin2 (3.29)



Bending = 3rz-2 =-3 sinOcosO (3.30)


The micro-stress ou can be derived as


a7 = crsin2 3r sinOcosO- =r sin2 03-sinOcosO( (3.31)
Sh) h h h

The maximum stress that can be applied to the cellular medium is obtained by equating

the maximum micro-stress to the strength of the ligament material. The ratio of the

macro-stress and the micro-stress for ligament L1 (refer to Fig. 3.16) can be derived as

-- 1 (3.32)
Ssin03 sin0 cos0 (-
h h)

In the same manner, the ratio of the macro-stress and the micro-stress for ligamnet L2 can

be derived as










cr 1
-=2 1(3.33)
cos2 0 3 sin cos 0
h h

Eq. (3.32) and Eq. (3.33) are used to calculate the maximum stress ,y that ca be applied

to the cellular medium before any ligament failure. Then maximum stress under tensile

loading is a function of the orientation 0 as shown in Figure 3.17. The strength variation

is symmetric about 0=45.


Maximum strength with various crack angles when tensile stress is
applied
0050

-----rel density=0.0073(1200t10)
0 040 rel density=O 0280 (1200120) ...
0 040 --------------------------------------------- rel density=002 (120020)
S rel density=0 0608 (1200t30)
S_ _-- rel density=0 1040 (1200t40)







S000
0 00 0 ------ ----- ------
--1 ---V ---- ^--I--------------- -------------- ----------- -- -- -- Z --



0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle (deg)

Figure 3.17 Variation of maximum tensile stress oy as a function of angle between the
xy coordinate system and the principal material directions

Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Shear Loading

The calculation of shear strength at an arbitrary orientation is very similar to that

described for tensile strength in the preceding section. The transformation of macro-

stresses between the global xy coordinates and the principal material coordinates are

given by:









= r sin 20 (3.34a)

2 = -r- sin 20 (3.34b)

r1 = T cos20 (3.35c)

It may be noted that only shear component of the macro-stress (Txy) is present.

Substituting Eq. (3.34) into the Eq. (3.25) and (3.27) we obtain


aial oi = sin 20 (3.36)



bendg = 3rz = 3r2 cos20 h (3.37)


The micro-stresses can be derived as

c c ~ c 2 c (338
a, = r-sin2- 3r cos20 = T sin c20 3 -cos20 (3.38)
h h h h

The ratio of the macro-shear stress and the micro-stress in ligament L1 can be derived as

rZ 1
-- =(3.39)
sin 20 + 3 cos 20
h h

In the same manner, the ratio of the applied shear stress and the maximum stress in

ligament L2 can be derived as


(3.40)
Z c IcI
sin 20 3 C cos 20 (
h h)

The macroscopic shear strength (maximum shear stress) is plotted as a function of

orientation 0 in Figure 5.3. The maximum stress is symmetric about 0=45.











Maximum strength with various crack angles when shear stress is
applied

0.05
-- rel density=0.0073 (1200t10)
-- rel denslty=0.0280 (1200t20)
0.04 ---------------- ---------------- ---------.--- -- rel density=0.0608 (1200t30) --
rel density=0.1040 (1200t40)

15) 0 03 ----------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------
c-
to
E
= 0.02-------------------------- ---------------------------


0.01 -.-------------- -------------- -------^ .---- V -----.--- -------- -- -- -
0.01




0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle (Deg)

Figure 3.18 Variation of maximum shear stress (shear strength) as a function of angle
between the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions

Mode I Fracture Toughness of Inclined Cracks

The procedures for predicting the fracture toughness of angled cracks (cracks

inclined at an angle to the material principal directions) are very similar to that described

in the preceding sections. The only change is in the material elastic constants which have

to be transformed from the material principal directions to the global xy coordinate

system. The stress fields under Mode I fracture for various crack angles are shown in

Figure 3.19.






















Crack Angle Crack Angle Crack Angle Crack Angle
10 Degree 20 Degree 30 Degree 45 Degree


Figure 3.19 Stress distribution with various crack angles for Mode I fracture

The variation of Mode I fracture toughness with crack orientation is shown in Fig 3.20

for various relative densities. It may be noted that the variation of Mode I fracture


toughness with 0 is very similar to that of tensile strength shown in Fig. 3.17 with the


results being symmetric about 0=45.

Fracture Toughness in Various Angles for Mode I
2.0E+ -6
--- rel density = 0.0280 (1200t20)
-- rel density= 0.1 040 (1200t40)
--rel density= 0.0608 (1200t30)
1.E+ 6 ----- -------- ------- ---- ------ -- rel density= 0.0073 (1200tl 0)

a

2 1 .2E+G6 -.---------,------- ----------- -------- --------- ---------,- --------I-,--------- ---------
B .2E+C5 ------ ---


y E+ 5 -- "* -- -- -------- ------------- --- --------.------------------



0:3 -------------------

4nFE+05 -----------------------------------------------------

O.OE-CO I I I I I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (Deg)


Figure 3.20 Mode I fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the
principal material direction


























Crack Angle Crack Angle Crack Angle Crack Angle
10 Degree 20 Degree 30 Degree 45 Degree


Figure 3.21 Stress distribution for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture


The stress filed for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture is shown in Figure 3.21.


The variation of Mode II fracture toughness is shown in Figure 3.22. Again one can note


the similarities in the variation of Kic and shear strength presented in Fig. 3.18




Fracture Toughness in Various Angles for Mode II
1 2E+06
-*- rel density= 0.0280 (1200120)
--reldensity= 0.1040 ;i2n1tOi
1.0E+06 --rel density= 0.0073 ;200 0 .. ...
E --rel density= 0.0508 :200I3131i








0E05 ----------------------
OE-05 --- -- -

5,BOE+05 ------- ---------------- ^. -------,-------- --------- --------I -------- I --------j






-- -- --- -- ----- ---
S2. OE+*05 --------------------------- --------. --------.-----.-- ^--- --- ^- ----. ^


0 OE*00 ~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
/Trie '.Le'.


Figure 3.22 Mode II fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the
principal material direction














CHAPTER 4
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CARBON FOAM

Material Properties of Carbon Foam

From the SEM image of low-density carbon foam shown in Figure 1.1, one can

note that the cells are irregularly sized and spaced. The cell size is measured to be in the

range of 1 to 2 mm. Mechanical properties of the carbon foam as reported by Touchstone

Research Laboratory, Inc., manufacturers of the foam, are shown in Table 4.1. The

solidity (relative density) is determined by dividing, p', density of the foam, by ps, the

density of solid carbon that make the struts or the cell walls. The densities of various

forms of carbon are given in Table 4.2. The solidity of the carbon foam used in the

present study was based on the value of solid density ps = 2,250 kg/m3, and the solidity is

determined as 0.1312.

Table 4.1 Mechanical properties of carbon foam

Elastic Modulus (E*) 123.79 MPa
Tensile strength (or) 3.5805 MPa
Density (p*) 295.3 kg/m3

Table 4.2 Densities of various forms of carbon

Diamond (C Wt. %100) 3,510 kg/m3
Graphite carbon fiber (C Wt. %100) 2,250 kg/m3
Zoltec Pane 30MF carbon fiber (C Wt. % 99.5) 1,750 kg/m3

Mode I Fracture Toughness Test (4-Pt. Bending Tests)

There are several methods available for measuring the fracture toughness of

cellular materials. Compact tension test (CT), Single edge notched bend test (SENB) and









Double edge notched tension test (DENT) performed by Fowlkes [6] are some of the tests

that are suitable for foam materials. In the present study, we chose the single edge

notched four-point bend specimens for measuring the fracture toughness of carbon foams.

It was thought that the four-point bending test would yield more accurate and repeatable

results as the crack is in a region under constant bending moment and no transverse shear

force. Hence small offset of the loading point with respect to the crack location will not

significantly affect the results.

The specimen dimensions are depicted in Figure 4.1. The height of the specimen

was about 50 mm and the crack length was about 25 mm. Individual specimen

dimensions are given in Table 4.3. A notch was cut using a diamond saw, and then a

razor blade was used to sharpen the crack tip. The crack length was the distance of the

crack tip from the bottom surface edge of the beam. The tests were conducted under

displacement control in a material testing machine at the rate of 0.5 mm/min (Figure 4.2).

Load-deflection diagrams are given in Figure 4.3. It may be noted from the curves that

the crack propagated instantaneously and the specimens failed in a brittle manner. The

fracture loads for various specimens are listed in Table 4.3. The Mode I fracture

toughness was calculated from the load at failure using the following formula [3]:

a a3 a41
KI = o fa 1.12-1.39-+7.3 2-13 3 +14 (4.1)


where the maximum bending stress o7 in the uncracked beam is determined by


MW
My 2 6M (4.2)
o0- (4.2)
I w3 Bw2
B-
12








In Eq. 4.2, M is the constant bending moment in the central region, h is the height of the

specimen and B is the width. The bending moment Mis given by M=Pd/2, where dis

distance between one of the top loading points and the corresponding bottom support as

shown in Figure 4.2. The results for fracture toughness are listed in Table 4.3. For the

carbon foam samples tested the average Mode I fracture toughness is found to be 0.1337

MPa m1/2 with a standard deviation of 0.011 MPa m1/2 (about 8%).

P P
---- d ---

-0.0733m


h=0.0506m



0.2032m a B=0.0254m
SSimple supports

Figure 4.1 SENB specimen geometry

Table 4.3 Fracture toughness with specimen properties of carbon foam

Speci Span L Height h Width B Crack Density Fracture KI,
men (m) (m) (m) length a (Kg/m3) Load (MPa
(m) (N) m12)
IF06 0.2284 0.0512 0.0255 0.0264 284 100.9 0.1315
IF07 0.2291 0.0500 0.0255 0.0252 301 112.0 0.1458
IF09 0.2290 0.0507 0.0255 0.0259 292 92.54 0.1201
IF10 0.2290 0.0506 0.0256 0.0261 297 105.8 0.1372








37






























Figure 4.2 Four-point bending test setup on a material testing machine





Load-displacement for 4-point bending tests

120 ------------- --------
IF06 (4pt. Bending)
IF07 (4pt. Bending)
100 -- -- IF09 (4pt. Bending) ---
IF10 (4pt. Bending)


80- --



60 --







20




O.OE+00 1.OE-04 2.OE-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-04 6.0E-04

Displacement (m)


Figure 4.3 Load-displacement curves of four-point bending tests on carbon foam









Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Toughness

Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Solid Model

The first step in simulating the crack propagation in carbon foam is to idealize the

microstructure of the foam. The unit-cell is assumed as a perfect cube of side c in Figure

4.4. The foam model is created by placing a spherical void (bubble) at the center of the

cube. By varying the radius of the bubble R, foams in various solidity can be modeled. A

relation between the solidity and the R/c ratio can be derived in Appendix A:

p 4+7 8 fR3 R)2
= +-z -37 (4.3)
p, 4 3 a) a

















Figure 4.4 Unit cell of solid model

The average dimension of the unit-cell was obtained from the SEM images of the

cross section of carbon foam. Then, the radius of the spherical void can be determined

from the solidity of the foam. The Pro/Engineering, modeling application, was used to

model the unit-cell and calculate the solid volume. In the present study, the unit-cell

dimension c is taken as 1.8 mm and the solidity as 0.1312.









The strength of the solid carbon in the foam can be easily estimated from the

tensile strength of the carbon foam, which is measured experimentally. The relation

between the foam tensile strength and the solid carbon strength is given by

2
=--- (4.4)
Amn

where Amin is the minimum cross sectional area of the struts in the carbon foam normal to

the principal material axis. It should be noted that the tensile strength of the foam is for a

direction parallel to one of the principal material axes. The area Amin was obtained from

the modeling software and it was equal to = 7.146 x 108 mm2. Substituting the

dimensions of the unit.cell and the measured carbon foam tensile strength, the strength of

solid carbon was estimated as 162 Mpa. The procedure for determining the Young's

modulus and tensile strength of the solid carbon is as follows.

Micromechanics Analysis for Young's Modulus and Shear Modulus

The Young's modulus Es of solid carbon was estimated by a trial and error

method. An initial value for Es is assumed and the elastic constants of the carbon foam

are determined by using the micromechanical methods developed by Sankar et al. [4].

Then the value of Es can be scaled to match the micromechanical results for E* to the

experimentally measured E*. The unit-cell was modeled by using 4-noded tetrahedral

solid elements. Due to symmetry only a portion of the unit-cell was modeled and periodic

boundary conditions were imposed such that only one of the macro-strains is non zero [4].

We assume a value for Es and vs, and the forces required to deform the unit cell are

calculated from the nodal reactions. From the forces the macro-stresses can be computed.

For example










(4.5)


cx 2 2
C C


where EFx represents the sum of all nodal forces on a face normal to the x axis. Similar

EFx is the sum of all the nodal forces Fy on the face normal to the y axis.

The carbon foam is assumed as an orthotropic material and the macro-stresses and

strains are substituted in the constitutive relation to obtain the compliance coefficients S,.

From the S matrix the elastic constants can be estimated using the following relations:


S,, S12 S12 x
= S2 S,, S12

y S12 S12 S,, fo
1z 12 12 11 7



Ex E E6
"11 "12 12
xy F = S12 11 S121
E E E. L s s
V V 12 12 l11

Ex Ey E

The FE model contained approximately 100,000 solid tetrahedral elements. A

displacement uy=l was applied to the top surface of a unit cell (Figure 4.5). The contour

plot of maximum principal stresses is depicted in Figure 4.5.







41



t Max. Principal
y = 0.01 (Ave. crit.: 75%)
43.600e+10
43.300e+10
43.0OOe+10
42.700e+10
42.399e410
42.D99e+10
41.799e+10
+1.498e+10
41.198e+10
+ 8.978e+09
Ux=O Ux=O 45.975e+9
X '--42.973e+09
=..- -3.941e+07


zJ


Figure 4.5 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress
distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction


For the sake of simplicity no attempt was made to estimate the Poisson's ratio Vs


using the micro-mechanical methods and it was assumed to be equal to 0.17 based on a


previous analysis. Based on the foam properties given in Table 4.1 and the unit-cell size c


of 1.8mm, the Young's modulus of solid carbon E, was estimated to be 2.6 GPa. Using


this value for Es the Young's modulus of carbon foams of various solidities was


calculated using the FE model and they are shown in Figure 4.7.


C
Ux c/4 n pal






yUy = J4"




z Ux/4 =c


Figure 4.6 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress
distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction


a~n~







42



The shear modulus was also calculated using the micromechanics analysis developed by


Marrey and Sankar [4]. The variation of shear modulus as function of solidity is shown in


Figure 4.8.

Elasiic Modulus of carbon foam for a beam model and a solid model
250- (Es = 2.6 GPa)


Ca
a-




O
1u 201
E



o
0L
10'


o 5
. 5c


0 *
0 .) ....................... .......... .......... .... ....... ....... .. ..........






,'/ Experimental Pesult
0 .................. .........---------- E* = 124 MPa
Beam model ,

0 --- Solid Model -----i-- ----- ----------.......----.



0


u U.U3 U. IU U. .1 U.2zU U.5
Relative Density


Figure 4.7 Elastic modulus E* as a function of relative density (solidity) for E,

Shear modulus G* of foam models using beam elements and solid
elements (Es = 2.6GPa)


3.0E+07


2 5E+07


2 0E+07


1 5E+07-


1 OE+07


5 E+06


U.Ut+UU -
0.00


0.10 0.15
Relative Density


= 2.6 GPa.


Figure 4.8 Shear modulus G* as a function of relative density (solidity) for E, = 2.6 GPa.


-/




Solid Element
y= 1 82E+096-61




-

- - --- -- -- -----------
--------------- --------------- -------- ------, --. < -------- --------------


,.,-- Beam Element
.--' y = 2.78E+08 20


c









Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Beam Model

In addition to the solid model described in the preceding section a simple lattice

model was also attempted. In this model the foam is assumed to be made up of struts

arranged in a cubic lattice pattern. The length of the strut was equal to the unit-cell

dimension c in Figure 4.9. The struts were assumed to be uniform square cross section

beam and their dimensions were determined from the relative density of the foam.















Figure 4.9 Unit cell of beam model

From the Eq. (2.11), the wall thickness h is determined to be 0.4086 mm for a

solidity of 0.1312 and c = 1.8 mm. Since this beam model is composed as a simplest

shape, FE methods are not necessary to determine the relation between the solid

properties and foam properties. Analytical expressions for various elastic properties have

been derived earlier section. Based on the Eq. (2.1) and Eq. (2.4), the Young's modulus

Es and the strength ous are found to be 2.4 MPa and 69.5 MPa, respectively. The variation

of E* and G* with the solidity for the beam model are shown, respectively, in Figures 4.7

and 4.8.









Fracture Toughness Estimation of the Solid Model

In this section, we describe a finite element based micromechanics model to

estimate the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. The crack is assumed to be parallel to

one of the principal material axes. The crack is created by breaking the ligaments of the

unit cell (Figure 4.10). To determine the fracture toughness, a small region of the foam

around the crack tip is modeled using finite elements. Only Mode I fracture is considered

in the present study. The boundary of the cellular solid is subjected to displacement

boundary conditions (ux and uy) corresponding to a unit KI., i.e., KI =1. The displacement

components in the vicinity of a crack tip in an orthotropic solid can be found in Appendix

B.

The maximum tensile stress in the unit-cells corresponding to unit stress intensity

factor is calculated from the FE model. In the case of three-dimensional solid model the

maximum stress is obtained as an output of the FE program. From the result the value of

KI that will cause rupture of the strut is estimated, which then is taken as the fracture

toughness of the cellular solid.

The solid model used 42 cells with 135,000 solid tetrahedral elements as shown in

Figure 4-10. The maximum principal stress distribution is shown in Figure 4.10. When

unit KI was applied to the crack tip, maximum principal stress was found equal to 1,463

Pa. Then the fracture toughness is obtained from the strength of the solid carbon

(o-, = 0.162 MPa) as


KIc =- 162x106 = .11MPa[m (4.12)
max 1463









Comparing Eq. (4-12) with the results of fracture toughness experiments (Table 4.3), the

difference is about 16%. One reason for the difference could be the small number of

cells used in the FE simulation. The FE model was used to study the variation of fracture

toughness with relative density and the resulting relationship is shown in Figure 4.11.

Gibson and Ashby [2] provide analytical results for fracture toughness for open-cell foam

as given below:


KC =-0.65 (4.13)


where ,us is the tensile strength of the solid. Using the above formula the fracture

toughness for the carbon foam considered in this study can be obtained as 0.162 MPa?/m.

The variation of KI, according to Eq. (4-13) is presented in Figure 4.11.


At. K- -













Solid Model Beam Model

Figure 4.10 Maximum principal stress distribution of solid and beam models for a unit KI
at the crack tip

Fracture Toughness of the Beam Model

The procedure for simulating fracture using the beam model is the same as that

for the FE solid model. The beam model of carbon foam (Figure 4.10) consisted of







46


10,000 cells using approximately 20,000 beam elements. When using the beam model,

the rotational degree of freedom at each node of the beam element on the boundary of the

solid is left as unknown and no couples are applied at these nodes. The maximum

principal stress distribution in the beam model for KI=1 is shown in Figure 4.10. The

maximum principal stress for a unit KI was found to be equal to 506 Pa. Therefore, the

fracture toughness can be estimated as


KI 69106 0.137MPa m (4.14)
o-max 506

The difference between the experimental result and that from the beam model is only 3%.

The beam model was also used to study the variation of fracture toughness with the

solidity and it is presented in Figure 4.11.


Fracture toughness with various relative density
3.0E+05 -


2.5E+05 ----------------------- ----------------
Beam model
E pibson and Ashby (1988) /Kc = 1.28x10 (p*0p)1.
0 Kic = 3.39X106 (p, p )15o
2 .0+- - - -,- - ,-- -y --, t- *,' ,* -
Experimental Result ,.-
SStd deviation = 11,194 .:- r'
1.5E+05 m---- e a R--------- s. ------ .---- -- -- .


S1.0E+405 -- Solid Model
S Kic =1.43x10(p*/p)- 7.86x104
.2

5.0E4104


O.OE+00 ---- -----------
0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21
Relative density (p*/p)


Figure 4.11 Variation of fracture toughness of carbon foam with relative density














CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Elastic Constants of Open-cell Foam

Young's modulus for carbon foam in the principal material direction is estimated

to be 2.09 GPa from the FE micro-mechanics and 2.07 GPa based on analytical solutions.

Shear modulus is predicted as 10.245 MPa from FE analysis and 10.350 MPa from

analytical solution. Difference between analytical and numerical results is 0.96% for

elastic modulus and 1.01% for shear modulus. For open-cell foam model, analytical

solutions and FE solutions for elastic constants show good agreement.

Numerical Analysis of Fracture Toughness

A Finite Element method based micro-mechanics method was developed to

predict the fracture toughness of cellular materials. A portion of material around the crack

tip was modeled using finite elements. Boundary displacements calculated using

orthotropic fracture mechanics were applied to the FE model. The stress intensity factor

corresponding to the failure of the crack tip strut was taken as the fracture toughness of

the cellular medium. It has been found that the fracture toughness is a strong function of

relative density of the foam, however it also depends on the strut dimensions and spacing.

Based on the FE results an analytical model was developed to predict the fracture

toughness. A simple empirical formula has been derived for the effective length ahead of

the crack tip that contributes to the crack tip ligament forces and bending moment. For

the type of cellular medium considered in this study the fracture toughness can be









expressed in the form of power law of the type where K is fracture toughness and R is

relative density. The constants a and b for Mode I and Mode II are presented in Table 5.1

Table 5.1 Constants of fracture toughness curves

Constant length of cell edge with Constant wall thickness with
various wall thickness various length of cell edge
A b a b
Mode I 1.961x107 1.045 7.82x106 0.788
Mode II 6.95x106 1.32 2.76x106 1.070

The effective length I ahead of the crack-tip is expresses as l=ac. The constant a

was evaluated analytically using the results for fracture toughness obtained using the FE

micro-mechanics models. It has been found that a depends only on relative density and

is independent of cell length or strut cross sectional dimensions.

Fracture Toughness with an Angle Crack

Variation of strength under combined loading for open-cell foams was evaluated

analytically. The results were used to determine the tensile and shear strength when the

loads are applied at an angle to the principal material directions. FE micro-mechanics

simulations were performed for inclined cracks. Mode I fracture toughness is maximum

at 0 and Mode II fracture toughness is maximum at 450 to the principal material direction.

Fracture Toughness of Carbon Foam

Four point bend tests were performed on SENB specimens made of carbon foam,

and their Mode I fracture toughness was measured. In addition to the experimental

approach, a finite element based micromechanics has been developed to predict the

fracture toughness. Two micro-mechanical models were developed to simulate Mode I

fracture. Both models assumed a cube as the unit-cell of the foam. In the first model solid

finite elements were used to model the foam. The measured density of the carbon foam









was used in determining the void size in the micromechanical model. Young's modulus

and tensile strength of the solid carbon were also determined from the corresponding

values of the carbon foam measured experimentally. A small region surrounding the

crack tip was modeled using finite elements. The crack was assumed parallel to one of

the principal material directions. Boundary displacements were calculated using linear

elastic fracture mechanics for orthotropic materials. From the FE simulation the stress

intensity factor KI that will cause the failure of the crack-tip elements was determined,

and this was taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular material shown in Table 5.2.

The agreement between the test results and numerical results are good indicating micro-

mechanics can be a powerful tool in predicting the fracture behavior of foams and other

cellular solids.

Table 5.2 Results of fracture toughness

Kic ( MPa m1/2) % Difference from Experiment
Beam Model 0.137 3
Solid Model 0.110 17
Gibson & Ashby 0.162 21
Experimental 0.132














APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE SOLIDITY OF SOLID MODEL


Volume of Top porlion.VB


Sphere Volume inside of a cube


Volume, VA


Figure A. 1 Unit cell of solid model

To estimate the solidity of porous medium in the solid model, the volume of the pore

(void) left inside the unit-cell needs to determined. In order to do that, the volume of top

potion VB in Fig. Al is subtracted from entire sphere volume of a void. The volume VA

is obtained as


(A.1)


V = R3
3


where Y is solid angle. The solid angle can be obtained as follows:


dA
VR=2


dA = 2ir drcosO

2irrdrcosO 2irrhdr
h +r2 (h2 +r2)


dA
h +r2


(A.2)


(A.3)


(A.4)









Integrating both sides,

b b = 2 ;irrhdr
o o (h +r2)(


V=: 2zh I- (A.6)
1h R

By substitute Eq. (A6) into Eq. (Al), VA is obtained as follows;


V = R3 = 2hR3 I--- 2rR [R-h] (A.7)
3 3 h R_ 3

The volume of the top portion VB can be obtained by subtracting the volume of the cone

from VA

2iR 1 2ziR 3 1 3
VB, = [R-h]--Ib 2z-R2h+-lh3 (A.8)
[3 3 3 3

The volume of the pore left inside the unit-cell is derived as Vc,

47rR3 47rR3 3 2 a3
V, = 6VB = 4-rR3 +3rR2Ra--- (A.9)
3 3 4

Therefore, the solidity can be obtained from its definition as:

p* a3 -V V 1_ 4zR3 1
-1-= -=1 3 4IR 3+3R2a--a3] (A.10)
p a a3 a 3 4

For open cell model, the equation is only valid in the range where R is the radius of the

sphere in Fig. Al. After simplifying the equation, the solidity can be expressed in terms

of the ratio R/a in the form of a polynomial:

p 4+7T 8 CR}3 R}2
p- 4+ +-(R- -3R (A.11)
p, 4 3 \a) a













APPENDIX B
CRACK TIP DISPLACEMENT FIELDS FOR ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL

The open-cell foam is considered as a homogeneous orthotropic material. The principal

material directions are parallel to the 1 and 2 axes. Assuming the Poisson's ratio is

negligible, the stress-stain relations in the 1-2 plane are given in the matrix form below.

1 0 0
Er
s \=[S[= a (B. 1)
2'12 1 Z'12
*G *


When the cellular medium is oriented at an angle to the principal material axes, the

stress-stain relation can be transformed from the 1-2 plane to the x-y plane by using

transformation matrix [7]. The angle 0 is the angle the 1 direction makes with the x axis.

cos20 sin20 2sin0cos0
[T] sin2 0 cos2 -2sin0cos0 (B.2)
-sin0cosO sin0cosO cos2 sin2 0



7y = [T R 2 (B.3)


By applying the transformation, the compliance matrix in the x-y coordinates is written

as

Ex 7x S11 S12 S16 ox
E-Y = [T [S] [T] a, = S12 S22 S26 a, (B.4)
sy xy S16 S26 S66 xy









The components of the matrix can be obtained in terms of compliance terms referred to

the 1-2 axes as follows:

S11 = Si, cos4 0 + (2S1, + a ) sin2 cos2 + S22 sin4 0 (B.5a)

S12 = S12 (sin4 0 +cos4 0) + (S,, + S22 S )sin2 Ocos2 0 (B.5b)

S22 = Si, sin4 + (2S2 + S66) sin2 Ocos2 + S2 cos4 0 (B.5c)

S16 = (2S, -2S12 -S66)sincos3 -(2S22 -2S12 -S66)sin3 cos9 (B.5d)

S16 = (2S, 2S2 -S66) Sin3 cos (2S22 2S12 -S66)sin cos3 0 (B.5e)

S11 = 2(2S,, + 2S22 4S2 -S66) sin2 cos2 + S~ (sin4 0+ cos4 ) (B.5f)

The characteristic equation of the orthotropic material is given by

Sllu4 22S +(2S12 + S66)2 2S2601 + S22 = 0 (B.6)

where imaginary roots of the characteristic equation are described as (j = 1, 2, 3, 4).

The constant (j = 1, 2) can be obtained by using the equation below. The roots and are

unequal roots with a positive conjugate value.

S, = //, = a + ip, s, = P/2 = a, + i2

The constants, (j = 1, 2) are relates to constants s as shown below.

2 2
P1 = a11s1 +a12 -a16s 2 a11s2 + a12 -a16s2

2 2
al2s, +a22 -a26s a12s2 +a22 -a26s2
ql =- 2 =
S1 S2

Stress components of polar and rectangular coordinates at a crack are shown in Figure

B.1. The angle 0 is taken positive in the counterclockwise direction. The distance r is

taken from the crack tip at the point O.






54










I I NE RCK
I I







Figure B. 1 Polar coordinate oriented from crack tip

The displacement components for Mode I and Mode II can be defined as

The displacement filed near the crack tip for Mode I:


u. = K 2r Re (o sp-(Cos2+ssOf s 2iI (COS+s sin )1/
(B.7)

UY = KI 2r Re I [sq2(cos +s2 sinO) /2-s2q,(cos0+s, sin )y/2
Z sI s 2


The displacement filed near the crack tip for Mode II:

K 2r -p o sin y/2 p, (cos 0 + s, sin Of2
S=Re [2(o0+
S(B.8)
I i













Z sI -2
L-----------------_--------------J























2Z- Sr \ 2 l i-i















REFERENCES


1. Fowlkes, Charles W., "Fracture Toughness Tests of a Rigid Polyurethane Foam,"
International Journal ofFracture, Volume 10, No. 1, March 1974, pp. 99-108.

2. Gibson, L.J. and Ashby, M.F., Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Second
Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1988.

3. Hellan, K., Introduction to Fracture Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1984, p. 244.

4. Marrey, Ramesh V. and Sankar, Bhavani V., "Micromechanical Models for
Textile Structural Composites," NASA contractor report, 198229, October 1995.

5. Sih, G.C. and Liebowitz, H., "Mathematical Theories of Brittle Fracture,"
Fracture-An Advanced Treatise, Volume 2, Liebowitz, H., Ed., Academic Press,
New York, 1968, pp. 67-190.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Sukjoo Choi was born in Seoul, Korea, on 1972. He received his Bachelor of

Science degree in aerospace engineering in 1997 from the University of Minnesota at

Minneapolis. He worked as a mechanical engineer in control surfaces and mechanics at

the Cirrus Design, Corp., Duluth, Minnesota from 1997 to 1998. In 1998, he joined the

military in Korea and served until 1998. In 2000, he was admitted to the graduate

program in the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics & Engineering Science

at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Sukjoo Choi will be pursuing his

doctoral studies in the filed of composite materials and structures in the Department of

Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at the University of Florida.

PAGE 1

A MICROMECHANICS METHOD TO PREDICT THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CELLULAR MATERIALS By SUKJOO CHOI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2002

PAGE 2

Copyright 2002 by Sukjoo Choi

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Sunggu Choi and Jinsil Yang

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to Dr. Bhavani V. Sankar for providing me the opportunity to complete my M.S. studies under his exceptional guidance and financial support. He is not only my academic advisor but also a great influence in my life. Throughout this research, I have greatly appreciated his consistent encouragement, patience and positive attitude. Also, I would like to thank to Dr. Chen-Chi Hsu, graduate coordinator, for his advice. Because of great help and advice, studying here was a delightful experience. Many thanks should go to my colleagues, Donald Myers, Nicoleta Apetre and Huadong Zhu. Moreover, I would like to thank my school seniors, Jongyoon Ok, Chungsoo Ha and Kilsoo Mok, who provided me invaluable academic feedback, encouragement and companionship. I would like to thank my girlfriend, Sungshin Kang, who allowed me to devote myself to studying. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my parents for continuous support and love. I am also thankful to God for giving me the opportunity to extend my education at the University of Florida. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 2 ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE FOAM ......................................................................4 Formulation of Micro-Mechanics Properties ..................................................................4 Finite Element Verification of Analytical Models ..........................................................7 3 FINITE ELEMENT METHODS OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS ...............................11 Boundary Displacement at a Crack Tip ........................................................................11 Model Setup ..................................................................................................................12 Convergence Analysis for Mode I ................................................................................13 Mode I Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam ..........................................................17 Mode II Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam .........................................................19 Fracture Toughness of Mixed Mode on Open Cell Foam ............................................20 Formulation of Fracture Toughness for Mode I and Mode II .......................................22 Analytical Model for Mode I Fracture Toughness ...................................................22 Analytical Model for Mode II Fracture Toughness ..................................................25 Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness with Angled Crack ......................................26 Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Tensile Loading ..................................27 Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Shear Loading .....................................29 Mode I Fracture Toughness of Inclined Cracks ........................................................31 4 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CARBON FOAM .......................................................34 Material Properties of Carbon Foam .............................................................................34 Mode I Fracture Toughness Test (4-Pt. Bending Tests) ...............................................34 Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Toughness ...........................................................38 v

PAGE 6

Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Solid Model .................................................................38 Micromechanics Analysis for Youngs Modulus and Shear Modulus .....................39 Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Beam Model ................................................................43 Fracture Toughness Estimation of the Solid Model .................................................44 Fracture Toughness of the Beam Model ...................................................................45 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .....................................................................................47 Elastic Constants of Open-cell Foam ............................................................................47 Numerical Analysis of Fracture Toughness ..................................................................47 Fracture Toughness with an Angle Crack .....................................................................48 Fracture Toughness of Carbon Foam ............................................................................48 APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE SOLIDITY OF SOLID MODEL ..50 B CRACK TIP DISPLACEMENT FIELDS FOR ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL ..........52 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................55 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................56 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1.1 Material properties of the Zoltex carbon fiber.............................................................3 3.1 Foam model properties for convergence analysis......................................................13 4.1 Mechanical properties of carbon foam.......................................................................34 4.2 Densities of various forms of carbon..........................................................................34 4.3 Fracture toughness with specimen properties of carbon foam....................................36 5.1 Constants of fracture toughness curves......................................................................48 5.2 Results of fracture toughness.....................................................................................49 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1.1 SEM images of low (left) and high (right) density carbon foam.................................2 1.2 The packing of polyhedra to fill space: tetrakaidecahedra..........................................2 1.3 Open rectangular cell model........................................................................................3 2.1 Applied stress for a open-cell foam.............................................................................4 2.2 Deformed shape of struts on open-cell foam...............................................................5 2.3 Stress distribution of tensile loading on open-cell foam..............................................8 2.4 Shear applied on open-cell foam..................................................................................9 2.5 Stress distribution of shear loading on open-cell foam................................................9 3.1 Open-cell foam model with a crack...........................................................................12 3.2 Variation of fracture toughness with various model sizes.........................................14 3.3 Axial stress variation from a crack tip for various model sizes.................................15 3.4 Log-log plot of axial stress along a crack tip for various model sizes.......................16 3.5 Fracture toughness in various crack lengths..............................................................17 3.6 Stress distribution of Mode I fracture (c=200 m, h=20 m)...................................18 3.8 Stress distribution of Mode II fracture (c=200m,h=20m).....................................19 3.9 Numerical result of fracture toughness for Mode II..................................................20 3.10 Stress distribution on the mixed mode fracture (c=m, h=20m).....................21 3.11 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant length of cell edges............................21 3.12 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant cell wall thickness..............................22 viii

PAGE 9

3.13 Crack tip forces and moments in the actual foam and corresponding crack tip stresses in the idealized homogeneous continuum..................................................22 3.14 Variation of (l/c) with relative density for Mode I...............................................25 3.15 Variation of ( l/c) with relative density for Mode II..............................................26 3.16 Forces in a ligament under combined loading..........................................................27 3.17 Variation of maximum tensile stress y as a function of angle between the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions..........................................29 3.18 Variation of maximum shear stress (shear strength) as a function of angle between the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions...............................31 3.19 Stress distribution with various crack angles for Mode I fracture...........................32 3.20 Mode I fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal material direction.....................................................................................................32 3.21 Stress distribution for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture......................33 3.22 Mode II fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal material direction.....................................................................................................33 4.1 SENB specimen geometry.........................................................................................36 4.2 Four-point bending test setup on a material testing machine....................................37 4.3 Load-displacement curves of four-point bending tests on carbon foam....................37 4.4 Unit cell of solid model..............................................................................................38 4.5 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction..................................41 4.6 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction..................................41 4.7 Elastic modulus E as a function of relative density (solidity) for E s = 2.6 GPa.......42 4.8 Shear modulus G as a function of relative density (solidity) for E s = 2.6 GPa........42 4.9 Unit cell of beam model..............................................................................................43 ix

PAGE 10

4.10 Maximum principal stress distribution of solid and beam models for a unit K I at the crack tip....................................................................................................................45 4.11 Variation of fracture toughness of carbon foam with relative density.....................46 A.1 Unit cell of solid model..............................................................................................50 B.1 Polar coordinate oriented from crack tip...................................................................54 x

PAGE 11

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science A MICROMECHANICS METHOD TO PREDICT THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CELLULAR MATERIALS By Sukjoo Choi December 2002 Chairman: Dr. Bhavani V. Sankar Major Department: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Cellular materials, such as carbon foam, are ideal core materials for sandwich composites in many applications because of their thermal resistance, low density, impact damage tolerance and cost effectiveness. Moreover, carbon foam is a good material for heat exchangers and thermal protection systems. The Mode I, Mode II and mixed mode fracture toughness of a cellular medium is predicted by simulating the crack propagation using a finite element model. For the sake of simplicity, the cellular medium is considered as a rectangular open cell structure, and the struts are assumed to be beams of square cross section. On the macro-scale the cellular solid is considered as an orthotropic material. A crack parallel to one of the principal material directions is assumed to exist in the solid and a small region surrounding the crack tip is modeled using beam finite elements. Displacements are imposed on the boundary of the region such that the crack tip is subjected to a given stress intensity factor for orthotropic materials. The struts are assumed to fail in a brittle xi

PAGE 12

manner when the maximum tensile stress becomes equal to the strength of the strut material, and the corresponding stress intensity factor is taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular medium. Based on the finite element results a semi-empirical formula is also derived to predict the Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness of cellular solids as a function of relative density. Results are also presented for mixed mode fracture, and a simple mixed mode fracture criterion is derived for cellular solids. It is found that the fracture toughness is a strong function of the relative density, but the cell size also has a significant effect. Cracks inclined to the principal material directions were also considered, and the Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness was calculated as a function of the crack inclination angle. Fracture toughness of carbon foam was estimated by experimental analysis and also finite element method. Mode I fracture toughness of open cell carbon foam was measured using single edge notched four-point bend specimens. A micromechanical model was developed assuming a rectangular prism as the unit-cell. The cell walls were modeled using three-dimensional solid element. Aforementioned finite element micromechanical analysis was performed to predict the fracture. The micromechanical simulations were used to study the variation of fracture toughness as a function of relative density of the foam. The good agreement between the finite element and experimental results for fracture toughness indicates that micro-mechanics can be an effective tool to study crack propagation in cellular solids. xii

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Cellular materials are made up of a net work of beam or plate structures leaving an open space or cell in between. Cellular materials, e.g., carbon and polymeric foams, offer several advantages of thermal resistance, durability, low density, impact damage tolerance and cost effectiveness. They have great potential as core materials for sandwich construction, heat exchangers and thermal protection systems in the military and commercial aerospace structures. An excellent treatise on the structure and properties of cellular solids has been written by Gibson and Ashby [1]. While analytical methods of thermal and mechanical properties of carbon foam are well documented, research on fracture behavior of various foams is still in its infancy. Gibson and Ashby [1] have presented approximate formulas for Mode I fracture toughness of cellular solids in terms of their relative density and tensile strength. These are limited to cracks parallel to the principal material direction. Also, fracture behavior under mixed mode was not studied. A SEM was used to capture the images of carbon foam as shown in Figure 1.1. In microscopic observation, the open-cell foams are irregularly sized and spaced. For high-density carbon foam (300 to 800 kg/m 3 ), the length of cell edges is in the range of 1,000 m to 2,000 m. For low-density carbon foam (160 to 300 kg/m 3 ), the cell length is in the range of 200 m to 600 m. 1

PAGE 14

2 Figure 1.1 SEM images of low (left) and high (right) density carbon foam The geometry of the foam is categorized by tetrakaidecahedra cells containing 14 faces, 36 edges and 24 vertices as depicted in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 The packing of polyhedra to fill space: tetrakaidecahedra In this study, finite element models are used to predict the fracture toughness of some cellular media under mixed mode conditions. Based on the microscopic observation of carbon foam in Figure 1.1, both cracks parallel to principal material direction and angled crack are considered. For the sake of simplicity, the cellular medium is considered as a rectangular open cell structure, and the struts are assumed to be beams of square cross section of a side h as shown in Figure 1.3.

PAGE 15

3 Figure 1.3 Open rectangular cell model On the macro-scale level, the cellular solid is considered as an orthotropic material. A crack parallel to one of the principal material directions is assumed to exist in the solid and a small region surrounding the crack tip is modeled using beam finite elements. For carbon foam, material properties of cellular structure are referred from pure carbon. Therefore, the Zoltex Panes 30MF High Purity Hilled carbon fiber (Table 1.1) is chosen because of the high percentage of carbon component weight (99.5%). Table 1.1 Material properties of the Zoltex carbon fiber Density 1750 kg/m 3 Modulus of Elasticity 207 Gpa Poisson Ratio 0.17 Ultimate Tensile Strength 3600 Mpa

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF THE FOAM In order to estimate the Youngs modulus E 1 in the principal material direction we subject the foam to a uniform macro-stress in the 1 direction (see Figure 2-1) where superscript of describes the macromechanics properties and the subscript of s is micromechanics properties. Formulation of Micro-Mechanics Properties The total tensile force acting on a strut is given by, where c is the length of the unit cell. The micro-stress (actual stress) in the strut can be derived as *2cF 2*22hchFs (2.1) Figure 2.1 Applied stress for a open-cell foam 4

PAGE 17

5 where h is the cross sectional dimension of the square strut. It should be noted that both the macro-strain and micro-strain are assumed to be equal. The micro-strain is given by sssE (2.2) Substituting for s from Eq. (2.1) into Eq. (2.2) we obtain *2*22*2sssssEhcEhcE (2.3) where E s is elastic modulus of the strut material. The Youngs modulus of the foam can be obtained from Eq. (2.3) as ssEchEhcE22*2**** (2.4) Figure 2.2 Deformed shape of struts on open-cell foam To calculate the shear modulus G 12 the unit-cell is subjected to a state of uniform shear as shown in Figure 2.2. The deformed shape of the struts is shown in thin lines. Due to anti-symmetry the curvature of the deformed beam at the center of the strut must be

PAGE 18

6 equal to zero and hence the bending moment at the center of the strut must also be equal to zero [2]. This fact can be used to find a relation between F and M as M=Fc/2. Now half-of the strut, either OA or OB, can be considered as a cantilever beam subjected to a tip force F. The transverse deflection is given by IEcFs323 (2.5) where I, the moment of inertia of the strut cross section is given by 124hI The macroscopic shear stress is related to the shear force F as 2*cF (2.6) The macroscopic shear strain can be calculated as cc 422 (2.7) The shear modulus of the foam is defined as the ratio of the macroscopic shear stress *12G and macro-shear strain Then from Eq. (2.6) and Eq. (2.7) we obtain 44***1221chEGs (2.8) From the expressions for and G a relationship between the shear modulus and the Youngs modulus can be derived as *1E *12 224422**221hcchEchEGEss (2.9)

PAGE 19

7 Due to the symmetry of the structure it is obvious that E 2 =E 3 =E 1 and G 23 =G 31 =G 12 Further, since we are using beam theory to model the struts, all the Poissons ratios referred to the principal material directions, 12 23 and 31 are equal to zero. The relative density / s where s is the solid density or the density of the strut material, is a measure of solidity of the cellular material. The density of the foam can be obtained form the mass m and volume V of the unit-cell as shown below: 332332332232323chchchchchchVmssss (2.10) If the aspect ratio of the strut h/c <<1, the relative density can be approximated as 2332323chchchs (2.11) Finite Element Verification of Analytical Models A portion near the crack tip of the foam was modeled using finite elements. Each strut was modeled as an Euler-Bernoulli beam. Each beam element has 3 integration points. Although we could have one unit-cell with periodic boundary conditions by Marrey and Sankar [2], a larger portion of the cellular medium was modeled as the computational cost is not very high for this case. The model shown in Figure 2.3 consists of 100100 cells. The cell length c of the unit-cell is 200 m and the strut is assumed to have a square cross section with a side equal to 20 m. A uniform displacement ( = 0.01 m) is applied at nodes on the top edge of the model. The total force in the 2 direction is computed from the FE results. The average tensile stress (macro-stress 2 ) can be obtained by

PAGE 20

8 cLFy *2 (2.12) where the sign denotes summation of all nodal forces and L is the width of the foam considered in the FE model (see Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3 Stress distribution of tensile loading on open-cell foam The Youngs modulus of a foam can be determined by the stress-strain definition as *2E cFLcLFEyy ***1 (2.13) For the case considered the FE model gave a value GPa and the analytical model Eq. (2.4) yielded a value of 2.07 GPa. The difference of results is 1%. 09.2*1E

PAGE 21

9 Figure 2.4 Shear applied on open-cell foam Figure 2.5 Stress distribution of shear loading on open-cell foam To estimate the shear modulus by numerical analysis, a constant horizontal displacement u s is applied to all the nodes on the topside of the foam as shown in Figure 2.4. The shear stress can be obtained by the sum of reaction forces F divided by the area of the top surface:

PAGE 22

10 LcFx (2.14) where L is the length of the foam considered in the FE model and c is the unit-cell dimension. The shear strain can be calculated as Lus (2.15) Thus, shear modulus of the foam can be estimated as *12G cuFLucLFGsxsx *** (2.16) The deformed shape of the cellular solid under shear is shown in Figure 2.5. From the FE model the shear modulus of the foam was estimated as 10.25 MPa, whereas the aforementioned analytical model Eq. (2.8) yields 10.35 MPa. The difference between the two results is about 1%. The FE model is slightly compliant because of lack of constraints on the side and applying periodic boundary conditions would have yielded values closer to the analytical solution.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 3 FINITE ELEMENT METHODS OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS In this section, we describe a finite element based micromechanics model for estimating the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. The crack is assumed to be parallel to one of the principal material axes, and Mode I, Mode II and mixed mode fracture are considered. To determine the fracture toughness a small region around the crack tip is modeled using beam elements. A constant mode mixity K I /K II is assumed to be applied. The boundary of the cellular solid is subjected to displacement (u 1 and u 2 ) boundary conditions corresponding to an arbitrary value of K I (or K II ). The rotational degree of freedom at each node of the beam element on the boundary of the solid is left as unknown and no couples are applied at these nodes. The calculation of boundary displacements for a given stress intensity factor is described in the next section. Boundary Displacement at a Crack Tip The displacement components in the vicinity of a crack tip in a homogenous orthotropic material are derived in Appendix B and they are as follows: Displacement field for Mode I: 211122122121211122122121sincossincos1Re2sincossincos1Re2sqssqsssrKuspsspsssrKuIyIx (3.1) Displacement field for Mode II: 11

PAGE 24

12 21112122212111212221sincossincos1Re2sincossincos1Re2sqsqssrKuspspssrKuIIyIIx (3.2) In deriving the above expressions, the crack is assumed to be parallel to the x axis, and ris the polar coordinate system oriented at the crack tip. The complex parameters p, q, and s depend on the elastic constants of the homogeneous orthotropic material as described in the Appendix B. Model Setup The commercial FE program ABAQUS is used to conduct numerical analysis. A FE model of open cell foam is taken around the small portion of the crack tip in Figure 3.1. The boundary condition of small portion is determined by using the solution for boundary displacements in the previous section. A crack in the FE model is created by removing beam elements. Figure 3.1 Open-cell foam model with a crack To reduce the modeling cost, a FORTRAN code was written to generate nodal and element properties with user specified unit-cell configuration. The code calculates

PAGE 25

13 boundary displacements at corresponding boundary nodal coordinates. After execution, it exports an ABAQUS input file so that the ABAQUS can read the input directly. The maximum tensile stress in the struts is calculated from the finite element method. The FE analysis outputs axial force, bending moment and shear force at each node of the beam elements, and the maximum tensile stress was calculated using a separate program. Usually the maximum stress occurs at the crack tip strut. From the result the value of K I (or K II ) that will cause rupture of the strut is estimated, which then is taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. Before we describe an analytical model for estimating the fracture toughness, we will discuss the results from the FE simulation. At first, we will check the validity of applying continuum fracture mechanics. It was found that a model consisting of 100100 cells (total 10,000 cells) gave a converged result for fracture toughness and the same model is used throughout the study. The run time for this model is about 13 minutes in a 1.7 GHz Intel Pentium 4 computer. Convergence Analysis for Mode I The convergence analysis is performed to evaluate variation of fracture toughness with various sizes of foam models, 1.2cm 1.2cm (3,600 cells), 2cm 2cm (10,000 cells), 4cm 4cm (40,000 cells) and 8cm 8cm (160,000 cells). The foam model properties are shown in Table 3.1. Table. 3.1 Foam model properties for convergence analysis Length of cell edge 200 m Cell wall thickness 20 m Relative density 0.0280 Tensile strength 3600Mpa

PAGE 26

14 As the model size increases, fracture toughness becomes stable at approximately 4.6710 5 Pa m 1/2 in Figure 3.2. For a foam model containing from 10,000 to 160,000 cells, variation in fracture toughness is 2.7%. Therefore, the 10,000 cell model is chosen for further numerical analysis to maintain output accuracy with less CPU time. For the 10,000 cell model, a computer with 1.7GHz Intel Pentium 4 takes 13 minutes to complete the job, but the 160,000 cells takes 2 hours more. Figure 3.2 Variation of fracture toughness with various model sizes The axial stress along the crack path from a crack tip is shown in Figure 3.3. In the result, smaller models produce higher axial stress at the crack tip. Further from the crack tip, variation in axial stresses becomes insignificant for all model sizes.

PAGE 27

15 Figure 3.3 Axial stress variation from a crack tip for various model sizes The log-log plot of maximum strut stress variation from the crack tip is shown in Figure 3.3, the curve is fitted to the equation r69.41 (3.3) Using the relation between micro and macro stresses in Eq. (2.1), Eq. 3.4 can be written as r205.1* (3.4) indicating that the macro stress in tensile factor is equal to 1.05 which is approximately equal to the applied the stress intensity factor K I of unity.

PAGE 28

16 Figure 3.4 Log-log plot of axial stress along a crack tip for various model sizes If the fracture toughness estimated by using the present method is truly a material(macroscopic) property, then it should be independent of the crack length. Hence the crack length was varied in the micromechanical method. The results are shown in Figure 3.5. The predicted fracture toughness was plotted as a function of percentage of crack length in the model. The results clearly show that idea of modeling the foam as a homogenous material is quite acceptable.

PAGE 29

17 Figure 3.5 Fracture toughness in various crack lengths Mode I Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam Since the relative density depends on the length of the strut c and a cell wall thickness h, the fracture simulation is conducted in two cases. In the first case, c is varied and h is kept constant. The second case, h varied while c is constant. The results of the FE simulation are axial force, bending moment and shear force in each element, which are used to calculate the maximum principal stress at the crack tip, and then the fracture toughness. A sample stress distribution due to Mode I fracture is shown in Figure 3.6.

PAGE 30

18 Figure 3.6 Stress distribution of Mode I fracture (c=200 m, h=20 m) The variation of fracture toughness with relative density is shown in Figure 3.7. The results of fracture toughness in Figure 3.7 are fitted to a curve with a power of 1.045 for constant wall thickness and 0.7879 for constant length of strut. To obtain a higher fracture toughness, increasing cell wall thickness h is more effective while cell length c is constant. Figure 3.7 Mode I fracture toughness for two cases

PAGE 31

19 Mode II Fracture Toughness of Open Cell Foam The analysis of Mode II fracture toughness is performed in same manner as the Mode I fracture analysis in previous section. Unlikely to Mode I fracture, the boundary displacements are not symmetric about the crack plane as shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8 Stress distribution of Mode II fracture (c=200m,h=20m) The results of Mode II fracture toughness are fitted in a curve with power of 1.0654 for constant wall thickness h and 1.3231 for the constant cell length c in Figure 3.9. Therefore, to obtain the higher fracture toughness, increasing cell wall thickness h is more effective than increasing cell length c for Mode II.

PAGE 32

20 Figure 3.9 Numerical result of fracture toughness for Mode II Fracture Toughness of Mixed Mode on Open Cell Foam For the mixed mode fracture analysis, the boundary displacements for Mode I and Mode II are superposed for various ratios of Mode I and Mode II in Figure 3.10. A sample deformation under missed mode is shown in Figure 3.10. Fracture toughness for mixed mode is shown for constant length of cell edge in Figure 3.11 and constant wall thickness in Figure 3.12. The fracture toughness for mixed mode is inversely linearly proportional. 1bIICIIaICIKKKK (3.5) where the constants a and b are 1. The combinations of K I and K II for fracture are shown in Figure 3.11 for constant cell length and in Figure 3.12 for constant cell wall thickness.

PAGE 33

21 Figure 3.10 Stress distribution on the mixed mode fracture (c=m, h=20m) Figure 3.11 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant length of cell edges

PAGE 34

22 Figure 3.12 Mixed mode fracture toughness of constant cell wall thickness Formulation of Fracture Toughness for Mode I and Mode II Analytical Model for Mode I Fracture Toughness Figure 3.13 Crack tip forces and moments in the actual foam and corresponding crack tip stresses in the idealized homogeneous continuum In order to derive an analytical model for fracture toughness, the stress intensity factor of the homogeneous model should be related to the actual stresses in the crack tip ligament of the foam. This can be obtained by assuming that the internal forces and bending moment in the crack tip strut are caused by a portion of the crack tip stress field

PAGE 35

23 ahead of the crack tip in the homogeneous model. Let us define a non-dimensional factor that describes the effective length l as follows: cl (3.9) The ideal stress distribution y ahead of crack tip is described as follows: rKIy2 (3.10) where r is the distance from the crack tip. The axial force in the crack tip ligament is obtained by integrating the tensile stress y over the effective length clKdrcFIly20 (3.11) The bending moment M is given by clKlcKdrrcKdrrcMIlIlIy32222/30232/30 (3.12) Assuming fracture occurs when the maximum bending stress equals the tensile strength of the ligament material, a relationship between the tensile strength and fracture toughness can be derived as chlKclKhhMhhMIyMII32/32/3332223266122 (3.13) By substituting for l in terms of from Eq. (3.9), the fracture toughness can be related to the tensile strength as chcKI32/32/322 (3.14) Then the fracture toughness of the cellular material can be derived as

PAGE 36

24 chchchKuuI222/32/532/32222 (3.15) The non-dimensional distance can be found from the FE results for fracture toughness K Ic and the tensile strength of the ligament material as follows: 3/22/5322chKIu (3.16) The results for as a function relative density are plotted in Fig. 3.14. It may be noted that increases with relative density and the variation can be accurately represented by a power law. Interestingly both constant wall thickness case and the constant spacing case we have studied so far fit accurately into a single power law. The effective crack tip distance is about 10% of the cell spacing for low-density foam and about 305 for high-density foam.

PAGE 37

25 Figure 3.14 Variation of (l/c) with relative density for Mode I Analytical Model for Mode II Fracture Toughness The effective crack tip distance for Mode II can be derived following steps similar to that in the preceding section for Mode I. The shear stress ( xy ) distribution ahead of the crack tip is given by: rKIIxy2 (3.17) The total shear force F over the effective distance l can be derived as lIIxyclKdrcF02 (3.18) The maximum bending moment in the crack tip element is the product of force F and the length c/2: 22cclKMII (3.19) The maximum bending stress is derived as 3232236122hclKhMhhMIyMII (3.20) An expression for fracture toughness K II in terms of strut tensile strength, strut dimensions and the effective distance can be derived as lchKuII2323 (3.21) Since, fracture toughness can be expressed in terms of the non-dimensional distance : 232325323chcchKuuII (3.22)

PAGE 38

26 From (3.33) an expression for can be derived as 526223182325cKhcKhIIuIIu (3.23) The constant can be evaluated using the FE results of fracture toughness. The value of as a function of relative density is plotted in Fig. 3.15. Again, it can be noted that a power law description is adequate for Mode II also. Further the value of depends only on the relative density and not on individual cell or strut dimensions. The effective distance seems to be slightly less for Mode II. It is about 5% of the strut spacing for low density and about 22% for high density foams. Figure 3.15 Variation of ( l/c) with relative density for Mode II Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness with Angled Crack So far our attention has been focussed on cracks parallel to the principal material direction. The next step will be to study crack inclined at an angle to the principal direction. Before that, an understanding of how the material will fail under combined

PAGE 39

27 loading will be beneficial. In the following we describe methodologies to predict the failure of the cellular medium under combined loading. The results will then be used to predict the tensile and shear strength in an arbitrary coordinate system. Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Tensile Loading When the cellular medium is subjected to combined loading under plane stress conditions, the ligaments in a typical representative volume element will be subjected to axial force, shear force and bending moment as shown in Fig. 3.16. Figure 3.16 Forces in a ligament under combined loading From the equation (2.1), axial stress can be obtained as 22*1chaxial (3.25) The relation between maximum bending moment and the shear force is given by 2223*122*12ccccFM (3.26) The maximum stress due to the bending moment can be derived as 3*1243*1231222hchhcIyMbending (3.27)

PAGE 40

28 It should be noted that we have assumed that only y component of the macro-stress exists. The ligament stresses in Eq. 3.25 and Eq. 3.27 can be expressed in terms of macro-stresses referred to the x-y coordinate system as: (3.28a) 2**1siny (3.28b) 2**2cosy (3.28c) cossin**12y Then the micro-stress u under combined loading can be derived as 2*2*1sinyaxialhc (3.29) cossin33*312ybendinghc (3.30) The micro-stress u can be derived as 22*33*22*cossin3sincossin3sinhchchchcyyyu (3.31) The maximum stress that can be applied to the cellular medium is obtained by equating the maximum micro-stress to the strength of the ligament material. The ratio of the macro-stress and the micro-stress for ligament L 1 (refer to Fig. 3.16) can be derived as 22*cossin3sin1hchcuy (3.32) In the same manner, the ratio of the macro-stress and the micro-stress for ligamnet L 2 can be derived as

PAGE 41

29 22*cossin3cos1hchcuy (3.33) Eq. (3.32) and Eq. (3.33) are used to calculate the maximum stress y that ca be applied to the cellular medium before any ligament failure. Then maximum stress under tensile loading is a function of the orientation as shown in Figure 3.17. The strength variation is symmetric about =45 o Figure 3.17 Variation of maximum tensile stress y as a function of angle between the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions Prediction of the Maximum Strength under Shear Loading The calculation of shear strength at an arbitrary orientation is very similar to that described for tensile strength in the preceding section. The transformation of macro-stresses between the global xy coordinates and the principal material coordinates are given by:

PAGE 42

30 (3.34a) 2sin**1xy (3.34b) 2sin**2xy (3.35c) 2cos**12xy It may be noted that only shear component of the macro-stress ( xy ) is present. Substituting Eq. (3.34) into the Eq. (3.25) and (3.27) we obtain 2*2*12sinhchcxyaxial (3.36) 3*3122cos33hchcxybending (3.37) The micro-stresses can be derived as 2*3*2*2cos32sin2cos32sinhchchchcxyxyxyu (3.38) The ratio of the macro-shear stress and the micro-stress in ligament L 1 can be derived as 2*2cos32sin1hchcuxy (3.39) In the same manner, the ratio of the applied shear stress and the maximum stress in ligament L 2 can be derived as 2*2cos32sin1hchcuxy (3.40) The macroscopic shear strength (maximum shear stress) is plotted as a function of orientation in Figure 5.3. The maximum stress is symmetric about =45 o

PAGE 43

31 Figure 3.18 Variation of maximum shear stress (shear strength) as a function of angle between the xy coordinate system and the principal material directions Mode I Fracture Toughness of Inclined Cracks The procedures for predicting the fracture toughness of angled cracks (cracks inclined at an angle to the material principal directions) are very similar to that described in the preceding sections. The only change is in the material elastic constants which have to be transformed from the material principal directions to the global xy coordinate system. The stress fields under Mode I fracture for various crack angles are shown in Figure 3.19.

PAGE 44

32 Figure 3.19 Stress distribution with various crack angles for Mode I fracture The variation of Mode I fracture toughness with crack orientation is shown in Fig 3.20 for various relative densities. It may be noted that the variation of Mode I fracture toughness with is very similar to that of tensile strength shown in Fig. 3.17 with the results being symmetric about =45 o Figure 3.20 Mode I fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal material direction

PAGE 45

33 Figure 3.21 Stress distribution for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture The stress filed for various angled cracks under Mode II fracture is shown in Figure 3.21. The variation of Mode II fracture toughness is shown in Figure 3.22. Again one can note the similarities in the variation of K IIc and shear strength presented in Fig. 3.18 Figure 3.22 Mode II fracture toughness for various crack angles with respect to the principal material direction

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 4 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CARBON FOAM Material Properties of Carbon Foam From the SEM image of low-density carbon foam shown in Figure 1.1, one can note that the cells are irregularly sized and spaced. The cell size is measured to be in the range of 1 to 2 mm. Mechanical properties of the carbon foam as reported by Touchstone Research Laboratory, Inc., manufacturers of the foam, are shown in Table 4.1. The solidity (relative density) is determined by dividing, density of the foam, by s the density of solid carbon that make the struts or the cell walls. The densities of various forms of carbon are given in Table 4.2. The solidity of the carbon foam used in the present study was based on the value of solid density s = 2,250 kg/m 3 and the solidity is determined as 0.1312. Table 4.1 Mechanical properties of carbon foam Elastic Modulus (E*) 123.79 MPa Tensile strength ( )*u 3.5805 MPa Density ( ) 295.3 kg/m 3 Table 4.2 Densities of various forms of carbon Diamond (C Wt. %100) 3,510 kg/m 3 Graphite carbon fiber (C Wt. %100) 2,250 kg/m 3 Zoltec Pane 30MF carbon fiber (C Wt. % 99.5) 1,750 kg/m 3 Mode I Fracture Toughness Test (4-Pt. Bending Tests) There are several methods available for measuring the fracture toughness of cellular materials. Compact tension test (CT), Single edge notched bend test (SENB) and 34

PAGE 47

35 Double edge notched tension test (DENT) performed by Fowlkes [6] are some of the tests that are suitable for foam materials. In the present study, we chose the single edge notched four-point bend specimens for measuring the fracture toughness of carbon foams. It was thought that the four-point bending test would yield more accurate and repeatable results as the crack is in a region under constant bending moment and no transverse shear force. Hence small offset of the loading point with respect to the crack location will not significantly affect the results. The specimen dimensions are depicted in Figure 4.1. The height of the specimen was about 50 mm and the crack length was about 25 mm. Individual specimen dimensions are given in Table 4.3. A notch was cut using a diamond saw, and then a razor blade was used to sharpen the crack tip. The crack length was the distance of the crack tip from the bottom surface edge of the beam. The tests were conducted under displacement control in a material testing machine at the rate of 0.5 mm/min (Figure 4.2). Load-deflection diagrams are given in Figure 4.3. It may be noted from the curves that the crack propagated instantaneously and the specimens failed in a brittle manner. The fracture loads for various specimens are listed in Table 4.3. The Mode I fracture toughness was calculated from the load at failure using the following formula [3]: 44332214133.739.112.1wawawawaaKI (4.1) where the maximum bending stress in the uncracked beam is determined by 236122BwMwBwMIyM (4.2)

PAGE 48

36 In Eq. 4.2, M is the constant bending moment in the central region, h is the height of the specimen and B is the width. The bending moment M is given by M=Pd/2, where d is distance between one of the top loading points and the corresponding bottom support as shown in Figure 4.2. The results for fracture toughness are listed in Table 4.3. For the carbon foam samples tested the average Mode I fracture toughness is found to be 0.1337 MPa m 1/2 with a standard deviation of 0.011 MPa m 1/2 (about 8%). Figure 4.1 SENB specimen geometry Table 4.3 Fracture toughness with specimen properties of carbon foam Specimen Span L (m) Height h (m) Width B (m) Crack length a (m) Density (Kg/m 3 ) Fracture Load (N) K Ic (MPa m 1/2 ) IF06 0.2284 0.0512 0.0255 0.0264 284 100.9 0.1315 IF07 0.2291 0.0500 0.0255 0.0252 301 112.0 0.1458 IF09 0.2290 0.0507 0.0255 0.0259 292 92.54 0.1201 IF10 0.2290 0.0506 0.0256 0.0261 297 105.8 0.1372

PAGE 49

37 Figure 4.2 Four-point bending test setup on a material testing machine Figure 4.3 Load-displacement curves of four-point bending tests on carbon foam

PAGE 50

38 Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Toughness Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Solid Model The first step in simulating the crack propagation in carbon foam is to idealize the microstructure of the foam. The unit-cell is assumed as a perfect cube of side c in Figure 4.4. The foam model is created by placing a spherical void (bubble) at the center of the cube. By varying the radius of the bubble R, foams in various solidity can be modeled. A relation between the solidity and the R/c ratio can be derived in Appendix A: 23*33844aRaRs (4.3) Figure 4.4 Unit cell of solid model The average dimension of the unit-cell was obtained from the SEM images of the cross section of carbon foam. Then, the radius of the spherical void can be determined from the solidity of the foam. The Pro/Engineering, modeling application, was used to model the unit-cell and calculate the solid volume. In the present study, the unit-cell dimension c is taken as 1.8 mm and the solidity as 0.1312.

PAGE 51

39 The strength of the solid carbon in the foam can be easily estimated from the tensile strength of the carbon foam, which is measured experimentally. The relation between the foam tensile strength and the solid carbon strength is given by min2*Acuus (4.4) where A min is the minimum cross sectional area of the struts in the carbon foam normal to the principal material axis. It should be noted that the tensile strength of the foam is for a direction parallel to one of the principal material axes. The area A min was obtained from the modeling software and it was equal to = 7.146 10 -8 mm 2 Substituting the dimensions of the unit.cell and the measured carbon foam tensile strength, the strength of solid carbon was estimated as 162 Mpa. The procedure for determining the Youngs modulus and tensile strength of the solid carbon is as follows. Micromechanics Analysis for Youngs Modulus and Shear Modulus The Youngs modulus E s of solid carbon was estimated by a trial and error method. An initial value for E s is assumed and the elastic constants of the carbon foam are determined by using the micromechanical methods developed by Sankar et al. [4]. Then the value of E s can be scaled to match the micromechanical results for E* to the experimentally measured E The unit-cell was modeled by using 4-noded tetrahedral solid elements. Due to symmetry only a portion of the unit-cell was modeled and periodic boundary conditions were imposed such that only one of the macro-strains is non zero [4]. We assume a value for E s and s and the forces required to deform the unit cell are calculated from the nodal reactions. From the forces the macro-stresses can be computed. For example

PAGE 52

40 2*2*,cFcFyyxx (4.5) where F x represents the sum of all nodal forces on a face normal to the x axis. Similary F x is the sum of all the nodal forces F y on the face normal to the y axis. The carbon foam is assumed as an orthotropic material and the macro-stresses and strains are substituted in the constitutive relation to obtain the compliance coefficients S ij From the S matrix the elastic constants can be estimated using the following relations: 111212121112121211***111212121112121211***111SSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSzyyzxxzzzyyxxyzzxyyxxzyxzyx (4.6) The FE model contained approximately 100,000 solid tetrahedral elements. A displacement u y =1 was applied to the top surface of a unit cell (Figure 4.5). The contour plot of maximum principal stresses is depicted in Figure 4.5.

PAGE 53

41 Figure 4.5 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction For the sake of simplicity no attempt was made to estimate the Poissons ratio s using the micro-mechanical methods and it was assumed to be equal to 0.17 based on a previous analysis. Based on the foam properties given in Table 4.1 and the unit-cell size c of 1.8mm, the Youngs modulus of solid carbon E s was estimated to be 2.6 GPa. Using this value for E s the Youngs modulus of carbon foams of various solidities was calculated using the FE model and they are shown in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.6 Boundary conditions on the unit-cell surfaces and maximum principal stress distribution when the unit-cell is stretched in the y-direction

PAGE 54

42 The shear modulus was also calculated using the micromechanics analysis developed by Marrey and Sankar [4]. The variation of shear modulus as function of solidity is shown in Figure 4.8. Figure 4.7 Elastic modulus E as a function of relative density (solidity) for E s = 2.6 GPa. Figure 4.8 Shear modulus G as a function of relative density (solidity) for E s = 2.6 GPa.

PAGE 55

43 Unit Cell of Carbon Foam Beam Model In addition to the solid model described in the preceding section a simple lattice model was also attempted. In this model the foam is assumed to be made up of struts arranged in a cubic lattice pattern. The length of the strut was equal to the unit-cell dimension c in Figure 4.9. The struts were assumed to be uniform square cross section beam and their dimensions were determined from the relative density of the foam. Figure 4.9 Unit cell of beam model From the Eq. (2.11), the wall thickness h is determined to be 0.4086 mm for a solidity of 0.1312 and c = 1.8 mm. Since this beam model is composed as a simplest shape, FE methods are not necessary to determine the relation between the solid properties and foam properties. Analytical expressions for various elastic properties have been derived earlier section. Based on the Eq. (2.1) and Eq. (2.4), the Youngs modulus E s and the strength us are found to be 2.4 MPa and 69.5 MPa, respectively. The variation of E and G with the solidity for the beam model are shown, respectively, in Figures 4.7 and 4.8.

PAGE 56

44 Fracture Toughness Estimation of the Solid Model In this section, we describe a finite element based micromechanics model to estimate the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. The crack is assumed to be parallel to one of the principal material axes. The crack is created by breaking the ligaments of the unit cell (Figure 4.10). To determine the fracture toughness, a small region of the foam around the crack tip is modeled using finite elements. Only Mode I fracture is considered in the present study. The boundary of the cellular solid is subjected to displacement boundary conditions (u x and u y ) corresponding to a unit K I. i.e., K I =1. The displacement components in the vicinity of a crack tip in an orthotropic solid can be found in Appendix B. The maximum tensile stress in the unit-cells corresponding to unit stress intensity factor is calculated from the FE model. In the case of three-dimensional solid model the maximum stress is obtained as an output of the FE program. From the result the value of K I that will cause rupture of the strut is estimated, which then is taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular solid. The solid model used 42 cells with 135,000 solid tetrahedral elements as shown in Figure 4-10. The maximum principal stress distribution is shown in Figure 4.10. When unit K I was applied to the crack tip, maximum principal stress was found equal to 1,463 Pa. Then the fracture toughness is obtained from the strength of the solid carbon ( Pa 162.0Mus ) as mMPaKusIC11.01463101626max (4.12)

PAGE 57

45 Comparing Eq. (4-12) with the results of fracture toughness experiments (Table 4.3), the difference is about 16%. One reason for the difference could be the small number of cells used in the FE simulation. The FE model was used to study the variation of fracture toughness with relative density and the resulting relationship is shown in Figure 4.11. Gibson and Ashby [2] provide analytical results for fracture toughness for open-cell foam as given below: 23**65.0susICcK (4.13) where us is the tensile strength of the solid. Using the above formula the fracture toughness for the carbon foam considered in this study can be obtained as 0.162 MPam. The variation of K Ic according to Eq. (4-13) is presented in Figure 4.11. Figure 4.10 Maximum principal stress distribution of solid and beam models for a unit K I at the crack tip Fracture Toughness of the Beam Model The procedure for simulating fracture using the beam model is the same as that for the FE solid model. The beam model of carbon foam (Figure 4.10) consisted of

PAGE 58

46 10,000 cells using approximately 20,000 beam elements. When using the beam model, the rotational degree of freedom at each node of the beam element on the boundary of the solid is left as unknown and no couples are applied at these nodes. The maximum principal stress distribution in the beam model for K I =1 is shown in Figure 4.10. The maximum principal stress for a unit K I was found to be equal to 506 Pa. Therefore, the fracture toughness can be estimated as mMPaKusIC137.050610696max (4.14) The difference between the experimental result and that from the beam model is only 3%. The beam model was also used to study the variation of fracture toughness with the solidity and it is presented in Figure 4.11. Figure 4.11 Variation of fracture toughness of carbon foam with relative density

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Elastic Constants of Open-cell Foam Youngs modulus for carbon foam in the principal material direction is estimated to be 2.09 GPa from the FE micro-mechanics and 2.07 GPa based on analytical solutions. Shear modulus is predicted as 10.245 MPa from FE analysis and 10.350 MPa from analytical solution. Difference between analytical and numerical results is 0.96% for elastic modulus and 1.01% for shear modulus. For open-cell foam model, analytical solutions and FE solutions for elastic constants show good agreement. Numerical Analysis of Fracture Toughness A Finite Element method based micro-mechanics method was developed to predict the fracture toughness of cellular materials. A portion of material around the crack tip was modeled using finite elements. Boundary displacements calculated using orthotropic fracture mechanics were applied to the FE model. The stress intensity factor corresponding to the failure of the crack tip strut was taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular medium. It has been found that the fracture toughness is a strong function of relative density of the foam, however it also depends on the strut dimensions and spacing. Based on the FE results an analytical model was developed to predict the fracture toughness. A simple empirical formula has been derived for the effective length ahead of the crack tip that contributes to the crack tip ligament forces and bending moment. For the type of cellular medium considered in this study the fracture toughness can be 47

PAGE 60

48 expressed in the form of power law of the type where K is fracture toughness and R is relative density. The constants a and b for Mode I and Mode II are presented in Table 5.1 Table 5.1 Constants of fracture toughness curves Constant length of cell edge with various wall thickness Constant wall thickness with various length of cell edge A b a b Mode I 1.961x10 7 1.045 7.82x10 6 0.788 Mode II 6.95x10 6 1.32 2.76x10 6 1.070 The effective length l ahead of the crack-tip is expresses as l=c. The constant was evaluated analytically using the results for fracture toughness obtained using the FE micro-mechanics models. It has been found that depends only on relative density and is independent of cell length or strut cross sectional dimensions. Fracture Toughness with an Angle Crack Variation of strength under combined loading for open-cell foams was evaluated analytically. The results were used to determine the tensile and shear strength when the loads are applied at an angle to the principal material directions. FE micro-mechanics simulations were performed for inclined cracks. Mode I fracture toughness is maximum at 0 and Mode II fracture toughness is maximum at 45 to the principal material direction. Fracture Toughness of Carbon Foam Four point bend tests were performed on SENB specimens made of carbon foam, and their Mode I fracture toughness was measured. In addition to the experimental approach, a finite element based micromechanics has been developed to predict the fracture toughness. Two micro-mechanical models were developed to simulate Mode I fracture. Both models assumed a cube as the unit-cell of the foam. In the first model solid finite elements were used to model the foam. The measured density of the carbon foam

PAGE 61

49 was used in determining the void size in the micromechanical model. Youngs modulus and tensile strength of the solid carbon were also determined from the corresponding values of the carbon foam measured experimentally. A small region surrounding the crack tip was modeled using finite elements. The crack was assumed parallel to one of the principal material directions. Boundary displacements were calculated using linear elastic fracture mechanics for orthotropic materials. From the FE simulation the stress intensity factor K I that will cause the failure of the crack-tip elements was determined, and this was taken as the fracture toughness of the cellular material shown in Table 5.2. The agreement between the test results and numerical results are good indicating micro-mechanics can be a powerful tool in predicting the fracture behavior of foams and other cellular solids. Table 5.2 Results of fracture toughness K ic ( MPa m 1/2 ) % Difference from Experiment Beam Model 0.137 3 Solid Model 0.110 17 Gibson & Ashby 0.162 21 Experimental 0.132

PAGE 62

APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE SOLIDITY OF SOLID MODEL Figure A.1 Unit cell of solid model To estimate the solidity of porous medium in the solid model, the volume of the pore (void) left inside the unit-cell needs to determined. In order to do that, the volume of top potion V B in Fig. A1 is subtracted from entire sphere volume of a void. The volume V A is obtained as 33RVA (A.1) where is solid angle. The solid angle can be obtained as follows: 2RdA (A.2) cos2drrdA (A.3) 232222222cos2rhdrhrrhdrrrhdAd (A.4) 50

PAGE 63

51 Integrating both sides, bbrhdrhrd0220232 (A.5) Rhh112 (A.6) By substitute Eq. (A6) into Eq. (A1), V A is obtained as follows; hRRRhhRRVA3211323233 (A.7) The volume of the top portion V B can be obtained by subtracting the volume of the cone from V A 3232231323132hhRRbhRRVB (A.8) The volume of the pore left inside the unit-cell is derived as V C 4343463432333aaRRRVRVBc (A.9) Therefore, the solidity can be obtained from its definition as: 32333333*413434111aaRRRaaVaVaccs (A.10) For open cell model, the equation is only valid in the range where R is the radius of the sphere in Fig. A1. After simplifying the equation, the solidity can be expressed in terms of the ratio R/a in the form of a polynomial: 23*33844aRaRs (A.11)

PAGE 64

APPENDIX B CRACK TIP DISPLACEMENT FIELDS FOR ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL The open-cell foam is considered as a homogeneous orthotropic material. The principal material directions are parallel to the 1 and 2 axes. Assuming the Poissons ratio is negligible, the stress-stain relations in the 1-2 plane are given in the matrix form below. 1221***1221100010001GEES (B.1) When the cellular medium is oriented at an angle to the principal material axes, the stress-stain relation can be transformed from the 1-2 plane to the x-y plane by using transformation matrix [T]. The angle is the angle the 1 direction makes with the x axis. 222222sincoscossincossincossin2cossincossin2sincosT (B.2) 321Tzyx (B.3) By applying the transformation, the compliance matrix in the x-y coordinates is written as xyyxxyyxTsyyxSSSSSSSSSTST662616262212161211 (B.4) 52

PAGE 65

53 The components of the matrix can be obtained in terms of compliance terms referred to the 1-2 axes as follows: 42222661241111sincossin)2(cosSaSSS (B.5a) 22662211441212cossin)()cos(sinSSSSS (B.5b) 42222661241122coscossin)2(sinSSSSS (B.5c) cossin)22(cossin)22(3661222366121116SSSSSSS (B.5d) 3661222366121116cossin)22(cossin)22(SSSSSSS (B.5e) )cos(sincossin)422(24466226612221111SSSSSS (B.5f) The characteristic equation of the orthotropic material is given by 0222222626612316411SSSSSS (B.6) where imaginary roots of the characteristic equation are described as (j = 1, 2, 3, 4). The constant (j = 1, 2) can be obtained by using the equation below. The roots and are unequal roots with a positive conjugate value. 1111 is 2222 is The constants, (j = 1, 2) are relates to constants s as shown below. 1161221111saasap 2161222112saasap 11262221121ssaasaq 22262222122ssaasaq Stress components of polar and rectangular coordinates at a crack are shown in Figure B.1. The angle is taken positive in the counterclockwise direction. The distance r is taken from the crack tip at the point O.

PAGE 66

54 Figure B.1 Polar coordinate oriented from crack tip The displacement components for Mode I and Mode II can be defined as The displacement filed near the crack tip for Mode I: 211122122121211122122121sincossincos1Re2sincossincos1Re2sqssqsssrKuspsspsssrKuIyIx (B.7) The displacement filed near the crack tip for Mode II: 21112122212111212221sincossincos1Re2sincossincos1Re2sqsqssrKuspspssrKuIIyIIx (B.8)

PAGE 67

REFERENCES 1. Fowlkes, Charles W., Fracture Toughness Tests of a Rigid Polyurethane Foam, International Journal of Fracture, Volume 10, No. 1, March 1974, pp. 99-108. 2. Gibson, L.J. and Ashby, M.F., Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1988. 3. Hellan, K., Introduction to Fracture Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1984, p. 244. 4. Marrey, Ramesh V. and Sankar, Bhavani V., Micromechanical Models for Textile Structural Composites, NASA contractor report, 198229, October 1995. 5. Sih, G.C. and Liebowitz, H., Mathematical Theories of Brittle Fracture, Fracture-An Advanced Treatise, Volume 2, Liebowitz, H., Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1968, pp. 67-190. 55

PAGE 68

56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sukjoo Choi was born in Seoul, Korea, on 1972. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering in 1997 from the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. He worked as a mechanical engineer in control surfaces and mechanics at the Cirrus Design, Corp., Duluth, Minnesota from 1997 to 1998. In 1998, he joined the military in Korea and served until 1998. In 2000, he was admitted to the graduate program in the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics & Engineering Science at the University of Florida, Gainesville Florida. Sukjoo Choi will be pursuing his doctoral studies in the filed of composite mate rials and structures in the Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at the University of Florida.