Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
NAMAS CHANDRA
Department of Mechanical Engineering
FAMU-FSU College of Engineering
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Fl-32310
AMML
What is CZM and why is it important
In the study of solids and design of nano/micro/macro structures,
thermomechanical behavior is modeled through constitutive equations.
Typically is a continuous function of , &, f(, , &) and their history.
Design is limited by a maximum value of a given parameter ( ) at any local point.
What happens beyond that condition is the realm of fracture, damage, and failure
mechanics.
CZM offers an alternative way to view and failure in materials.
Fracture/Damage theories to model failure
Fracture Mechanics -
Linear solutions leads to singular fields-
difficult to evaluate
Fracture criteria based on K IC ,G IC ,J IC ,CTOD,...
Non-linear domain- solutions are not
unique
Additional criteria are required for crack
initiation and propagation
Basic breakdown of the principles of
mechanics of continuous media
Damage mechanics-
can effectively reduce the strength and
stiffness of the material in an average
sense, but cannot create new surface
E%
D 1 , Effective stress =
E 1 D
CZM is an Alternative method to Model Separation
W a k e o f c ra c k tip F o rw a rd o f c ra c k tip
F ib ril (M M C b rid g in g M ic ro v o id P la stic
max C c o a le s c e n c e zone M e ta llic
C le a v a g e
fr a c tu r e
G r a in b rid g in g
O x id e b rid g in g
y B D
N O M A T E R IA L L O C A T IO N O F C O H E S IV E
S E P A R A T IO N C R A C K T IP
C O M P L E T E M A T E R IA L T h ic k n e ss o f
S E P A R A T IO N c e ra m ic in te r fa c e
A
E
, X C r a c k M e a n d e rin g
l1 max D sep C e ra m ic
l2 F ib ril( p o ly m e rs )
P la s tic w a k e
FO R W A R D W A K E b rid g in g
C ra c k M e a n d e rin g M ic ro v o id
g ro w th /c o a le s c e n c e
C o n ta c t W e d g in g
W A K E FO R W A R D P la s tic ity in d u c e d
P la s tic W a k e C o rn e r a to m s
c ra c k c lo s u re F a c e c e n tere d
a to m s
FCC
y P h ase
tra n s fo rm a tio n C o rn e r a to m s
A C T IV E P L A S T IC Z O N E
C y c lic lo a d in d u c e d B CC B o d y c e n te r e d
a to m s
x c ra c k c lo s u re
In te r/tra n s g ra n u la r
E L A S T IC S IN G U L A R IT Y Z O N E
f r a c tu r e
Molecular force of cohesion acting near the edge of the crack at its surface (region II ).
The intensity of molecular force of cohesion f is found to vary as shown in Fig.a.
The interatomic force is initially zero when the atomic planes are separated by normal
intermolecular distance and increases to high maximum f m ETo / b : E /10 after that
it rapidly reduces to zero with increase in separation distance.
E is Youngs modulus and Tois surface tension
(Barenblatt, G.I, (1959), PMM (23) p. 434)
Dugdale (1960)
independently developed
the concept of cohesive
stress
Hillerborg etal. 1976 Ficticious Grujicic, 1999, fracture beha- Tevergaard 1992 particle-matrix
crack model; concrete vior of polycrystalline; bicrystals interface debonding
Bazant etal.1983 crack band Costanzo etal;1998, dynamic fr. Tvergaard etal 1996 elastic-
theory; concrete Ghosh 2000, Interfacial debo- plastic solid :ductile frac.; metals
Morgan etal. 1997 earthquake nding; composites Brocks 2001crack growth in
rupture propagation; geomaterial Rahulkumar 2000 viscoelastic sheet metal
Planas etal,1991, concrete fracture; polymers Camacho &ortiz;1996,impact
Eisenmenger,2001, stone fragm- Liechti 2001Mixed-mode, time- Dollar; 1993Interfacial
entation squeezing" by evanescent depend. rubber/metal debonding debonding ceramic-matrix comp
waves; brittle-bio materials Ravichander, 2001, fatigue Lokhandwalla 2000, urinary
Amruthraj etal.,1995, composites stones; biomaterials
Fracture process zone and CZM
Tn , Tt1 , Tt 2
n t1 t 2
AMML
AMML
Critical
CriticalIssues
Issuesin
inthe
theapplication
applicationof
ofCZM
CZMto
tointerface
interfacemodels
models
What
Whatisisthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthe thephysics/mechanics
physics/mechanicsofofthe theseparation
separationprocess
processand
and
shape
shapeofofCZM?
CZM?(There(Thereare areasasmany
manyshapes/equations
shapes/equationsas asthere
thereare
arenumber
numberof ofinterface
interface
problems
problemssolved!)
solved!)
What
Whatisisthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenCZM CZMand andfracture
fracturemechanics
mechanicsofofbrittle,
brittle,semi-brittle
semi-brittle
and
andductile
ductilematerials?
materials?
What
What is therole
is the roleofofscaling
scalingparameter
parameterininthe thefidelity
fidelityof
ofCZM
CZMtotomodel
modelinterface
interface
behavior?
behavior?
What
Whatisisthethephysical
physicalsignificance
significanceof of
--Shape
Shapeof ofthe
thecurve
curveCC
--tmax
tmax and
andinterface
interfacestrength
strength
--Separation distancesepsepand
Separationdistance andCOD?
COD?
--Area
Areaunder
underthethecurve,
curve,work
workofoffracture,
fracture,fracture
fracturetoughness
toughnessGG (local
(localand
and
global)
global)
Motivation for studying CZM
AMML
Atomistic simulations to extract cohesive properties
Motivation
AMML
Embedded Atom Method Energy Functions
(D.J.Oh and R.A.Johnson, 1989 ,Atomic Simulation of Materials,
Edts:V Vitek and D.J.Srolovitz,p 233)
233
Etot
The total internal energy
Ei of the crystal
i
r
5
where Ei F i 1
2 ij 4
Al
Mg
j 1 Cu
i f rij
3
and 2 Cutoff Distances
j 1
1 (4.86) (5.44) (6.10)
Energy (eV)
Ei Internal energy associated with atom i
0
F i Embedded Energy of atom i. 2 4 6
Atomic Seperation (A)
1
ij Contribution to electron density 2
of ith atom and jth atom.
f rij Two body central potential
3
4
between ith atom and jth atom.
5
AMML
CONSTRUCTION OF COMPUTATIONAL CRYSTAL
GRAIN STRUCTURE AND COMPUTATIONAL CRYSTAL
AMML
Boundary Conditions for GB Sliding
AMML
T Curve in Shear direction
AMML
Results and discussion on atomistic simulation
Implications
Summary
complete debonding occurs when the
distance of separation reaches a value of 2 The numerical value of the cohesive
o
to 3 A . energy is very low when compared
For 9 bicrystal tangential work of to the observed experimental results
separation along 2the grain boundary is of
the order 3 J / m and normal 2work of Atomistic simulation gives only
separation is of the order 2.6 J / m . surface energy ignoring the inelastic
For 3 -bicrystal, the work of separation energies due to plasticity and other
2
ranges from 1.5 to 3.7 J / m . micro processes.
Rose et al. (1983) have reported that the 2 Wp
adhesive energy (work of separation) 2
for
aluminum is of the order 0.5 J / m and the
o
It should also be noted that the exper-
separation distance 2 to 3 A imental value of fracture energy
Measured energy to fracture copper
includes the plastic work in addition
bicrystal with random grain boundary is
of the order 54 J / m 2
and for 11 copper to work of separation
bicrystal the energy to fracture is more (J.R Rice and J. S Wang, 1989)
2
than 8000 J / m
Table of surface and fracture energies of standard materials
AMML
Motivation
It is perceived that CZM represents
the physical separation process.
As seen from atomistics, fracture
process comprises mostly of inelastic
dissipative energies.
There are many inelastic dissipative
process specific to each material
system; some occur within FPZ, and
some in the bounding material.
How the energy flow takes place
under the external loading within the
cohesive zone and neighboring
bounding material near the crack tip?
What is the spatial distribution of
plastic energy?
Is there a link between micromechanics
processes of the material and T curve.
Plasticity vs. other Dissipation Mechanisms
AMML
Cohesive zone parameters of a ductile material
Al 2024-T3 alloy
The input energy in the cohesive model
are related to the interfacial stress and
characteristic displacement n as
n max e n e
t max t
2
The input energy n is equated to
material parameter
Based on the measured fracture value J IC
n t 8000 J / m 2
max ult 642MPa
n t 4.5 X 10 6 m
AMML
Material model for the bounding material
AMML
Geometry and boundary/loading conditions
AMML
Global energy distribution
E w Ee E p Ec
E e and E p are confined to bounding material
E c is cohesive energy, a sum total of all dissipative
process confined to FPZ and cannot be recovered
during elastic unloading and reloading.
Purely elastic analysis
The conventional fracture mechanics uses the concept
of strain energy release rate
U
GJ
a
Using CZM, this fracture energy
is dissipated and no plastic
dissipation occurs, such that
AMML
Global energy distribution (continued)
Analysis with elasto-plastic material model
max in cohesive zone dictates the stress level achievable in the bounding
material.
Yield in the bounding material depends on its yield strength y and its post
yield (hardening characteristics.
Thus max y plays a crucial role in determining plasticity in the bounding
material, shape of the fracture process zone and energy distribution.
(other parameters like shape may also be important)
Global energy distribution (continued)
3
Plastic dissipation depends on max y
Energy/(y n 1.0E2)
2.5
4
1
plasticity occurs.
max y 0.5
1
8
Variation of cohesive energy and plastic energy for
various max y ratios
(1) max y 1 (2) max y 1.5
(3) max y 2.0 (4) max y 2.5
AMML
Relation between plastic work and cohesive work
AMML
Local/spatial Energy Distribution
AMML
Variation of Cohesive Energy
debonding.
All the energy transfer in the wake region max sep
occurs from elastic strain energy to the
cohesive zone
The accumulated plastic work decreases up Variation of dissipated plastic energy in various
to patch 4 from that of 1 as a consequence of patched as a function of crack extension. The number
reduction of the initial sharpness of the crack. indicate patch numbers starting from initial crack tip.
Mechanical work is increased to propagate
the crack, during which the E c and E e does
not increase resulting in increased plastic
work. That increase in plastic work causes the
increase in the stored work in patches 4 and
beyond
Variation of Plastic Work ( max y 1.5)
, there is no plastic
dissipation.
AMML
Schematic of crack
initiation and
propagation
process in a ductile
material
Conclusion
CZM provides an effective methodology to study and simulate fracture in solids.
Our study aims to provide the modelers some guideline in choosing appropriate
CZM for their specific material system.
max y ratio affects length of fracture process zone length. For smaller max y
ratio the length of fracture process zone is longer when compared with that of
higher ratio.
Plastic work depends on the shape of the crack tip in addition to max y ratio.
Conclusion(contd.)
The CZM allows the energy to flow in to the fracture process zone, where a
part of it is spent in the forward region and rest in the wake region.
The part of cohesive energy spent as extrinsic dissipation in the forward region
is used up in advancing the crack tip.
The part of energy spent as intrinsic dissipation in the wake region is required
to complete the gradual separation process.
In case of elastic material the entire fracture energy given by the J IC of the
material, and is dissipated in the fracture process zone by the cohesive
elements, as cohesive energy.
In case of small scale yielding material, a small amount of plastic dissipation
(of the order 15%) is incurred, mostly at the crack initiation stage.
During the crack growth stage, because of reduced stress field, plastic
dissipation is negligible in the forward region.
AMML