Difference between revisions of "Cubic Traction Law"

From OSUPDOCS
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
[[File:Cubictraction.jpg|right]]
[[File:Cubictraction.jpg|right]]


This [[Traction Laws|traction law]] assumes use a cubic cohesive law for traction as a function of crack opening displacement (COD). The four parameters in the cubic functino of found by requiring zero traction at &delta;=0 and at &delta;=&delta;<sub>c</sub>, peak stress at &sigma;, and zero slope at &delta;=&delta;<sub>c</sub>. Note that the peek stress is always at &delta;<sub>c</sub>/3. This traction law was first proposed by Needleman.<ref name="cubic">A. Needleman, "A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding," <i>J. Appl. Mech.</i>, <b>54</b>, 525–531. (1987)</ref> It has a convenient smooth shape for numerical calculations and the zero slope at &delta;<sub>c</sub> may be desirable. There is no physical basis to claim it is more realistic than other traction laws. The resulting function is
This [[Traction Laws|traction law]] assumes use a cubic cohesive law for traction as a function of crack opening displacement (COD). The four parameters in the cubic function of found by requiring zero traction at &delta;=0 and at &delta;=&delta;<sub>c</sub>, peak stress at &sigma;, and zero slope at &delta;=&delta;<sub>c</sub>. Note that the peek stress is always at &delta;<sub>c</sub>/3. This traction law was first proposed by Needleman.<ref name="cubic"/> It has a convenient smooth shape for numerical calculations and the zero slope at &delta;<sub>c</sub> may be desirable. There is no physical basis to claim it is more realistic than other traction laws. The resulting function is


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Line 27: Line 27:
== Failure ==
== Failure ==


The failure criterion under pure more or possible mixed-mode conditions is identical to the one used in the [[Triangular Traction Law#Failure|triangular traction law]].
This laws uses uncoupled mode I and mode II cohesive laws. The failure is handled by the same methods used for the [[Triangular Traction Law]]. This cubic cohesive law can also be used for mode I or mode II laws in coupled mixed-mode modeling<ref name="mmzone"/> by using the [[Mixed Mode Traction Law]].


== Traction Law Properties ==
== Traction Law Properties ==
Line 40: Line 40:
|}
|}


== Traction Law Properties ==
== Traction History Variables ==
 
This material tracks two history variables:
 
# Maximum normal opening displacement
# Maximum shear opening displacement magnitude
 
These history variables can be [[MPM Archiving Options#ToArchive Command|archived]] for later plotting. The [[MPM Archiving Options#ToArchive Command|cmdisp archiving option]] can archive total mode I and mode II cumulative dissipated energies.
 
== References ==
 
<references>
<ref name="mmzone">J. A. Nairn and Y. E. Aimene "A re-evaluation of mixed-mode cohesive zone modeling based on strength concepts instead of traction laws" <i>in preparation</i> (2020).</ref>


<references/>
<ref name="cubic">A. Needleman, "A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding," <i>J. Appl. Mech.</i>, <b>54</b>, 525–531. (1987)</ref>
</references>

Latest revision as of 21:14, 2 January 2021

The Traction Law

Cubictraction.jpg

This traction law assumes use a cubic cohesive law for traction as a function of crack opening displacement (COD). The four parameters in the cubic function of found by requiring zero traction at δ=0 and at δ=δc, peak stress at σ, and zero slope at δ=δc. Note that the peek stress is always at δc/3. This traction law was first proposed by Needleman.[1] It has a convenient smooth shape for numerical calculations and the zero slope at δc may be desirable. There is no physical basis to claim it is more realistic than other traction laws. The resulting function is

      [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma = {27\over 4}\sigma_{max} {\delta\over\delta_c}\left(1-{\delta\over\delta_c}\right)^2 }[/math]

There are separate traction laws for opening displacement (mode I) and sliding displacement (mode II).

The toughness of this traction law is the area under the curve or:

      [math]\displaystyle{ J_c = {9\over 16} \sigma\delta_c }[/math]

When creating this traction law, you have to enter exactly two of these failure properties for both mode I and mode II (i.e., two of JIc, σI, and δIc and two of JIIc, σII, and δIIc). Whichever property is not specified will be calculated from the two provided properties using one of the following relations:

      [math]\displaystyle{ \delta_c = {16J_c\over 9000\sigma}, \qquad \sigma = {16J_c\over 9000\delta_c}, \qquad {\rm or} \qquad J_c = {9000\over 16}\sigma\delta_c }[/math]

These relations assume JIc in J/m2, σ in pressure units, and δc in length units.

Besides specifying area and toughness properties, the cubic traction law has no other adjustable parameters. The initial slope and peak location are given once the area is specified. Thus unlike most other traction laws, this law has fewer parameters, which can be helpful when studying role of traction laws on failure simulations.

Failure

This laws uses uncoupled mode I and mode II cohesive laws. The failure is handled by the same methods used for the Triangular Traction Law. This cubic cohesive law can also be used for mode I or mode II laws in coupled mixed-mode modeling[2] by using the Mixed Mode Traction Law.

Traction Law Properties

This traction law only needs the common traction law properties

Property Description Units Default
(other) Properties common to all traction laws varies varies

Traction History Variables

This material tracks two history variables:

  1. Maximum normal opening displacement
  2. Maximum shear opening displacement magnitude

These history variables can be archived for later plotting. The cmdisp archiving option can archive total mode I and mode II cumulative dissipated energies.

References

  1. A. Needleman, "A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding," J. Appl. Mech., 54, 525–531. (1987)
  2. J. A. Nairn and Y. E. Aimene "A re-evaluation of mixed-mode cohesive zone modeling based on strength concepts instead of traction laws" in preparation (2020).