0
Research Papers

Strength Analysis of Syntactic Foams Using a Three-Dimensional Continuum Damage Finite Element Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Yejie Shan, Guodong Nian

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Research Center for Composites and Structures,
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China

Qiang Xu

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Research Center for Composites and Structures,
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Numerical
Simulation and Validation of Ministry
of Education of China,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: xuqiang@zju.edu.cn

Weiming Tao

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Research Center for Composites and Structures,
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Numerical
Simulation and Validation of Ministry
of Education of China,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China

Shaoxing Qu

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Research Center for Composites and Structures,
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Numerical
Simulation and Validation of Ministry
of Education of China,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: squ@zju.edu.cn

1Corresponding authors.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received September 26, 2014; final manuscript received December 11, 2014; accepted manuscript posted December 16, 2014; published online January 7, 2015. Editor: Yonggang Huang.

J. Appl. Mech 82(2), 021004 (Feb 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: JAM-14-1452; doi: 10.1115/1.4029387 History: Received September 26, 2014; Revised December 11, 2014; Accepted December 16, 2014; Online January 07, 2015

The failure behavior of the syntactic foams is investigated based on a three-dimensional (3D) micromechanical finite element (FE) model, by varying the volume fraction, the wall thickness of the hollow particles, and the interfacial strength. The maximum principal stress criterion is adopted to determine the state (damaged or undamaged) for both interface and matrix. Material property degradation is used to describe the mechanical behavior of those damaged elements. The current model can reasonably predict the tensile strength of the syntactic foams with high volume fractions (40%–60%). The failure mechanism of the syntactic foam under uniaxial tension is captured by analyzing the stress–strain curves and the contours of damaging evolution process. Results from the quantitative simulations demonstrate that the tensile strength of the syntactic foam can be improved effectively by enhancing the interfacial strength.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic drawings of (a) BCC distribution of hollow particles and (b) the RUC of syntactic foams and the corresponding 1/8 FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The fractured surface of glass microballoon/vinyl ester syntactic foam observed in the experiment by Tagliavia et al. [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Stress–strain curves for the volume fraction of the hollow particles Φ ranging from 30% to 60% in the glass microballoon/vinyl ester syntactic foam

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Distribution of the maximum principal stresses in (a) the hollow particles and (b) the interface layer (the volume fraction of the hollow particles Φ = 60%, the macroscopic strain εyy = 6.7 × 10−4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The process of interfacial debonding and matrix damaging for the volume fraction of the hollow particles Φ = 60% at different macroscopic strains: (a) εyy = 2.7 × 10−3, (b) εyy = 4.7 × 10−3, (c) εyy = 0.021, (d) εyy = 0.025, and (e) εyy = 0.027

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The tensile strength of the syntactic foam σu versus the volume fraction of the hollow particles Φ for glass microballoon/vinyl ester syntactic foam

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Interfacial strength dependent stress–strain curves for the volume fraction of the hollow particles Φ = 60% and (b) the tensile strength of the syntactic foam σu versus the normalized interfacial strength σi/σm. (σi and σm are the tensile strengths of the interface and the matrix, respectively.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Damage distribution in the interface and the matrix before complete interfacial debonding for different interfacial strengths: (a) σi = 0.1 σm, (b) σi = 0.5 σm, and (c) σi = σm. (σi and σm are the tensile strengths of the interface and the matrix, respectively.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Stress–strain curves of the syntactic foams with the wall thickness of the hollow particles tb ranging from 0.03 R to 0.07 R (R is the outer radius of the hollow particles) and (b) the tensile strength of the syntactic foams σu as a function of the wall thickness of the hollow particles tb

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In