Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Mar 2012

An Alternative Technique to Evaluate Crack Propagation Path in Hyperelastic Materials

,
, and
Page Range: 42 – 58
DOI: 10.2346/1.3684484
Save
Download PDF

Abstract

REFERENCE: R. R. M. Ozelo, P. Sollero, and A. L. A. Costa, “An Alternative Technique to Evaluate Crack Propagation Path in Hyperelastic Materials,” Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 40, No. 1, January–March 2012, pp. 42–58.

ABSTRACT: The analysis of crack propagation in tires aims to provide safety and reliable life prediction. Tire materials are usually nonlinear and present a hyperelastic behavior. Therefore, the use of nonlinear fracture mechanics theory and a hyperelastic material constitutive model are necessary. The material constitutive model used in this work is the Mooney–Rivlin. There are many techniques available to evaluate the crack propagation path in linear elastic materials and estimate the growth direction. However, most of these techniques are not applicable to hyperelastic materials. This paper presents an alternative technique for modeling crack propagation in hyperelastic materials, based in the J-Integral, to evaluate the crack path. The J-Integral is an energy-based parameter and is applicable to nonlinear materials. The technique was applied using abaqus software and compared to experimental tests.

Keywords: crack propagation; fatigue; crack growth direction
Copyright: The Tire Society
FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

A general crack propagation problem.

FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

A general two-dimensional crack propagation problem.

FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Contour enclosing the crack tip (J-Integral definition).

FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Adding the vector qi for the generalization of the J-Integral.

FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

q k vectors around the crack tip.

FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Numerical results of a particular case.

FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Block diagram of the iterative method.

FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Model dimensions (in millimeters) and boundary conditions.

FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Experimental set-up.

FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Comparison between the numerical and experimental results for three holes model. (a) Minimization of potential energy technique; (b) Experimental.

FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Comparison between the numerical and experimental results for two holes model. (a) Minimization of potential energy technique; (b) Experimental.

  • Download PDF