Paper detail

An assessment of the J-integral test for a metallic foam

An assessment is made of the J-integral test procedure for initial crack growth in an open-cell aluminium alloy foam by combining finite element (FE) simulations with experiment. It is found experimentally that a zone of randomly failed struts develops ahead of the primary crack tip, and is comparable in size to that of the plastic zone. Hence, a crack tip J-field is absent at the initiation of crack growth from the primary crack tip. This implies that the measured J_IC value and the J versus crack extension Da curve cannot be treated as material properties despite the fact that the specimen size meets the usual criteria for J validity. The toughness tests were performed on a single-edge notched bend specimen, and crack extension was measured by the direct current potential drop method, by digital image correlation and by X-ray computed tomography. The crack growth resistance of the foam is associated with two distinct zones of plastic dissipation: (i) a bulk plastic zone emanating from the crack tip (containing a cluster of randomly failed struts), and (ii) a crack bridging zone behind the advancing crack tip. The applicability of a cohesive zone model to predict the fracture response is explored for the observed case of large scale bridging. To do so, FE simulations are performed by replacing the discrete lattice of the open-cell metallic foam by a compressible, elastic-plastic hardening solid while the fracture process zone in the foam is represented by a cohesive zone, as characterised by a tensile traction versus separation law. A detailed comparison of the cohesive zone model with experimental observations reveals that it is possible to capture the load versus displacement response but not the details of the fracture process zone using a single set of process zone parameters.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.