Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CONTENTS
Introduction
Literature review
Objectives
Mathematical formulation
Finite element analysis
Results and Discussions
Conclusions
Scope of Further works
References
2
INTRODUCTION
Generation and propagation of crack has been crucial in life and
operation of structural elements.
Crack propagation is a slow process but fracture is really rapid one.
Vibrating structures behaves differently with the presence of crack.
The parameters (flexibility, stiffness), strain energy will be different for a
cracked component.
The change in dynamic response will occur with the initiation and
propagation of crack.
It is necessary to study the dynamics of cracked structure to improve the
life of it.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
D.Y. Zheng et al
H. Tada et al
S. Valiappan et al
Z. Friedman et al
R.D.Mindlin
E. Reissner et al
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the change in natural frequencies with the depth and
location of crack of an isotropic cantilever beam.
To analyze the forced response of the same with the applied load.
To extend the same analysis for a Functionally graded cracked cantilever
beam.
To find free and forced vibration response of a damaged composite plate
with varying modulus ratio, stacking sequence, side to thickness ratio and
boundary conditions.
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Strain energy will be increased due to the existence of crack.
c GdA
Where G is the strain energy release rate function and A will be the
effective cracked area.
G can be expressed as
1
G ' [( K I 1 K I 2 K I 3 )2 K II 2 2 ]
E
Where El = E for plain stress condition and El = E/(1-2 ) for plain strain.
KI1, KI2, KI3 and KII2 are the stress intensity factors due to loads P1, P2 and P3.
7
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
KI1
P1
F1 ( )
bh
h
KI 2
s = x/h
6P
K I 3 32 F2 ( )
bh
h
6 P2 Lc
F
(
)
2
2
bh
h
K II 2
P2
FII ( )
bh
h
F2(s) = (2.368s4-6.319s3+6.308s23.095s+1.15)/(1-s)3/2
FII(s) = (1.194s4-3.455s3+3.693s22.425s+1.105)/(1-s)3/2
F1, F2 and FII are the correction factors for stress intensity factors[2].
8
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
From the total potential energy we have
c
i
i = 1,2,3
Pi
i
(i j 1, 2,3)
Pj
P1
b 2
6P2 Lc
6P3
2 P2 2
2
cij
{[
F
(
)
F
(
)
F
(
)]
F
1
2
2
II ( )}d
E Pi Pj bh
h
bh2
h bh2
h
b2 h2
h
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Material properties of Functionally Graded beam is assumed to vary in Z
direction only.
The bottom surface is pure metal(Al) and the top surface is pure ceramic Al2O3
Effect of Poissons ratio on the deformation is much less than that of Youngs
modulus. So it is considered as constant through out the analysis.
Power law is utilised for defining the variation in youngs modulus with the
depth
z 1
E ( z ) ( Et Eb )( ) k Eb
h 2
10
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Displacement field is based on First order Shear Deformation Theory.
U(x, z, t) =U0 (x, t) z (x, t)
u0 z x
xx
xz 0 w0
x
x
t2
t1
[ Te U e We ]dt 0
11
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In composite plates also FSDT is used to define the displacement field.
u ( x, y, z, t ) u0 ( x, y, z, t ) x ( x, y, t )
v( x, y, z, t ) v ( x, y, z, t ) z ( x, y, t )
w( x, y, z, t ) w0 ( x, y, z, t ) 0
11
112 21
22 =
22
112 21
12 =
21 11
112 21
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Constitutive equation for the damage materials[8]
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Thus the stress tensor can be expressed as follows
11
21
12
22 =
11
1 1
21
1 1
12
1 2
22
1 2
14
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
The boundary conditions are as follows
Fig. 3 SS-1 Boundary condition is used for cross ply stacking sequence and
SS2 for angle ply stacking sequence.
15
vi(Vi)
vj(Vj)
a
ui(Ui)
(Qi)
Le
uj(Uj)
(Qj)
u j ui
U j
C
j i
e i
ovl V j
j i
16
K c LC 1tot LT
The above expression gives rise to the stiffness matrix of the cracked beam
element, where L is a transformation matrix that is obtained using
equilibrium conditions
Ctot = Cintact + Covl
17
10 zk10
where 10 u0
xx
1
x
x
v
v
yy 2 20 zk2 0
20 0
x
x
u v
u v
xy 6 6 0 zk6 0
60 0 0
y x
y x
w v
40
y z
u w
zx 5
50
z x
yz 4
40
w0
y
w
0
5 x x
k10
k2 0
k6 0
x
x
y
y
x y
y
x
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T
1 2 6 1 2 6 4 5
k k k
Also
8 X 1 L 8 X 5 5 X 1
Where
u0 v0 w0 x y
19
T
1
dV
2
20
T
Where D
[
T
]
[Q][T ]dz
k 1 zk 1
Eight noded isoparametric element is considered here
N
4(-1,1)
zk
7(0,1)
3(1,1)
6(1,0)
1(-1,-1)
5(-0,-1)
2(1,-1)
Fig. 5 Eight noded isoparametric element in natural coordinates with node number. 21
K ( e ) B ( e )T DB ( e ) dA( e ) where
1 1
K ij
(e)
T
B
i
DB j det Jd d
1 1
J=
22
d = depth of beam
L = length of beam
23
24
0.8
Series1
Series2
0.4
Series3
0.2
0
0
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
depth ratio
0.8
y1 = -0.033x2 - 0.043x + 1.000
0.6
Series1
Series2
Series3
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
location ratio
27
a = location ratio
0.8
0.6
Series2
Series3
Poly. (Series1)
0.4
Poly. (Series2)
Poly. (Series3)
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
-0.2
_cracked/_intact
0.6
Series3
Poly. (Series1)
0.4
Poly. (Series2)
Poly. (Series3)
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
31
10
10
10
-2
10
10
-2
Response (m)
Response (mm)
10
-4
10
-4
10
-6
-6
10
-8
10
10
-8
10
-10
-10
10
10
0
100
200
300
400
500 600
Frequency (rad/s)
700
800
900
1000
100
200
300
400
500
600
Frequency (rad/s)
700
800
900
1000
32
10
10
-2
Response (m)
10
-4
10
-6
10
-8
10
-10
10
100
200
300
400
500
600
Frequency (rad/s)
700
800
900
1000
2
1.8
1.6
E1/E2=40
1.4
y3 = -8E-09x6 + 1E-06x5 - 5E-05x4 + 0.0011x3 - 0.016x2 + 0.1329x + 0.9331
1.2
W_max1
1
W_max2
W_max3
0.8
E1/E2 = 25
0.6
E1/E2=10
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% of damage
Fig. 14 Central deflection Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios
35
18
y2 = 6E-08x6 - 8E-06x5 + 0.0004x4 - 0.0098x3 + 0.1358x2 - 1.0609x + 18.476
16
E1/E2 = 40
14
12
E1/E2 = 25
10
Omega_natural2
Omega_natural3
E1/E2 = 10
Omega_natural1
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% of damage
Fig. 15 Natural frequency Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios36
E1/E2=40
0.8
W_max1
0.6
W_max2
W_max3
0.4
E1/E2=25
E1/E2=10
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
% of damage
30
35
40
45
Fig. 16 central deflection Vs % of damage of angle ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios
37
25
E1/E2=40
20
Omega_natural
E1/E2=25
15
Omega_natural2
Omega_natural3
E1/E2=10
10
0
0
10
15
20of damage
25
%
30
35
40
45
Fig. 17 natural frequency Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios38
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
central deflection
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.9
14
12
10
8
natural frequency
6
4
2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
% of damage
Moderately
thick plate
10
20
30
40
50
% of damage
39
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
central deflection
0.4
0.2
14
nondimensional natural frequency
1.4
12
10
8
6
natural frequency
4
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
% of damage
10
20
30
40
50
% of damage
Thick plate
Fig. 20 central deflection Vs % of damage
40
CONCLUSIONS
Natural frequency reduces with the advance of crack in beams.
Central deflection goes on increase with the increase in damage.
Natural frequency goes on decrease with the increase in damage.
With increase in E1/E2, both central deflection and natural frequency increases.
FSDT is accurate for thin plates only so the analysis of thick and moderately thick
plate may result in error.
41
42
REFERENCES
1.
Free vibration analysis of a cracked beam by finite element method, D.Y. Zheng et al 2003
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 457475
2.
The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, H. Tada et al, ASME Press, New York, 2000.
3.
4.
Simplified models for the location of cracks in beam structures using measured vibration
data, J.K. Sinha, M.I. Friswell and S.Edwards 2001 Journal of Sound and Vibration, 13-38.
5.
The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates, E. Reissner,
ASME. Appl.Mech, 12[2].69-77, 1945
6.
Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates,
R.D.Mindlin, ASME.Appl.Mech, 18, 31-38, 1951.
7.
.Mechanics of Composite Materials, Arthur Kaw, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
8.