Skip to main content
Log in

How the obscuration-zone hypothesis affects fragmentation: Illustration with the cohesive-element method

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Fracture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of fragmentation prediction is at the origin of various analytical models. Among them, we focus on the ones introducing the idea of obscured zones. They assume that when a crack initiates at a defect, a stress release wave propagates away from the crack and protects the region encompassed by the wave from any further crack initiation. In this paper, we show by the use of numerical simulations that this assumption is only valid at high strain rates. The limit of its accuracy is even pushed to higher strain rates when the fragmentation process becomes more complex, that is to say when crack propagation, bifurcation or coalescence together with wave reflections are implied. In these cases, fragmentation lasts longer than the time needed to completely obscure the whole specimen and the obscured zone theory for fragmentation appears inadequate. We use the cohesive-element method to describe the damage and failure of the material considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astrom JA, Linna RP, Timonen J, Moller PF, Oddershede L (2004) Exponential and power-law mass distributions in brittle fragmentation. Phys Rev E 70(2): 026104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 3(20–22): 2899–2938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denoual C, Barbier G, Hild FA (1997) Probabilistic approach for fragmentation of ceramics under impact loading. C.R. Acad Sci Paris IIb 325: 685–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Donzé FV, Bouchez J, Magnier SA (1997) Modeling fractures in rock blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8): 1153–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drugan WJ (2001) Dynamic fragmentation of brittle materials: analytical mechanics-based models. J Mech Phys Solids 49(6): 1181–1208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forquin P, Hild F (2010) A probabilistic damage model of the dynamic fragmentation process in brittle materials. Adv Appl Mech 44: 1–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn LA, Chudnovsky A (1986) Strain-energy effects on dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 59: 1379–1380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grady DE, Kipp ME (1985) Geometric statistics and dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 83(3): 1210–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grady DE (2006) Fragmentation of rings and shells: the legacy of N.F. Mott. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady DE, Kipp ME, Benson DA (1984) Energy and statistical effects in the dynamic fragmentation of metal rings. Proc Conf Mech Prop High Rates Strain 70: 315–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady DE (1982) Local inertial effects in dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 53(1): 322–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrman HJ, Wittel FK, Kun F (2006) Fragmentation. Physica A 371: 59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes T (2000) The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Dover Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipp ME, Grady DE (1985) Dynamic fracture growth and interaction in one dimension. J Mech Phys Solids 33(4): 399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy S, Molinari JF (2010) Dynamic fragmentation of ceramics, signature of defects and scaling of fragment sizes. J Mech Phys Solids 58(1): 12–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levy S, Molinari JF, Radovitzky R (2011) Dynamic fragmentation of a brittle plate under biaxial loading: strength or toughness controlled? Int J Numer Methods Eng (submitted)

  • Lienau CC (1936) Random fracture for brittle solid. J Franklin Inst 221:485–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiti S, Rangaswamy K, Philippe H, Geubelle PH (2004) Mesoscale analysis of dynamic fragmentation of ceramics under tension. Acta Mater 53(3): 823–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller O, Freund LB, Needleman A (1996) Modeling and simulation of dynamic fragmentation in brittle materials. Int J Fracure 96(2): 101–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mott NF, Linfoot EH (1943) A theory of fragmentation. Ministry of supply AC3348

  • Mott NF (1947) Fragmentation of shell cases. Proc Royal Soc A189: 300–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris JP, Rubin MB, Block GI, Bonner PM (2006) Simulations of fracture and fragmentation of geologic materials using combined FEM/DEM analysis. Int Impact Eng 33(1–12): 463–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin P, Rammler E (1999) The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J Inst Fuel 7: 29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl Mech 18: 293–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull W (1939) A statistical theory of strength of materials. The Royal Swedish Institute of Engineering Research (Ingenors Vetenskaps Akadiens Handligar) Proceeding No. 151

  • Zhou F, Molinari JF, Ramesh KT (2006) Analysis of the brittle fragmentation of an expanding ring. Comput Mater Sci 37(1–2): 74–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Chambart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chambart, M., Levy, S. & Molinari, J.F. How the obscuration-zone hypothesis affects fragmentation: Illustration with the cohesive-element method. Int J Fract 171, 125–137 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-011-9631-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-011-9631-9

Keywords

Navigation