Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 53, Issue 10, pp 7431–7452 | Cite as

Comparison of probabilistic models for stress rupture failure in continuous unidirectional fiber composite structures

  • Amy Engelbrecht-Wiggans
  • Stuart Leigh Phoenix
Composites
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Stress rupture is an important failure phenomenon in composite overwrapped pressure vessels, which is highly unpredictable other than on a statistical basis. Even then, there are several statistical models, with varying bases in composite micromechanics and molecular failure mechanisms. Choosing among these models is not trivial, even when micromechanical details of the failure process are reasonably well appreciated, and one has available a reasonably large database of strength and lifetime data. As a result, there is little in the way of guidance to choose the most appropriate model. One important issue is that accurate predictions are desired at relatively low service loads compared to the strength, and low probabilities of failure that are far less, e.g., 10−6, than can be directly confirmed using the data itself. In essence, one needs a robust and accurate statistical model free of inconsistencies associated with such low stress levels and probabilities of failure. This paper performs an in-depth comparison of several current models, which have varying physical bases. The models compared differ in the number of parameters to be estimated from data. The results of this study, however, show that over a broad range of parameter values these models give surprisingly similar failure probability predictions. While practitioners may have a preference for one model over another, the basis for such a choice is not easily established, given the fidelity of typical data.

References

  1. 1.
    Phoenix SL (1979) The asymptotic distribution for the time to failure of a fiber bundle. Adv Appl Probab 11:153–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman BD (1956) Time dependence of mechanical breakdown phenomena. J Appl Phys 27:862–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman BD (1957) A stochastic process model for mechanical breakdown phenomena. Trans Soc Rheol 1:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coleman BD, Knox AG (1957) The interpretation of creep failure in textile fibers as a rate process. Text Res J 27:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman BD (1958) Time dependence of mechanical breakdown in bundles of fibers. III. The power law break-down rule. Trans Soc Rheol 2:195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman BD (1958) Statistics and time dependence of mechanical breakdown in fibers. J Appl Phys 29:968–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tobolsky A, Eyring H (1943) Mechanical properties of polymeric materials. J Chem Phys 11:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glasstone S, Laidler KJ, Erying H (1941) The theory of rate processes. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly A, McCartney LN (1981) Failure by stress corrosion of bundles of fibres. Proc R Soc Lond A 374:1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen RM (1984) Interactive mechanical and chemical degradation in organic materials. Int J Solids Struct 20(8):791–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reeder J (2012) Composite stress rupture: a new reliability model based on strength decay. Report NASA/TM-2012- 217566, L-20122, NF1676L-14234Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newman WI, Phoenix SL (2001) Time-dependent fiber bundles with local load sharing. Phys Rev E 63:021507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phoenix SL, Newman WI (2009) Time-dependent fiber bundles with local load sharing. II. General Weibull fibers. Phys Rev E 80:066115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christensen RM, Glaser RE (1985) Application of kinetic fracture mechanics to life prediction for polymeric materials. J Appl Mech Trans ASME 52(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glaser RE, Christensen RM, Chiao TT (1984) Theoretical relations between static strength and lifetime distributions for composites: an evaluation. Compos Technol Rev 6(4):164–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phoenix SL (2000) Modeling the statistical lifetime of glass fiber/polymer matrix composites in tension. Compos Struct 48(1):19–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(99)00069-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phoenix SL, Grimes-Ledesma L, Thesken JC, Murthy PLN (2006) Reliability modeling of the stress-rupture performance of Kevlar 49/epoxy pressure vessels: revisiting a large body stress rupture data to develop new insights. In: 21st annual technical conference and proceedings American Society for composites, University of Michigan-Dearborn, DearbornGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phoenix SL, Murthy PLN (2007) Pro’s and cons of proof testing carbon composite overwrapped pressure vessels: a comparison of two mathematical models, AIAA Paper No. 2007–2325, presented at 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phoenix SL (1978) The asymptotic time to failure of a mechanical system of parallel members. SIAM J Appl Math 34:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Phoenix SL (1978) Stochastic strength and fatigue of fiber bundles. Int J Fract 14:327–344Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freudenthal AM (1973) Fatigue and fracture mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 2:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miner MA (1945) Cumulative damage in fatigue. ASME J Appl Mech 12(3):159–164Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor HM (1987) A model for the failure process of semicrystalline polymer materials under static fatigue. Prob Eng Inf Sci 1:133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phoenix SL (1982) Statistical modeling of the time and temperature dependent failure of fibrous composites. In: Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National congress of applied mechanics. American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phoenix SL, Kuo CC (1983) Recent advances in statistical and micromechanical modeling of time dependent failure of fibrous composites. 1983 Advances in Aerospace Structures, Materials and Dynamics—AD-06 ASME Book No. H00272Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tierney L-J (1984) A probability model for the time to fatigue failure of a fibrous composite with local load sharing. Stoch Process Appl. 18:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhurkov SN (1965) Kinetic concept of the strength of solids. Int J Fract Mech 1:311–323Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu HF, Phoenix SL, Schwartz P (1988) Temperature dependence of lifetime statistics for single Kevlar 49 filaments in creep-rupture. J Mater Sci 23:1851–1860.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01115731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phoenix SL, Tierney LJ (1983) A Statistical model for the time dependent failure of unidirectional composite materials under local elastic load-sharing among fibers. Eng Fract Mech 18:193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Engelbrecht-Wiggans A, Phoenix SL (2016) Comparison of maximum likelihood approaches for analysis of composite stress rupture data. J Mater Sci 51:6639–6661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-9950-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reeder JR (2014) The inclusion of arbitrary load histories in the strength decay model for stress rupture. In: Proceedings of the American society for composites—29th technical conference, ASC 2014Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phoenix SL (1975) Statistical analysis of flaw strength spectra of high-modulus fibers. In: Composite reliability, ASTM STP 580. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 77–89Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations