FE micromodel of a cord-rubber composite tube sample subjected to uniaxial tension
Source abstract
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine displacements, strains and stresses of a railway composite cord-rubber air brake tube undergoing uniaxial tension by microscale modelling. The micromodel is based on the macromodels (by matching the boundary conditions of the micromodels with displacements of the macromodels) created previously by authors of this article. The reinforcing yarns are described by an orthotropic, elastic material model, whereas the matrix has been described by a 2 parameter Mooney-Rivlin model, which all have been validated before by a uniaxial tensile test and a three-point bending test. Force-displacement curves of the micromodel and experimental results show a considerably good agreement. Failure of the reinforcement layers does not occur in case of the uniaxial tension of the composite tube sample, there was no failure event observed during the experiment of the tube sample. Load transfer mechanism has been demonstrated and characterized numerically by strain and stress results inside and between reinforcement layers (implying shear plays a dominant role in the load-transfer mechanism). The microscale nature of the FE model ensures that the strain and stress results are representative for the reinforcement layers.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical stress and fatigue analysis · Railway Engineering and Dynamics · Fatigue and fracture mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Machine and Product Design, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
Funding
Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.03.10310.1016/j.compstruct.2017.03.103 ↗
2. 10.31399/asm.tb.cfw.978162708338610.31399/asm.tb.cfw.9781627083386 ↗
3. 10.1016/S1359-8368(03)00077-510.1016/S1359-8368(03)00077-5 ↗
4. 10.1177/073168442096257710.1177/0731684420962577 ↗
5. 10.1016/0010-4361(89)90640-X10.1016/0010-4361(89)90640-X ↗
6. 10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00124-810.1016/S0266-3538(96)00124-8 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00125-X10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00125-X ↗
8. 10.7148/2019-037710.7148/2019-0377 ↗
9. Chawla KK · 2009
10. 10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00022-110.1016/S0266-3538(00)00022-1 ↗
11. Nemat-Nasser S · 1993
12. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.07.00410.1016/j.compscitech.2005.07.004 ↗
13. ANSYS Mechanical User’s Guide. Advanced Analysis Guide. Chapter 8: Submodeling.
14. 10.1016/0045-7949(84)90160-310.1016/0045-7949(84)90160-3 ↗
15. 10.1016/0010-4361(94)90187-210.1016/0010-4361(94)90187-2 ↗
16. Bojtár G · 2019
17. 10.1016/0022-5096(96)00007-510.1016/0022-5096(96)00007-5 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.01810.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.018 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.05210.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.052 ↗
20. 10.1155/2014/62917510.1155/2014/629175 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.02710.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.027 ↗
22. Arasu G, Kurinjivelan P, Samanta A, et al. An investigation on boundary interpolation errors of the submodeling technique. Mumbai, India: World Maritime Technology Conference, 2009, p. 9.
23. 10.1007/978-3-319-74280-9_1610.1007/978-3-319-74280-9_16 ↗
24. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19991030)46:6<889::AID-NME699>3.0.CO;2-F10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19991030)46:6<889::AID-NME699>3.0.CO;2-F ↗
25. Goda T · 2002
26. 10.1016/j.jmps.2015.12.02410.1016/j.jmps.2015.12.024 ↗
27. 10.4236/mme.2017.7400710.4236/mme.2017.74007 ↗
28. 10.14513/actatechjaur.v11.n2.45610.14513/actatechjaur.v11.n2.456 ↗
29. 10.4236/mme.2018.8100510.4236/mme.2018.81005 ↗
30. 10.1080/15397734.2017.132148810.1080/15397734.2017.1321488 ↗
31. ANSYS Mechanical APDL Theory Reference, Chapter 3.2 Large strains.