STRESS CONCENTRATION EFFECTS IN HIGHLY LOCALIZED FUNCTIONALLY GRADED MATERIALS

BY

STEVEN P. BERLO

A SPECIAL PROBLEMS PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTERS OF SCIENCE

IN

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND APPLIED MECHANICS

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

May 2009

Abstract

In this study localized nonhomogeneity in material property is evaluated for its reducing effect on stress concentration. A number of traditional plane elasticity problems were solved using the finite element method to evaluate highly localized variation in Youngs modulus. Two-dimensional infinite plane theory with both biaxial and uniaxial far field loading was applied to problems with remote stress free holes, both circular and elliptical. Youngs modulus was varied in both intensity and gradation depth in the in plane x and ycoordinate directions with gradation originating on, and following the shape of the stress free hole. In addition, a brief study for a uniformly loaded half-space contact problem is presented with localized modulus gradation originating on the loading surface and graded in the loading direction only.

ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.1 1.1. FGM Background..1 1.2. Focus of Current Study..2 2. Modeling...3 2.1 Finite Element Analysis Pre and Post-Processing......3 2.2 Modeling of FGM...4 2.2.1 2.2.2 Element Type and FGM Modeling..5 User Subroutine...6

2.3 FEA FGM Model Verification...7 3 Analysis and Results.....12 3.1 Plate with Stress Free Circular Hole Biaxial Loading....12 3.1.1 Introduction.12 3.1.2 3.1.3 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions..12 Results14

3.2 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Circular Hole Uniaxial Loading18 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Introduction18 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions..18 Results20

3.3 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Elliptical Hole Biaxial Loading....22 3.3.1 3.3.2 Introduction22 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions..23

iii

3.3.3

Results27

3.4 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Elliptical Hole Uniaxial Loading..31 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 Introduction31 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions..31 Results32

3.5 Contact in Half Space - Uniform Distributed Loading.35 3.5.1 Introduction35

3.5.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions..36 3.5.3 3.5.4 4 Results42 Discussion..47

Conclusions52 4.1 Conclusions....52

Appendix A. Sample UMAT User Subroutine55 Appendix B. Additional Results for Contact in Half-Space Problem..57 Bibliography.59

iv

1 Introduction
1.1 Functionally Graded Materials Background Functionally graded materials, FGMs, are a classification of materials that posses material properties that vary gradually as a function of position. A prime example is the earths crust, where soil becomes more compacted with depth. FGM properties are purposely varied to achieve smooth variations such as to avoid abrupt property changes in material and may exhibit either isotropic or anisotropic properties (Kim and Paulino, 2002). FGMs differ from conventional composite materials in that there exists no delamination of layered material as a result of stress concentrations at the layer interfaces, which typically create material discontinuity.

Deliberately grading the properties of a material is aimed at optimizing the response under mechanical loading, including both structural and thermal behaviors. Graded materials have been increasingly promoted over the past 2 decades, particularly as a type of barrier coating in the aerospace industry for resolving thermal problems as encountered in high performance aircraft, such as gas turbine engines and rocket nozzles (Batra and Rousseau, 2007). In terms of the structural applications, FGMs have been seen in history in such applications the hardening of swords, as in the Samurai where the outer material was hardened leaving a more ductile, tougher material at the core. However, most theory and application of FGMs have occurred relatively recently for use in engineering materials. Typical structural application of FGMs can include use with gears and bearings for wear resistance, where standard homogeneous material would not support both high wear resistance and high toughness.

1.2 Focus of Current Study To date, typical evaluation of FGMs has been for the most part limited to linear, exponential or power law gradation through the thickness of a material. There have been numerous studies on the effects of fracture due to this through thickness gradation (Erdogan, Wu, 1997), as well as for stress concentrations due to geometrical discontinuity (Venkataraman, 2003, Matsunaga, 2008, Manneth, 2009). The general focus of these studies involved modifying the materials Youngs modulus properties using linear, exponential or power law functions, which were applied across or spanned the depth of the material boundaries.

The focus of this study is on the stress concentration effects due to a more localized Youngs modulus gradation. The traditional infinite plate problem with stress free center holes, both circular and elliptical, were evaluated with local gradation in Youngs modulus around the hole. This includes both radial gradation for the case of the circular hole, and a shape dependent gradation in the case of the elliptical hole, where the spatial gradation follows the elliptical geometry. In addition, a brief study was conducted on localized gradation for a simple half-space contact problem where local gradation occurs near the loaded surface and is limited to the depth direction.

2 Modeling
2.1 Finite Element Analysis Pre and Post-Processing The method used in this study to model and evaluate the local gradation effects focused on the use of Abaqus finite element software to model the stress concentration problems. The gradation was modeled at the element level using an Abaqus user subroutine that mapped the variation in elastic modulus as a function of spatial coordinates at Gauss points within each element. This method results in smooth and continuous variation across the element.

Once the user subroutine was established it was initially evaluated against known closed form solutions from Sadd (2009) for both linear and radial gradation. After the associated models where verified, the appropriate gradation functions were established and evaluated using MATLAB before being coded into the user subroutine.

With each of the studies conducted, convergence of the FEA solution was accomplished to ensure that accuracy was optimized. In addition, the FEA model was evaluated against the closed form solution where available. In all cases the closed form solution did exist for the homogeneous case so all models were initially evaluated against the homogeneous solutions. Once the modeling accuracy was established, they were run with the appropriate gradation functions coded into the user subroutine.

For the evaluation of results, a path of nodal points was established on the discretized model in the direction of interest, for example, along the radial symmetric boundary

running perpendicular to the load direction for the case of the circular hole with uniaxial far filed loading. The nodal stresses were then extracted from the FEA model, as a function of coordinate, and read directly into MATLAB for further evaluation and plotting.

2.2 Modeling of FGM There are generally two approaches to modeling the gradation of material properties using finite elements. Homogeneous elements can be used in such a fashion that the elements are assembled in rectangular rows that are aligned with the gradation direction. Each row of homogeneous elements is then assigned the varied material property for the midline of the row. This produces a step-wise approximation where the stiffness matrix for a specific element is assumed constant and has the property assigned at the centroid of the element (Santare and Lambros, 2000).

Although using the homogeneous element can provide reasonable results, it does not lend itself to capturing geometry that is not rectangular in shape. Furthermore, due to the high stress gradients that are inherent to stress concentration problems, a more accurate method of capturing the gradients, without using an extremely large number of elements, is preferred. The more accurate method of modeling material property variation is with the isoparametric element where the spatial variation in the property can be assigned at each Gauss point within the element. Normally the components of the stiffness matrix, Ke, contain constant material properties for an element. By assigning spatially dependant properties at each Gauss point, the stiffness matrix provides variation across the element,

resulting in a full, smooth transition across each element. The user subroutine is used to map the modulus gradation over the boundary area of the model.

2.2.1 Element Type and FGM Modeling The element type selected for this study is the plane stress CPS8, bi-quadratic, full integration isoparametric element. This element supports the use of the user defined material parameters UMAT subroutine. The general formulation of the element, and the application of the material gradation to the element, is described by Bathe and Wilson (1976), as well as Santare and Lambros (2000). To formulate the stiffness matrix, a set of shape functions is established resulting in the following matrix of displacements components:

u ( x) = N i ( x)U i
i =1

(2.1)

where u(x) is the matrix of displacement components within the element, Ni(x) is the matrix of shape functions and Ui are the nodal displacements for each of the nodes, n. Taking the derivative of the shape functions results in the infinitesimal strain components of equation (2.2), where Bi(x) is populated with the Ni(x) derivatives.

( x) = Bi ( x)U i
i =1

(2.2)

At each point the stress components are calculated from the strain and material property matrix C(x)

( x) = C ( x) ( x)

(2.3)

For the nonhomogeneous case, the material matrix, C(x), consists of a set of properties that are spatially dependant. The element stiffness matrix, Ke, is then defined as the linear function that maps the nodal displacements to the nodal forces, fi,

f i = K eU i

(2.4)

Per the principle of virtual work, the work done by the nodal forces must equal the work of deformation within the element. Equating these quantities, the element stiffness matrix is derived as

K e = B T ( x)C ( x) B( x)dV
Ve

(2.5)

where the integral is taken over the volume of the element.

2.2.2 User Subroutine

To model the spatially dependent Youngs modulus in this study, the Abaqus UMAT user subroutine was used. The subroutine is written in FORTRAN language and runs in parallel to the Abaqus solver. It allows the user to establish an algorithm to calculate user variables that will be passed into the Abaqus solver. For this study the subroutine was coded such that the material and stiffness matrices were established with the appropriate spatially dependent material properties, i.e., Youngs modulus. Poissons ratio was assumed to be constant since it has been shown that variations in Poissons ratio have much less significance than Youngs modulus (Sadd, 2009). The method required for establishing the stiffness matrix requires equation (2.5) to be integrated numerically using

Gauss quadrature (Manneth. 2009). Using Gauss quadrature, equation (2.5) is evaluated at specific Gauss points (xi, yi) within the element through the following relation
K e = B T ( xi , y j )C ( xi , y j ) B ( xi , y i ) J (xi , y j ) wi , w j
i =1 j =1 N N

(2.6)

where i and j correspond to the element integration points, J is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix, and wi and wj are the weights of each Gauss point. The UMAT code that was used in this study was a modified version of that established by Manneth (2009) and is listed in Appendix A.

2.3 Finite Element FGM Model Verification

To verify the UMAT user subroutine, a finite element model was evaluated against a known closed form solution. The goal was to assess the performance of the subroutine and its link to the Abaqus solver, as well as to assess the performance within a high stress gradient stress field. Since the closed form solution for an infinite plate with a circular hole has been established for nonhomogeneous elastic modulus, it was used for the subroutine verification. The solution is developed in Sadd (2009) and is derived from the hollow cylindrical domain under uniform internal and external pressure loading, where the modulus is graded radially with a power-law variation of Youngs modulus.

r E (r ) = E0 a

(2.7)

This can be applied to the rectangular plate with stress free center hole model by defining a large boundary to hole radius ratio. The stress field for radial and tangential stress is as follows

r =

P0 b ( 2+ k n ) / 2 ( 2+ k + n ) / 2 r a k r ( 2k + n ) / 2 k k b a

(2.8)

r =

P0 b ( 2+ k n ) / 2 2 + k n ( 2+ k + n ) / 2 2 k n k ( 2 k + n ) / 2 r + a r k + n 2 bk ak k n + 2

(2.9)

where k = n 2 + 4 4n , P0 = -T (biaxial far field boundary traction), b is the radius of the outer boundary, or in the case of the rectangular plate the half width, and a is the center hole radius.

A quarter symmetric model of a 40 x 40 unit thin plate with 1unit radius center hole was used for verification. This was modeled as a square 20 x 20 unit plate with a 1 unit radius hole in the corner (a/b = 20), as shown in figure 2-1. The mesh was refined around the center hole and was graded in the direction moving away from the hole toward the outer boundaries. The initial mesh consisted of 471 CPS8 bi-quadratic, full integration plane stress elements with 1581 nodes.

ux = 0

a b

uy = 0

Figure 2-1. Verification mesh with 471 CPS8 elements. The biaxial loading boundary conditions consisted of edge pressures on the outer boundaries as well as symmetry along the x and y-axes. The base Youngs modulus, E0, was 200 GPa with a Poissons ratio of 0.25, which was held constant. The initial evaluation was to the homogenous solution, where n in equation (2.7) was set to zero. The closed form solution results in a maximum normalized tangential stress, /T = 2.0 at the edge of the hole. The FEA model returned a result of 1.994, which is an accuracy of 0.3%.

Next the model was evaluated with the gradation parameter n = 0.2. The FEA solution returned a normalized maximum tangential stress /T = 1.534, where the analytical solution is 1.550, or about 1.0% accuracy. The solutions were plotted for comparison along the radial line from the edge of the hole extending to the boundary. It was noticed that although the gradient in the vicinity of the hole was adequately captured when

compared to the closed form solution, it appeared to slightly diverge approaching the outer traction boundary, which is likely due to the rectangular boundary which is not present in the analytical solution. The mesh was then refined for both convergence study as well as to assess the behavior near the boundary. Meshes of 1980 and 2350 elements were generated, both of which had refinement near the edge of the hole. Although the normalized stress converged to 1.997 for both, the near boundary behavior was unchanged. Since this far field loading problem is focused on localized stress at the hole, this was deemed acceptable.

The mesh consisting of 1980 elements, with 6141 nodes, was used to further verify the UMAT user subroutine for radial gradation with values n = -0.2, 0 and 0.2. The results are plotted in figure 2-2, along with the 1980 element mesh. The FEA solution is generally very good throughout the domain as compared to the analytical curves. For n = 0.2, the 1980 element FEA solution was 1.535 compared to 1.550 for the theoretical (1.0%). The y-direction stress contours are shown in figure 2-3, where the tangential stress is represented along the x-axis. For n = -0.2 the FEA solution returned 2.546 where the closed form is 2.550 (0.2%).

10

Figure 2-2. 1980 element mesh and resulting UMAT verification curves.

y x Figure 2-3. Y-direction stress contours for radial gradation for n = 0.2.

11

3 Analysis and Results

3.1 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Circular Hole Biaxial Loading 3.1.1 Introduction

The following studies the effect of local Youngs modulus gradation around a stress free circular hole in an infinite plate subject to far field biaxial loading. The modulus was graded in the radial direction emanating from the edge of the hole into the section toward the outer traction boundaries. As in the verification problem for user subroutine in Section 2.3, Youngs modulus was varied starting at the edge of the hole, but now was limited in depth such that gradation did not extend to the outer boundaries (except for the initial run in to establish a baseline). The intent was to model a Youngs modulus ratio, E/E0, at the edge of the hole, for both increase and decrease, to grade the variation within general vicinity of the hole. The intensity of the modulus increase as well as the gradation depth were controlled and evaluated. The goal was to create a highly localized gradation to reduce the magnitude of stress concentration.

To quantify the depth of gradation, it was assumed that when the graded modulus E reached 99.9% of E0, the gradation was considered complete and this location was considered the depth of gradation. This distance is referred to as the percentage depth of the overall boundary length.

3.1.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions

The finite element model used for this study was leveraged from the verification of the user subroutine, Section 2.3. Again, the evaluation criteria and convergence confirmation

12

for this problem were completed where the homogeneous solution, equations (2.8) and (2.9), were used to determine accuracy. The localized radial gradation function used to control the modulus ratio at the edge of the hole and depth of gradation was

r n 1 E = E0 1 + ke a

(3.1)

where E is the variable modulus, E0 is the base modulus, k is the modulus modifying parameter, n is the gradation depth modifier, and a is the radius of the center hole, which for this model was equal to 1. Throughout this study the far field modulus, E0 = 1 GPa with Poissons ratio = 0.3 and held constant.

For this study, the initial k and n parameters were varied as k = 5.0, 2.5, 1.0 and n = 0.1 and .015. Using these parameters, the gradation is plotted in figure 3-1 as a function of normalized section depth, r/a. The positive k value reflects surface stiffening, or material stiffening at the edge of the hole.

Figure 3-1. Gradation for n = 0.015 (full gradation) and n = 0.10 (50% gradation depth).

13

Negative k values were also evaluated, which reflects surface softening at the edge of the hole. The negative parameters varied as k = -0.8, -0.7, -0.6, -0.4 which were each evaluated at n = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 2.0. The gradation depths for these n parameters are shown in figures 3-2 thru 3-5 with their respective results.

3.1.3 Results

The initial models run for the surface stiffening case, positive k values, showed an increase in the normalized stress at the edge of the hole for both the 50% and full gradation depth (n = 0.1 and 0.015 respectively), figures 3-2 and 3-3. As the maximum tangential stress for the homogeneous case is 2.0, the increase in stress concentration exceeded this in all cases with k>0 and is more severe for the shallow gradation depth of 50%.

Figure 3-2. Surface stiffening, k>0, for n = 0.10 (50% depth).

14

Figure 3-3. Surface Stiffening, k>0, for n = 0.015 (full depth).

The resulting maximum normalized tangential stress occurred at the edge of the hole, as expected, and are listed in Table 3-1. The increase in stress at the hole appears to be directly related to modulus ratio where it is more pronounced as the modulus ratio is increased. The intensity of the stress for each modulus ratio appears to be related to the depth of gradation, where the more shallow gradient results increased stress level.

Table 3-1. Resulting stress concentrations for surface stiffening, k>0.

k 1 2.5 5 E/E 0 max 2.0 3.5 6.0 n 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 Depth 50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100%

/T at hole
2.567 2.418 3.004 2.711 3.386 2.943

The results for the surface softening case, k<0, where more favorable in terms of reducing the stress concentration at the hole, where in all of these cases the tangential stress at the hole was reduced. Typical behavior is shown in figures 3-4 and 3-5. It is interesting to

15

note that the typical behavior exhibits an increase in tangential stress at a depth that appears to coincide with gradation depth, and is more pronounced as the modulus ratio is reduced. The case of k = -0.8 and n = 2.0 represents the most dramatic decrease in the stress concentration at the hole, at 0.562, but shows an additional stress peak within the depth of the plane equal to 1.400, again coincident with, or slightly inside, the gradation depth.

Figure 3-4. Surface Softening, k<0, for n = 0.1 (45% grad depth), biaxial loading.

Figure 3-5. Surface softening, k<0, for n = 2.0 (14% grad depth), biaxial loading.

16

Plots of edge modulus ratio are shown in figure 3-6 for the varying gradation depths. The general trend can clearly be seen where for each modulus ratio the depth of gradation appears to have a more dramatic effect on the maximum stress within the section, where as the modulus ratio has more of an effect on the magnitude of stress concentration at the edge of the hole. Furthermore, it appears that as gradation depth is increased, the stress gradient from the hole to the interior peak becomes smoother with its peak slightly inside, or at a slightly more shallow depth, than the gradation depth. This is clearly the case for n = 0.1. The results are tabulated in Table 3-2 for all cases evaluated.

Figure 3-6. Effects of gradation depth for Youngs modulus ratio, biaxial loading.

17

Table 3-2. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, biaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 Depth 45% 35% 28% 14% 45% 35% 28% 14% 45% 35% 28% 14% 45% 35% 28% 14%

/T max
1.184 1.209 1.230 1.400 1.153 1.177 1.200 1.360 1.282 1.230 1.197 1.337 1.590 1.552 1.529 1.410

/T at hole
0.839 0.775 0.738 0.562 1.085 1.025 0.988 0.815 1.282 1.230 1.197 1.034 1.590 1.552 1.529 1.410

-0.7

0.3

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

3.2 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Circular Hole Uniaxial Loading 3.2.1 Introduction

The case of the stress free center circular hole in an infinite plate with far field uniaxial loading was investigated next. Gradation was again in the radial direction emanating from the edge of the hole toward the outer boundaries. Here the modulus ratio was focused on surface softening, as the previous biaxial study indicated that the stress concentration reduction was dependant on softening and not stiffening. As in the biaxial case, the intensity of the modulus decrease as well as the gradation depth was controlled and evaluated.

3.2.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions

As for the biaxial case, the FEA model was leveraged from the initial user subroutine verification. The boundary conditions were unchanged, as shown in figure 2-1, with the

18

exception of the boundary loads where the y-direction load was dropped. The x-direction load remained at 1 MPa. The radial gradation was controlled by equation (3.1) with the parameters k = -0.8, -0.7, -0.6, -0.4 which were each evaluated at n = 0.1, 0.3 and 2.0.

The evaluation criteria was again the homogeneous closed form solution which is derived in Sadd (2009) and results in a maximum tangential, or hoop, stress around the edge of the hole given by

(a, ) = T (1 2 cos 2 )

(3.2)

where and a are defined in figure 3-7.

a T

Figure 3-7. Stress free hole for infinite plate with uniaxial loading.

The maximum tangential stress is located on the edge of the hole at = 90o, or on the axis perpendicular to the direction of loading. For the homogeneous case the stress concentration is equal to 3.0.

19

3.2.3 Results

The behavior due to uniaxial loading was found to be quite similar to that of the biaxial case. While the stress concentration at the hole was reduced for each case evaluated, there did exist an additional stress peak that coincided with the gradation depth. As in the biaxial case, the greatest reduction in stress concentration at the hole is found at k = -0.8 and n = 2.0, where the normalized tangential stress is 0.920. Again, the peak stress shifts from the edge of the hole to a depth of approximately 14% where it has a normalized value of 1.532, a 67% increase from the edge stress. This is shown in figure 3-8 where the gradation depth n = 2.0 is plotted for the various k values. The resulting stress concentrations and peak stresses are tabulated in Table 3-3.

Figure 3-8. Surface softening, k<0, for n = 2.0 (14% grad depth), uniaxial loading.

20

Table 3-3. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, uniaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 Depth 45% 28% 14% 45% 28% 14% 45% 28% 14% 45% 28% 14%

/T max
1.248 1.299 1.532 1.621 1.470 1.482 1.927 1.785 1.598 2.399 2.296 2.151

/T at hole
1.243 1.096 0.920 1.621 1.470 1.279 1.927 1.785 1.598 2.399 2.296 2.151

-0.7

0.3

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

Figure 3-9 plots each of the modulus ratio values to the varying gradation depths. The behavior is again quite similar to the biaxial case, where the stress concentration at the hole appears to be a function of the Youngs modulus ratio, and the gradation depth appears to effect the transition and formation of an additional stress peak at depth.

21

Figure 3-9. Effects of gradation depth for Youngs modulus ratio, uniaxial loading.

3.3 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Elliptical Hole Biaxial Loading 3.3.1 Introduction

In this study the localized Youngs modulus gradation is applied to the elliptical shaped hole with far field biaxial tensile loading. The same methods are applied to vary both the modulus ratio at the edge of the hole and the depth of gradation. However, here the spatial gradation is a function of the elliptical geometry and not a function of the radial distance from the edge of the hole, as for the circular shape. The gradation follows the shape of the elliptical hole as it emanates from the edge toward the outer boundaries.

22

For this study, two elliptical cases subjected to biaxial loading are evaluated. The first has a major to minor axis ratio (a/b) of 2:1, followed by the case of 5:1.

3.3.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions

The general model for consisted of a 40 x 40 unit square plate with a centered ellipse with its major axis in the horizontal, or x-direction. The FEA model took advantage of symmetry on both the vertical, y-axis and horizontal x-axis and consisted of a 20 x 20 unit square boundary with a quadrant of the ellipse located at the midpoint of symmetry. The remaining boundary conditions consisted of both x and y-direction tensile loads of 1 MPa on the outer boundary edges.

To evaluate model accuracy, convergence to the closed form analytical solution for the homogeneous case was evaluated. The homogeneous solution for biaxial loading is derived from superposition of the two uniaxial cases for horizontal loading (1) and vertical loading (2) as shown in figure 3-10.

23

 y = Sy
x = Sx

y a b x

y = Sy

x = Sx

y a b x

a b x

(1) Horizontal Uniaxial

(2) Vertical Uniaxial

Figure 3-10. Superposition of uniaxial far field loading (courtesy of Sadd 2009).

From Sadd (2009), the solution to each individual problem for the boundary circumferential stress component is given by

2 m1 + 1 2 cos 2 m12 (1) ( ) = S x m 2 2 m cos 2 + 1 1 1 2 2 m 2 + 1 2 cos 2( / 2) m 2 (2) ( ) = S y m 2 2 m cos 2( / 2) + 1 2 2

where m1 = the x-axis. 24

(3.3)

a b ba , m2 = = m1 , and is the angle measure counterclockwise from a+b b+a

Using superposition and letting m = m1 = - m2

(2) ( ) () = (1) () +

2 m + 1 2 cos 2 m 2 = Sx m 2 2 m cos 2 + 1

2 m + 1 + 2 cos 2 m 2 + Sy m 2 2 m cos 2 + 1

(3.4)

For the case of equal biaxial tensile loadings where S x = S y = S , boundary tangential stress becomes

2(1 m 2 ) ( ) = S m 2 2 m cos 2 + 1
For the case with b > a, the maximum value of this stress is found at = /2

(3.5)

2(1 m 2 ) b 2( m 1) max = ( / 2) = S m 2 + 2m + 1 = S m + 1 = 2S a
With b/a = 2, max = 4S, while for b/a = 5, max = 10S

(3.6)

The initial FEA model was constructed for a/b = 2 and consisted of 1976 elements and 6531 nodes. Note that the FEA geometry has rotated the ellipse 90o from the illustration shown in figure 3-10. As before, the isoparametric CPS8, bi-quadratic, full integration element was used with the UMAT user subroutine defining spatial gradation. The function used to establish the elliptical dependent spatial gradation is given by the similar form

E = E 0 1 + ke n [( r ) 1]

(3.7)

where r= x2 y2 + a2 b2 (3.8)

25

The modulus ratios studied where k = -0.8, -0.6, -0.4 each evaluated at gradation depth parameters of n = 0.1, 0.3 and 2.0.

The convergence study, listed in Table 3-4, resulted in an accuracy to the closed form solution to 1.7%. Table 3-4, convergence study for biaxial elliptical hole.
Elements 1976 4949 5499 6524 Nodes 6135 15164 16834 19939 Maximum Normalized Stress 4.093 4.081 4.069 4.068 Accuracy 2.3% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7%

The refined mesh consisting of 5499 elements was used for the study, shown in figure 311, as it represented 1.7% accuracy to the closed form homogeneous solution and provided a mesh that was consistent in element aspect ratio, while the 6524 element mesh resulted in skewed elements. The mesh was refined on the edge of the hole with a graded mesh that became less dense toward the outer boundary. y T

ux = 0

b a
uy = 0

Figure 3-11. FEA mesh and boundary conditions, elliptical hole with biaxial loading. 26

For the a/b = 5 case, the boundary was increased to 50 x 50 units such that the ratio of the overall width to the major axis, a, remained at 10:1 for the infinite model to be valid. Similar mesh refinement and convergence study resulted in a mesh consisting of only 1863 elements (5798 nodes) with a maximum normalized stress of 10.098 at the edge of the hole on the major axis, which is an accuracy to 1%. In this case mesh refinement was held close to the high stress gradient area near the hole and relaxed toward the outer boundaries.

3.3.3 Results

The behavior for the elliptical case is very similar to that of the circular hole. A reduction in the normalized tangential stress at the edge of the hole was indicated in all cases evaluated with k<0. There exists a similar behavior of the stress on the major axis direction (x-axis) in that it tends to lose its monotonic decay moving away from the edge of the hole. This is more pronounced for the shallow depth gradation, n = 2.0, 28%, and low modulus ratio, k = -0.8, as seen in figure 3-12, along with typical gradation curves, for a/b = 2.

Figure 3-12. Surface softening, k<0, for n = 2.0 and a/b = 2, biaxial loading. 27

The reduction in stress concentration at the edge of the hole again appears to the related more to the modulus ratio than gradation depth, as shown in Figure 3-13. A second stress peak is again observed as the gradation depth in reduced.

Figure 3-13. Effects of gradation depth for a/b = 2, biaxial loading.

The maximum tangential stress is located on the edge of the hole for all cases except for k = -0.8 and n = 2.0, in which case there is a slight increased peak at approximately 18% depth. Results for the a/b = 2 case are tabulated in Table 3-5.

28

Table 3-5. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, for a/b = 2, biaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 Depth(x) 90% 70% 57% 28% 90% 70% 57% 28% 90% 70% 57% 28%

/T max
1.988 1.819 1.735 1.492 2.853 2.709 2.633 2.345 3.397 3.200 3.246 3.037

/T at hole
1.988 1.819 1.735 1.434 2.853 2.709 2.633 2.345 3.397 3.200 3.246 3.037

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

For the case of a/b = 5, the maximum tangential stress appears on the edge of the hole in all cases evaluated. The stress along the major axis symmetry boundary appears much smoother, however, when compared to the a/b = 2 case. Figure 3-14 shows the typical gradation depths, along with the resulting tangential stresses in the major axis direction through 1/5 of the total section depth (width). As can be noticed, the stress just inside of the edge of the hole has a sharp gradient similar to the a/b = 2 case, as well as for the circular hole, and exhibits monotonic decay as it extends toward the center of the width of the plate. This difference in behavior may be attributed to the gradation shape that extends around the ellipse. On the minor axis, y-direction, the gradation depth is more shallow than for the major axis direction due to the elongation of the elliptical shape in the x-direction. As the gradation emanates from the edge of the hole it reaches the base modulus, E0, much quicker along the y-axis direction than the x-direction. This causes a more non-uniform modulus across the diagonal width, say at 450, which may provide stiffer material in this section of the plate that helps reduce the effects of the y-axis

29

loading. Regardless, the maximum stress occurs on the x-axis (major axis). The results for the a/b = 5 case are tabulated in Table 3-6.

Figure 3-14 Effects of gradation depth for a/b = 5, biaxial loading

Table 3-6. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, for a/b = 5, biaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 Depth(x) 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28%

/T max
5.034 4.610 4.105 7.037 6.683 6.528 8.345 8.103 7.814

/T at hole
5.034 4.610 4.105 7.037 6.683 6.528 8.345 8.103 7.814

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

30

3.4 Infinite Plate with Stress Free Elliptical Hole Uniaxial Loading 3.4.1 Introduction

In this section the plate with center elliptical hole is subject to uniaxial loading in the direction perpendicular to the major axis. The modulus gradation was identical to that for the biaxial case, where the spatial gradation follows the shape of the elliptical hole given by equations (3.7) and (3.8). The modulus ratio was evaluated for hole edge surface softening, where k < 0. The two elliptical cases evaluated for biaxial case, a/b = 2 and a/b = 5, were again evaluated here for uniaxial case.

3.4.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions

The FEA models were leveraged from the biaxial study. The boundary conditions were identical with the exception of the loading, where the x-direction load was removed. The resulting load boundary condition was a uniform tensile load of 1 MPa on the outer edge of the plate in the direction perpendicular to the major axis, as in figure 3-15. T

ux = 0

uy = 0

Figure 3-15. Mesh and boundary conditions for elliptical model for a/b = 2, uniaxial load.

31

For both a/b cases, the modulus ratios where k = -.08, -.06, -.04 and where evaluated at gradation depths n = 0.1, 0.3 and 2.0.

The closed form analytical solution for the uniaxial case was established as part of the biaxial solution and is given by the first of equations (3.3) for b>a. Equation (3.3) is rotated 90o relative to the FEA model as shown in figure 3-15 and has the major axis in the b-direction. The maximum tangential stress solution for the homogeneous case of a/b = 2 is 5.0, and for a/b = 5 is 11.0. The FEA model validation solutions were 5.105 (2%) and 11.099 (0.9%) respectively.

3.4.3 Results

The results for the a/b = 2 case are very similar to the biaxial case in that the stress concentration on the edge of the hole is reduced with reduction in modulus ratio. Again, as the depth of gradation becomes more shallow, the tangential stress along the xsymmetry boundary becomes non-monotonic, which is most pronounced at the shallow depth of n = 2.0, and in particular for the modulus ratio of k = -0.8. Figure 3-16 plots the resulting tangential stresses along the major, x-axis direction along with the typical gradation curves. For all cases evaluated the stress is reduced at the edge of the hole and is maximum at this point. These results are shown in Table 3.7.

32

Figure 3-16. Effects of gradation depth for a/b = 2, uniaxial loading.

Table 3-7. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, for a/b = 2, uniaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 Depth(x) 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28%

/T max
2.510 2.173 1.825 3.602 3.296 2.962 4.281 4.068 3.822

/T at hole
2.510 2.173 1.825 3.602 3.296 2.962 4.281 4.068 3.822

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

33

The a/b = 5 case also shows similar behavior to the biaxial case. The tangential stress along the major axis direction is smooth and is reduced to a greater degree as the modulus ratio is reduced. Figure 3-17 shows the resulting stresses along the major, x-axis direction along with the typical gradation curves. The results are listed in Table 3-8. Once again, the k = -0.8 modulus ratio (20%) and shallow gradation depth of n = 2.0 (28%), appear to provide the most significant reduction in stress concentration at the edge of the hole, with a reduction from 11.099 to 4.512, or 59%.

Figure 3-17. Effects of gradation depth for a/b = 5, uniaxial loading.

34

Table 3-8. Stress concentration for surface softening, k<0, for a/b = 5, uniaxial loading.
k -0.8 E/E 0 max 0.2 n 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 Depth(x) 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28% 90% 47% 28%

/T max
5.532 5.051 4.512 7.488 7.334 6.880 9.180 8.900 8.591

/T at hole
5.532 5.051 4.512 7.488 7.334 6.880 9.180 8.900 8.591

-0.6

0.4

-0.4

0.6

3.5 Contact Loading Uniform Normal Distributed Loading in Half Space

Following is a brief study that evaluates the stress field and stress concentration effects of a simulated contact mechanics problem using localized Youngs modulus gradation.

3.5.1 Introduction

A typical analytical approach to modeling contact mechanics problems is with a distributed load on an elastic half space. Since contact stresses within an elastic body are highly concentrated close to the contact region and decrease rapidly away from the area of contact, stresses can be calculated to a good approximation by considering a body as a semi-infinite elastic solid bounded by a plane surface, or an elastic half-space. Providing the boundary dimensions are large enough as compared to the contact area, the stresses near the contact region are not dependent on boundary shape or constraint far from the contact area. In addition, body curvature can be neglected, as contact elements are typically rounded or spherical in shape, and the stress field for this non-uniform contact can be approximated with a uniform loading (Johnson, 1985).

35

The stress field below the surface directly under the contact area reaches a peak maximum shear stress slightly below the surface. For the homogeneous case this occurs at a depth of y/a = 1.0 below the surface, with y being the axis parallel to the applied load and a being the half length of a symmetrical uniform load centered on y (figure 3-18). For ductile materials it is theorized that this maximum shear stress is responsible for the fatigue failure of contacting elastic elements, in which a crack originates below the surface at the peak maximum shear stress point and propagates to the surface under repeated loading (Shigley and Mischke, 1989). Thus for the evaluation of stress concentration effects in this current study, the maximum shear stress is the criteria to which the local gradation effects were evaluated.

The local gradation was constructed such that the modulus had both increasing and decreasing behaviors measured from the contact loading surface. The transition from the surface modulus back to that of the base material value, or depth of gradation, was also varied.

3.5.2 FEA Model and Boundary Conditions

The model used in this study consisted of a small boundary section with a uniform load applied to the free surface with Youngs modulus varying from the free surface into the depth of the section. As shown in figure 3-18, the uniform surface load was applied over a small section of the surface and was centered on the y-axis, which is positive in the direction into the depth of the section. The boundary size that was modeled was 20 x 20 units with a loading surface of 1/10 of the overall boundary, or 2 units. The modulus

36

gradation was localized toward the loaded surface and varied into the depth of the section in the vertical direction only.

y
Figure 3-18. General contact model for vertical modulus gradation.

The finite element model consisted of a 20 x 20 unit 2-D plane with a uniform pressure load of 1 MPa over 2 units acting on the free surface centered on the y-axis. The mesh consisted of 2496 CPS8 full integration quadrilateral elements with 7689 nodes and was refined under the uniform load and graded from the surface in to the depth of the section. The section was constrained at the lower free edge using zero displacement boundary conditions for both the x and y-directions. Figure 3-19 shows the mesh and boundary conditions used for this contact problem study.

37

P
X

20

ux = uy = 0

20

Figure 3-19. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions for contact problem.

Local Youngs modulus gradation was modeled using an exponential function such that the modulus was varied starting at the loaded surface, y = 0, and graded to various depths into the section. The modulus was graded in the y-direction only using equation (3.9).

E = E 0 1 + ke ny

(3.9)

The parameters k and n were varied such that the modulus at the surface, as well as the depth of transition, or gradient, could be modified. The k parameter modifies the modulus to either increase or decrease, and the n parameter produces a gradient depth modifier. To obtain preliminary results the parameters initially selected for the study

38

were: k = -0.8, -0.4, 0.4, 0.8 with n = 0.02, 0.10, 1.0. Once the general behavior of the model was understood, the additional parameters of k = 2.0 and k = 3.0 were added for additional evaluation. The gradation depth parameters, n, are shown graphically for k = 0.8 and -0.8 in figure 3-20. The depth and gradient of the curves are typical for all k values evaluated.

Figure 3-20. Typical gradation depth shapes for various n values.

Prior to evaluating modulus gradation, the homogeneous case was run and compared to the analytical solution. The analytical solution for the stress field for half-space under uniform loading is derived from superposition of the single concentrated normal force solution, resulting in the following stress field (Sadd, 2009):

x=
y=

P [2( 2 1 ) + (sin 2 2 sin 21 )] 2 P [2( 2 1 ) (sin 2 2 sin 21 )] 2

(3.10)

(3.11)

39

 xy=

P [cos 2 2 cos 21 ] 2

(3.12)

where 1 and 2 are defined in figure 3-4.

P x
2

y Figure 3-4. Half-space under uniform loading over a>x>a (Sadd, 2009). The homogeneous model was evaluated with a Youngs modulus of 1GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.3. Since the area of interest is directly under the load, the resulting stress distribution was obtained from the nodal values along the y-axis and compared to the analytical solution in terms of maximum shear stress. The theoretical maximum shear stress along the y-axis can be calculated using only equations (3.10) and (3.11) since the in plane shear stress is zero along the y-axis due to symmetry. Thus, with the x and yaxes being principal, the maximum shear stress is determined using equation (3.13).

max =

1 x y 2

(3.13)

The normal stress values along the y-axis were extracted from the finite element model and the resulting maximum shear stress was calculated using equation (3.13). The model

40

did return in-plane shear stress values, which may have resulted from slight asymmetry within the mesh, but these were insignificant in magnitude and thus ignored. The resulting comparison between the FEA model and the closed form solution is shown in figure 3-21, where it can be seen that there exists some deviation in peak value.

Figure 3-21. Maximum shear stress for theoretical and FEA solutions.

The peak normalized maximum shear stress for the closed form solution is 0.3183. The FEA solution returned a value 8.8% higher at 0.3465. Increasing element count and mesh refinement showed insignificant improvement but did confirm convergence of the initial FEA model. It was determined that since the model was capturing the behavior as compared to the theoretical solution, i.e., the maximum shear stress curves followed the same shape along the y-axis with the peak occurring at y/a = 1.0, it would be adequate to evaluate the general, relative behavior of the FGM contact model.

41

3.5.3 Results

Evaluation of the gradation effects were assessed relative to the FEA solution of the maximum shear stress values for the homogeneous model. In general, the behavior of the graded models appeared to follow that of the closed form solution in that the peak maximum shear stress occurred at a depth of y/a = 1.0. For the case of surface softening, k = -0.8 and -0.4, the peak maximum shear stress showed an increase for the deeper gradation parameters n = 0.02 and 0.10 of up to 7.3%, while the more shallow case, n = 1.0, showed slight decrease of up to 4.1%. The increased peak maximum shear stress is shown in figure 3-22, which is for the case of n = 0.10 for both k = -0.8 and -0.4.

In addition to the maximum shear stress, the y stress was evaluated on the y-axis and compared to the FEA homogeneous model. For the case of surface softening, all gradation depth variations showed a slight increase in the compressive stress, with the typical behavior shown in figure 3-23. The y stress value at the critical y/a = 1.0 depth was extracted from the model and recorded. The results for peak maximum shear stress and y stress at y/a = 1.0 for surface softening are shown in Table 3.9.

42

Figure 3-22. Maximum shear stress for surface softening for n = 0.10.

Figure 3-23. Normal stress, y, along y-axis for k = -0.8, surface softening.

43

Table 3.9. FEA results for contact problem, surface softening case.
Normalized Peak Max Normalized Max Stress Shear Stress along y-axis along y-axis @ y/a=1.0

k
0 (homogeneous) -0.8

E/E 0 at surface

n
0.02 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.10 1.00

max
0.3465 0.3717 0.3699 0.3328 0.3557 0.3561 0.3395

y
-0.799 -0.824 -0.854 -0.869 -0.804 -0.816 -0.827

1 0.2

-0.4

0.6

For the case of surface stiffening, where k values are positive, the peak maximum shear stress follows an opposite trend to that of surface softening, k<0. In all of the cases evaluated, the FEA model predicts a decrease in peak maximum shear stress when the gradation depth is increased, for n = 0.10 and 0.02, whereas for the more shallow case of n = 1.0 the peak increases. In addition, the y stress along the y-axis exhibits an opposite trend as well where the compressive stresses are reduced slightly at depth. Figure 3-24 shows the typical behavior of maximum shear stress for the deeper gradation parameters, n = 0.02 and n = 0.10, where n = 0.10 is plotted for modulus parameters k = 0.4 and 0.8. Figure 3-25 shows the vertical normal stress, y along the y-axis, where the trend shows a reduction in compressive stress at depth, which is observed in all of the cases evaluated for the positive k parameter.

44

Figure 3-24. Maximum shear stress for surface stiffening at gradation depth n = 0.10.

Figure 3-25. Normal stress, y, along the y-axis for n = 0.10, surface stiffening.

The results for the surface stiffening study are given in Table 3.10. As indicated, the most dramatic decrease in peak maximum shear stress occurs at k = 3.0 with a gradation depth of n = 0.10, where the peak is reduced by 8.3%. 45

Table 3.10. FEA results for surface stiffening case.

Normalized Peak Max Shear Stress along y-axis Normalized Max Stress along y-axis @ y/a=1.0

k
0 (homogeneous) 0.8

E/E 0 at surface

max
0.3465 0.3351 0.3339 0.3597 0.3400 0.3392 0.3533 0.3255 0.3233 0.3777 0.3202 0.3178 0.3917

y
-0.799 -0.794 -0.782 -0.760 -0.796 -0.789 -0.778 -0.791 -0.770 -0.723 -0.790 -0.764 -0.700

1.0

0.02 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.10 1.00

1.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

However, for the case of shallow stiffening where n = 1.0, again with surface stiffening at k = 3.0, there tends to be an increase in the peak maximum shear stress within the depth of y/a = 1.0 approaching the loading surface. Conversely, at greater gradation depth the peak maximum shear stress is reduced. It was also observed (Table 3.10) that the peak decreased from a gradation depth n = 1.0 to n = 0.1, but showed a slight increase from the n = 0.10 level as the depth was increase to n = 0.02. Figure 3-26 shows maximum shear stress for gradation depth at k = 3.0 along the y-axis. It is noted that for n = 1.0 and to a lesser degree n = 0.10, there is an increase in maximum shear stress at the loaded surface which differs from the typical behavior and curve shape exhibited by lower k values. Furthermore, the peak maximum shear stress appears to occur at a slightly deeper y/a point for the n = 0.10 case as opposed to the n = 1.0 case, where it remains at y/a = 1.0.

46

Figure 3-26. Maximum shear stress along the y-axis for k = 3.0.

3.5.4 Discussion

Although this contact study suggests that there may be the ability to reduce the stress concentration effects with localized gradation of Youngs modulus, the FEA model exhibits behavior that appears to be suspect at elevated k values. For the case of k = 3.0, E/E0 = 4, and n = 1.0, and n = 0.10, the maximum shear stress is elevated at the surface as compared to zero at the surface for the theoretical homogeneous case. Investigating the normal stress components along the y-axis, where there appeared to be little change in y stress for all cases, there appears to be a drastically increased horizontal, x, stress at and directly below the surface to a depth of y/a = 0.22. Increasing the total element count from 2496 to 9986 with mesh refinement in the area directly below the surface to a depth that exceeds y/a = 1.0 had no effect on the resulting stress field in the model. In addition, the model was reconstructed such that the load was applied over 1/20 the overall section, as opposed to 1/10, with no change to this behavior. Thus, the behavior appears not to be related to mesh density or discretization error.

47

The y stress along the y-axis for k = 3.0 from the surface to a depth of y/a = 5.0 is shown in figure 3-27. The stress appears to vary little for n = 0.02 and 0.10 within the depth from the surface to y/a = 1.0. For n = 1.0 there is clearly a decrease in compressive y stress approaching y/a = 1.0. A reduction in y stress would suggest that the maximum shear stress be reduced, which is clearly not the case. This suggests that the horizontal principal stress, which would normally be compressive, should show reduction as well.

Figure 3-27. Normal stress, y, along the y-axis from surface to y/a = 5.0 for k = 3.0. The horizontal, x stresses for k = 3.0 are shown in figure 3-28. From inspection of figure 3-28 it is clear that the horizontal stress for n = 1.0 is the cause of the spike in maximum shear stress at the surface, as well as for the n = 0.10 case. For n = 1.0 the graded region remains within the y/a = 0 to y/a = 2.0 (ref to figure 3-20). This is more than likely due to the significant relative increase in stiffness in the horizontal direction as

48

compared to the highly graded vertical direction, where the material outside, or deeper than the graded region is more compliant.

Figure 3-28. x stress along the y-axis for k = 3.0.

The shallow gradation depth along with increased E/E0 creates a very high modulus gradient close to the surface that appears to act as a material discontinuity (but is clearly not a physical discontinuity).

The displacement in the vertical direction for the k = 3.0 case is shown in figure 3-29. As expected the displacement is reduced as the depth of gradation increases, where the region of stiffness in the vertical direction emanating from the surface is increased.

49

Figure 3-29. Vertical displacement for along y-axis for k = 3.0.

Since the horizontal stress is the culprit of the increase in maximum shear stress at the surface for this model, the displacement and stress distributions were plotted along horizontal paths at the surface and at depths of y/a = 0.2 and y/a = 1.0. A plot of the x stress for these various depths is shown in figure 3-30. It is interesting to note that the compressive stress values are reduced with depth directly under the load and actually become tensile at the critical y/a = 1.0 depth. In addition, the stress outside of the loaded area becomes tensile at and slightly below the surface. The remainder of the plots are listed in Appendix B for further review.

It appears that the highly localized, high E/E0 ratio case results in a material discontinuity effect due to the extreme nature of the highly localized modulus gradient for this contact problem.

50

Figure 3-30. x stress along horizontal at various depths.

51

4 Conclusions
Localized material gradation was evaluated for its effect on and ability to reduce stress concentrations. Two-dimensional infinite plane theory with far field loading was applied to problems with remote stress free holes, both circular and elliptical, as well as a for a simple uniform loaded contact problem. Youngs modulus was varied in both intensity and gradation depth in both the x and y-coordinate directions with gradation originating on, and following the shape of the stress free hole. For a uniform loaded contact problem, the modulus was varied in the direction of loading only, originating on the loaded surface.

It is concluded that for the remotely located stress free hole problem, reducing the modulus ratio E/E0<1 at the hole (local softening effect) has a reducing effect on the resulting stress concentration at the edge of the hole. This effect is more prominent with shallow gradation depths but introduces additional stress increases at locations within the graded region of the section.

Increasing the modulus ratio E/E0>1 on the edge of a circular hole (local stiffening effect) and grading it to the base modulus within a defined depth resulted in an increase in the stress concentration on the edge of the hole. The magnitude of the stress increase was greater where the gradation depth becomes shallow, or closer to the hole.

Reduction of the modulus ratio at the hole, E/E0<1, had a reducing effect on the stress concentration at the hole in all cases evaluated, for both circular and elliptical shapes. It

52

was determined that the tangential stress level at the edge of the hole was related more to the modulus ratio, where greater reductions in stress concentration were observed as E/E0 ratios were reduced. This behavior was typical for both the circular and elliptical shaped holes, in cases of both uniaxial and biaxial loading.

The depth of gradation was observed to affect the decay in tangential stress moving away from the hole into depth. As the modulus ratio is reduced the transition in stress moving from the edge into the far field loses its monotonic decay. As the gradation depth becomes shallow, a second stress peak begins to form with greater intensity for the lower E/E0 ratios. This is more prominent for the circular hole and elliptical hole with a/b = 2, for both uniaxial and biaxial far field loading. This second tangential stress peak was observed to exceed the stress at the edge of the hole in cases of circular shape with low E/E0 ratio, accentually moving the stress concentration off the edge and into the depth of the section. For the a/b = 5 elliptical hole, the gradation depth had little effect on the stress levels away from the edge of the hole.

It is also concluded that for the uniform loaded contact problem, increasing E/E0>1 (surface stiffening effect) in conjunction with a deeper gradation depth reduced the maximum shear stress concentration under the load, although only slightly. With increased modulus ratio and shallow gradation depth the maximum shear stress developed and increases dramatically on and just under the loaded surface.

53

A modulus ratio E/E0 <1 (surface softening effect) resulted in the peak maximum shear stress to increase for deeper gradation cases, with a slight reduction for a more shallow gradation depth. For E/E0 >1, the opposite behavior was observed. The peak maximum shear stress shows a slight decrease for deeper gradation depth and an increase for shallow depth. As the modulus ratio was increased to E/E0= 3 and 4, the maximum shear stress at the loaded surface showed a dramatic increase for the more shallow depths. This was found to be attributed to an increase in the horizontal compressive stresses at the loaded surface at decreasing gradation depth.

It is further concluded that for shallow gradation depth along with very high or very low E/E0 creates an extremely high modulus gradient that has a similar effect of a material discontinuity, thus losing the effects of smooth functional grading.

54

Appendix A
UMAT User Subroutine for Radial Gradation, k = -0.8 and n = 0.3.

C C ABAQUS 6.5 - user subroutine UMAT for functionally graded materials C where E(x,y) C C ****************************************************************** *** C SUBROUTINE UMAT(STRESS,STATEV,DDSDDE,SSE,SPD,SCD, 1 RPL,DDSDDT,DRPLDE,DRPLDT,STRAN,DSTRAN, 2 TIME,DTIME,TEMP,DTEMP,PREDEF,DPRED,MATERL,NDI,NSHR,NTENS, 3 NSTATV,PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,DROT,PNEWDT,CELENT, 4 DFGRD0,DFGRD1,NOEL,NPT,KSLAY,KSPT,KSTEP,KINC) C implicit real*8(a-h,o-z) parameter (nprecd=2) C CHARACTER*8 MATERL DIMENSION STRESS(NTENS),STATEV(NSTATV), 1DDSDDE(NTENS,NTENS),DDSDDT(NTENS),DRPLDE(NTENS), 2STRAN(NTENS),DSTRAN(NTENS),DFGRD0(3,3),DFGRD1(3,3), 3TIME(2),PREDEF(1),DPRED(1),PROPS(NPROPS),COORDS(3),DROT(3,3), 4STRAIN(3),S(3),PS(3),AN(3,3),D(4) C C X=COORDS(1) Y=COORDS(2) C E0=1.E9 ANU=0.3 C a=2 E=E0*(1-.8*(exp(-.3*(((X**2+Y**2)**0.5-1)**a)))) C C1=E/(1.-ANU**2) C2=E/(2.*(1.+ANU)) C C COMPUTE JACOBIAN C D11=C1

55

D12=ANU*C1 D22=C1 D33=C2 C DDSDDE(1,1)=D11 DDSDDE(2,1)=D12 DDSDDE(3,1)=0.0 DDSDDE(1,2)=D12 DDSDDE(2,2)=D22 DDSDDE(3,2)=0.0 DDSDDE(1,3)=0.0 DDSDDE(2,3)=0.0 DDSDDE(3,3)=D33 C C STRESSES AND STRAINS AT END OF TIME STEP: C S1=STRAN(1)+DSTRAN(1) S2=STRAN(2)+DSTRAN(2) S3=STRAN(3)+DSTRAN(3) C STRESS(1)=D11*S1+D12*S2 STRESS(2)=D12*S1+D22*S2 STRESS(3)=D33*S3 C RETURN END

56

Appendix B
Horizontal displacements and corresponding normal stress, x, at various depths for uniform loaded contact problem at k = 3.0, n = 1.0.

Figure B-1. Horizontal displacement and corresponding x stress the surface for halfspace contact problem.

Figure B-2. Horizontal displacement and corresponding x stress at y/a = 0.2 for halfspace contact problem.

57

Figure B-3. Horizontal displacement and corresponding x stress at y/a = 1.0 for halfspace contact problem.

58

Bibliography
Abaqus, Analysis Users Manual, Version 6.5, H.K.S, Pawtucket, RI, 2004. Batra, V., Rousseau, C-E, Behavior of Nonhomgeneous Materials Subject to Bearing Load, J. Eng. Materials and Tech., April 2007, pp. 248-254. Birman, V., Byrd, L.W., Modeling and Analysis of Functionally Graded Materials and Structures, Applied Mechs Review, 2007, pp.195-216. Erdogan, F., Wu, B. H., The Surface Crack Problem for a Plate With Functionally Graded Properties, J of Applied Mechanics, 1997, Vol 64, pp. 449-456. Johnson, K. L., Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, London, 1985. Kim, J-H., Paulino, G. H., Isoparametric Graded Finite Elements for Nonhomogeneous Isotropic and Orthotropic Materials, J. Applied Mechs, July 2002, pp. 502-514. Manneth, V., Numerical Studies on Stress Concentration in Functionally Graded Materials, Masters Thesis, University of Rhode Island, 2009. Matsunaga, H., Stress Analysis of Functionally Graded Plates Subjected to Thermal and Mechanical Loadings, Composite Structures, 87, 2009, pp. 344-357. Sadd, M. H., Elasticity, Theory, Applications & Numerics, Elsevier Academic Press, Boston, 2009. Santare, M. H., Lambros, J., Use of Graded Finite Elements to Model the Behavior of Nonhomogeneous Materials, J. of Applied Mechs, 2000, pp.819-822. Shigley, J. E., Mischke, C. R., Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1989. Venkataraman, S., Sankar, B. V., Elasticity Analysis and Optimization of a Functionally Graded Plate with Hole, American Inst. of Aerodynamics and Astronautics, 2003-1466, pp.1-13.

59