Identification strategy influence of elastoplastic behavior law parameters on Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman damage parameters: Application to DP980 steel
Source abstract
Abstract
This work adopts elastic–plastic/damage coupling in order to describe tensile behavior with validation on the deep-drawing test of a DP980 Dual Phase steel sheet. The damage model used is the Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman (GTN model). The hardening laws used are those of Swift (non-saturating law), Voce (saturating law), Hockett-Sherby (saturating law) and the two combined laws Swift/Hockett-Sherby and Swift/Voce. An identifying method for elastic–plastic parameters and GTN damage model parameters is presented using the software modeFRONTIER. This method based on the inverse analysis is also proposed for the identification of weighting coefficient α of the Swift/Hockett-Sherby combined hardening law. Finally, a parametric study was carried out to show that the plastic modulus can be considered as another criterion for the choice of a hardening law. Dependence of the damage model parameters to the hardening law is clearly established. The different behavior laws are introduced via a VUHARD type subroutine in the calculation code Abaqus.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratoire de Technologie des Matériaux et de Génie des Procédés, Faculté de la Technologie, Université de Bejaia, Bejaia, Algeria
Université Bretagne Sud, UMR CNRS 6027, IRDL, Lorient, France
References (77)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.446.15710.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.446.157 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.02.07510.1016/j.matdes.2013.02.075 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.16610.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.166 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0894-9166(16)60009-510.1016/S0894-9166(16)60009-5 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.07510.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.075 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.00310.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.003 ↗
7. 10.1088/0965-0393/10/1/30610.1088/0965-0393/10/1/306 ↗
8. 10.1016/S0065-2156(10)44003-X10.1016/S0065-2156(10)44003-X ↗
9. 10.1177/105678950910348210.1177/1056789509103482 ↗
10. Bouktir Y, Chalal H and Abed-Meraim F (2018) Prediction of necking in thin sheet metals using an elastic–plastic model coupled with ductile damage and bifurcation criteria. International Journal of Damage Mechanics 27: 801–839.10.1177/1056789517704030 ↗
11. Brunet M · Sheet forming analysis using damage variable. Journal de Physique IV France · 1996 · 6
12. 10.1007/s10704-009-9323-x10.1007/s10704-009-9323-x ↗
13. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.12.00610.1016/j.commatsci.2013.12.006 ↗
14. 10.1007/978-3-7091-2506-9_510.1007/978-3-7091-2506-9_5 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.11.04310.1016/j.commatsci.2016.11.043 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.07.02010.1016/j.commatsci.2008.07.020 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2014.03.01410.1016/j.ijplas.2014.03.014 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2011.01.00710.1016/j.ijplas.2011.01.007 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jmps.2007.07.00810.1016/j.jmps.2007.07.008 ↗
20. Feil B, Kucherenko S and Shah N (2009) Comparison of Monte Carlo and quasi Monte Carlo sampling methods in high dimensional model representation. In: First International Conference on IEEE Advances in System Simulation , 2009, pp. 12–17, Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.10.1109/SIMUL.2009.34 ↗
21. 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61038-510.1016/S0007-8506(07)61038-5 ↗
22. 10.1115/1.344340110.1115/1.3443401 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.01.01510.1016/j.commatsci.2014.01.015 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.prostr.2016.06.08710.1016/j.prostr.2016.06.087 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2015.12.00910.1016/j.euromechsol.2015.12.009 ↗
26. 10.1177/105678951455504210.1177/1056789514555042 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.12.01810.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.12.018 ↗
28. Kachanov LM · Izvestiya Akademii, Nauk USSR Otd Tech · 1958 · 8 · 26
29. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.10.01710.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.10.017 ↗
30. Kami A · Proceedings of the Romanian Academy A · 2014 · 15 · 300
31. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.02.02010.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.02.020 ↗
32. 10.1177/105678951664003710.1177/1056789516640037 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2011.01.00410.1016/j.ijplas.2011.01.004 ↗
34. Lemaitre J · 2012
35. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.01.01810.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.01.018 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.10.01710.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.10.017 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.04.02810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.04.028 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.08.01610.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.08.016 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.05710.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.057 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.03.00110.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.03.001 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2013.08.01510.1016/j.ijplas.2013.08.015 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2014.06.00510.1016/j.mechmat.2014.06.005 ↗
43. 10.1007/s00170-017-0145-010.1007/s00170-017-0145-0 ↗
44. 10.1115/1.360120410.1115/1.3601204 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.04.02310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2014.04.023 ↗
46. 10.1177/105678951453971510.1177/1056789514539715 ↗
47. 10.1177/105678951558227710.1177/1056789515582277 ↗
48. Rabotnov YN (1969) Creep problems in structural members. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 7: 836.
49. 10.1016/0029-5493(87)90234-210.1016/0029-5493(87)90234-2 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.02.02310.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.02.023 ↗
51. Saanouni K · 2013
52. 10.1016/B0-08-043749-4/03072-X10.1016/B0-08-043749-4/03072-X ↗
53. 10.1177/10567895940030020310.1177/105678959400300203 ↗
54. 10.1177/10567895000090030210.1177/105678950000900302 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.04.00310.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.04.003 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2005.07.00210.1016/j.mechmat.2005.07.002 ↗
57. Sobol IM · Mathematical Modelling and Computational Experiments · 1993 · 1 · 407
58. 10.1016/S0927-0256(97)00053-010.1016/S0927-0256(97)00053-0 ↗
59. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.815.75810.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.815.758 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2008.12.01210.1016/j.ijplas.2008.12.012 ↗
61. 10.1007/s12289-010-0747-710.1007/s12289-010-0747-7 ↗
62. 10.1007/BF0003619110.1007/BF00036191 ↗
63. 10.1007/BF0001568610.1007/BF00015686 ↗
64. 10.1016/0001-6160(84)90213-X10.1016/0001-6160(84)90213-X ↗
65. 10.1016/0020-7225(92)90059-P10.1016/0020-7225(92)90059-P ↗
66. 10.1177/105678951349177310.1177/1056789513491773 ↗
67. Voyiadjis GZ and Kattan PI (2018) Decomposition of healing tensor: In continuum damage and healing mechanics. International Journal of Damage Mechanics , 27: 1020–1057.10.1177/1056789517720969 ↗
68. Voyiadjis GZ and Kattan PI (2019) Fundamental aspects for characterization in continuum damage mechanics. International Journal of Damage Mechanics , 28: 200–218.10.1177/1056789517752524 ↗
69. 10.1007/s00170-016-9873-910.1007/s00170-016-9873-9 ↗
70. 10.1177/105678951667388610.1177/1056789516673886 ↗
71. 10.1177/105678951454657810.1177/1056789514546578 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.05.00210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.05.002 ↗
73. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.11.01710.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.11.017 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.02810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.028 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.02.01710.1016/j.msea.2015.02.017 ↗
76. 10.1016/0020-7683(94)00195-310.1016/0020-7683(94)00195-3 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.00510.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.005 ↗