Prediction of ductile failure using a local strain-to-failure criterion
Source abstract
Abstract
In this article, we provide the details of the predictive simulations performed by the University of Texas team in response to the 2012 Sandia Fracture Challenge (Boyce et al. in The Sandia Fracture challenge: blind predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract. doi: 10.1007/10704-013-9904-6, 2013). The material constitutive model was calibrated using the tensile test data through an optimization scheme. A modified Johnson–Cook failure criterion was also partially calibrated using the material characterization data obtained from a tension test and a compact-tension fracture test. These models are then embedded in a highly refined finite element simulation to perform a blind prediction of the failure behavior of the Sandia Fracture Challenge geometry. These results are compared with experiments performed by Sandia National Laboratories and additional experiments that were performed at the University of Texas at Austin with full-field three-dimensional digital image correlation in order to explore the different failure modes. It is demonstrated that a well-calibrated model that captures the essential elastic–plastic constitutive behavior is necessary to confidently capture the elasto-plastic response of challenging structural geometries; it is also shown that a simple ductile failure model can be used to predict ductile failure correctly, when proper calibration of the material model is established.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Metallurgy and Material Forming
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (9)
Show source-provided references
1. Boyce BL, Kramer SLB, Fang HE et al (2013) The Sandia Fracture challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract. doi: 10.1007/s10704-013-9904-610.1007/s10704-013-9904-6 ↗
2. Ghahremaninezhad A, Ravi-Chandar K (2011) Ductile failure in polycrystalline OFHC copper. Int J Solids Struct 48:3299–331110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.07.001 ↗
3. Ghahremaninezhad A, Ravi-Chandar K (2012) Ductile failure behavior of polycrystalline Al 6061–T6. Int J Fract 174:177–20210.1007/s10704-012-9689-z ↗
4. Ghahremaninezhad A, Ravi-Chandar K (2013) Ductile failure behavior of polycrystalline Al 6061-T6 under shear dominant loading. Int J Fract 180:23–3910.1007/s10704-012-9793-0 ↗
5. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 193:281–29710.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
6. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21:31–4810.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9 ↗
7. Lesuer DR, Kay GJ, LeBlanc MM (2001) Modeling large strain, high-rate deformation in metals. UCRL-JC-134118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
8. McClintock FA (1968) A criterion for ductile fracture by the growth of holes. J Appl Mech 35:363–37110.1115/1.3601204 ↗
9. Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 17:201–21710.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-7 ↗