Application of uncertainty quantification techniques to ductile damage predictions in the third Sandia Fracture Challenge
Source abstract
Abstract
This report documents predictions in response to the third Sandia Fracture Challenge (Kramer et al. in Int J fract, 2019) that employs 3D component built with additive manufacturing processes. These predictions employ a modeling and simulation framework that supports uncertainty quantification by rigorous statistical methods and fast-running surrogate models. This work introduces a novel ductile damage formulation supported by recent experimental observations. This report details a calibration process that updates prior material property distributions to posterior distribution by aligning distributions of computational experiments to measurements. Finally, we discuss in detail the assumptions (with rationales) and techniques employed to set-up the challenge analyses and to process these results. Blind predictions of the challenge geometry align with global measurements in the elastic and plastic regimes. There is less agreement after the onset of ductile failure, and this lack of agreement is discussed at the end of the report. Local measurements show additional variability not captured by the statistical processes. Results in this study support the use of existing continuum-scale material models for additively manufactured components.
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 (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Boyce BL et al (2014) The Sandia Fracture Challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract 186:6–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-013-9904-610.1007/s10704-013-9904-6 ↗
2. Boyce BL et al (2016) The second Sandia Fracture Challenge: predictions of ductile fracture under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading. Int J Fract 198:5–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-016-0089-710.1007/s10704-016-0089-7 ↗
3. Bai Y, Wierzbicki T (2010) Application of extended Mohr–Coulomb criterion to ductile fracture. Int J Fract 161:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-009-9422-810.1007/s10704-009-9422-8 ↗
4. Bao Y, Wierzbicki T (2004) On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress space. Int J Mech Sci 46:81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.02.00610.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.02.006 ↗
5. Barsoum I, Faleskog J (2007) Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear—experiments. Int J Solids Struct 44:1768–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.09.03110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.09.031 ↗
6. Benzerga AA, Leblond JB, Needleman A, Tvergaard V (2016) Ductile failure modeling. Int J Frac 201:29–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-016-0142-610.1007/s10704-016-0142-6 ↗
7. Besson J (2009) Continuum models of ductile fracture: a reveiw. Int J Dam Mech 19:3–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678950910348210.1177/1056789509103482 ↗
8. Bažant P, Oh BH (1983) Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mats Strucs 16:155–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0248626710.1007/BF02486267 ↗
9. Carlton HD, Haboub A, Gallegos GF, Parkinson DY, MacDowell AA (2016) Damage evolution and failure mechanisms in additively manufactured stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng A 651:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.07310.1016/j.msea.2015.10.073 ↗
10. Cazacu O, Plunkett B, Barlat F (2006) Orthotropic yield criterion for hexagonal closed packed metals. Int J Plast 22:1171–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2005.06.00110.1016/j.ijplas.2005.06.001 ↗
11. Chaboche JL (1988) Continuum damage mechanics: part I—general concepts. J Appl Mech 55:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.317366110.1115/1.3173661 ↗
12. Cockeram BV, Chan KS (2013) In situ studies and modeling of the deformation and fracture mechanism for wrought Zircaloy-2 and Zircaloy-4 as a function of stress state. J Nucl Mater 434:97–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2012.11.00510.1016/j.jnucmat.2012.11.005 ↗
13. Corona E, Reedlunn B (2013) A review of macroscopic ductile failure criteria. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque10.2172/1096245 ↗
14. Garrison WM Jr, Moody NR (1987) Ductile fracture. J Phys Chem Solids 48:1035–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(87)90118-110.1016/0022-3697(87)90118-1 ↗
15. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part I—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.344340110.1115/1.3443401 ↗
16. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc Lond 193:281–297. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.004510.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
17. Huang Y (1991) Accurate dilatation rates for spherical voids in triaxial stress fields. J Appl Mech 58:1084–1086. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.289768610.1115/1.2897686 ↗
18. Kramer SLB et al (2019) The third Sandia Fracture Challenge: predictions of ductile fracture in additively manufactured metal. Int J Fract. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00361-110.1007/s10704-019-00361-1 ↗
19. Landron C, Maire E, Bouaziz O, Adrien J, Lecarme L, Bareggi A (2011) Validation of void growth models using X-ray microtomography characterization of damage in dual phase steels. Acta Mater 59:7564–7573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2011.08.04610.1016/j.actamat.2011.08.046 ↗
20. Lecarme L, Maire E, Kumar K, De Vleeschouwer C, Jacques L, Simar A, Pardoen T (2014) Heterogenous void growth revealed by in situ 3-D X-ray microtomography using automatic cavity tracking. Acta Mater 63:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.01410.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.014 ↗
21. Lemaitre J (1984) How to use damage mechanics. Nucl Eng Des 80:233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90169-910.1016/0029-5493(84)90169-9 ↗
22. Martin J, Simpson T (2005) Use of kriging models to approximate deterministic computer models. AIAA J 43:853–863. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.865010.2514/1.8650 ↗
23. Mills WJ (1997) Fracture toughness of type 304 and 316 stainless steels and their welds. Int Mater Rev 42:45–82. https://doi.org/10.1179/imr.1997.42.2.4510.1179/imr.1997.42.2.45 ↗
24. Mohr D, Marcadet SJ (2015) Micromechanically-motivated phenomenological Hosford–Coulomb model for predicting ductile fracture initiation in low stress triaxialities. Int J Solids Struct 67:40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.02.02410.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.02.024 ↗
25. Nahshon K, Hutchinson JW (2008) Modification of the Gurson model for shear failure. Eur J Mech A 27:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2007.08.00210.1016/j.euromechsol.2007.08.002 ↗
26. Nielsen KL, Tvergaard V (2010) Ductile shear failure or plug failure of spot welds modelled by modified Gurson model. Eng Fract Mech 77:1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.02.03110.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.02.031 ↗
27. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, New York10.1017/CBO9780511760396 ↗
28. Pineau A, Benzerga AA, Pardoen T (2016) Failure of metals I: brittle and ductile failure. Acta Mater 107:424–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.12.03410.1016/j.actamat.2015.12.034 ↗
29. Rasmussen C, Williams C (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT Press, New York
30. Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 17:201–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-710.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-7 ↗
31. Rosakis P, Rosakis AJ, Ravichandran G, Hodowany J (2000) A thermodynamic internal variable model for the partition of plastic work into heat and stored energy in metals. J Mech Phys Solids 48:581–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00048-410.1016/S0022-5096(99)00048-4 ↗
32. Salzbrenner BC, Rodelas JM, Madison JD, Jared BH, Swiler LP, Shen Y, Boyce BL (2017) High-throughput stochastic tensile performance of additively manufactured stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol 241:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.10.02310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.10.023 ↗
33. Schwer LE (2009) An overview of the ASME V&V-10 guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. In: 20th International conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology, Espoo, Finland
34. Silverman B (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. CRC, Boca Raton10.1007/978-1-4899-3324-9 ↗
35. Tvergaard V (1981) Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain. Int J Fract 17:389–40710.1007/BF00036191 ↗
36. Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall 32:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0003619110.1016/0001-6160(84)90213-X ↗
37. Wu AS, Brown DW, Kumar M, Gallegos GF, King WE (2014) An experimental investigation into additive manufacturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. Metall Mater Trans A 45:6260–6270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-014-2549-x10.1007/s11661-014-2549-x ↗
38. Xue L (2007) Damage accumulation and fracture initiation in uncracked ductile solids subject to triaxial loading. Int J Solids Struct 44:5163–5181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.12.02610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.12.026 ↗
39. Xue L (2008) Constitutive modeling of void shearing effect in ductile fracture of porous materials. Eng Fract Mech 75:3343–3366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.07.02210.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.07.022 ↗
40. Xue Z, Faleskog J, Hutchinson JW (2013) Tension-torsion fracture experiments—part II: simulations with the extended Gurson model and a ductile fracture criterion based on plastic strain. Int J Solids Struct 50:4258–4269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.08.02810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.08.028 ↗
41. Zhou J, Gao X, Sobotka JC, Webler BA, Cockeram BV (2014) On the extension of the Gurson-type porous plasticity models for prediction of ductile fracture under shear dominated conditions. Int J Solids Struct 51:3273–3291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.02810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.05.028 ↗