journal article·2022-06

The effect of statistically heterogeneous void nucleation on metal failure in shear

Sagi Chen

International Journal of Fracture· Volume 235· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

Ductile fracture consists of the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of microvoids observed as dimples on the fracture surface. Typical alloys contain diverse heterogeneities that are stochastically distributed, so that void nucleation is essentially heterogeneous and statistical. The scenarios of homogeneous vs. stochastic heterogeneous void nucleation are systematically compared under simple shear deformation in two limiting cases: (1) a uniform sheet that can be viewed as representing the initial stages of plastic deformation, and (2) the same sheet with an embedded central pore, the latter representing the prevailing situation for which large voids have already nucleated and grown. The homogeneous case provides a reference to which the statistically heterogeneous cases are compared. In the uniform sheet model, heterogeneous void nucleation decreases the porosity accumulation and the stress triaxiality. However, when embedding a geometrical pore at the center of the simulation cell, the averaged triaxiality increases irrespective of the void nucleation heterogeneity. The overall ductile failure process can be thought of as a gradual evolution from the initial stage (1) of a homogeneous sheet with heterogeneous void nucleation towards the final stage of a similar void-containing sheet (2), with the associated evolutions of the stress and porosity fields presented here.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and mechanical properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. Andersen RG, Tekoğlu C, Nielsen KL (2020) Cohesive traction–separation relations for tearing of ductile plates with randomly distributed void nucleation sites. Int J Fract. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-020-00454-210.1007/s10704-020-00454-2 ↗
2. Bandstra JP, Goto DM, Koss DA (1998) Ductile failure as a result of a void-sheet instability: experiment and computational modeling. Mater Sci Eng A 249(1–2):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(98)00562-010.1016/S0921-5093(98)00562-0 ↗
3. Bao Y, Wierzbicki T (2004) On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space. Int J Mech Sci 46(1):81–9810.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.02.006 ↗
4. Barsoum I, Faleskog J (2007) Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear-experiments. Int J Solids Struct 44(6):1768–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.09.03110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.09.031 ↗
5. Benseddiq N, Imad A (2008) A ductile fracture analysis using a local damage model. Int J Press Vessels Pip 85(4):219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.00310.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.003 ↗
6. Benzerga AA et al (2016) Ductile failure modeling. Int J Fract. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-016-0142-610.1007/s10704-016-0142-6 ↗
7. Berdin C et al (2004) Local approach to fracture. http://blog.livedoor.jp/kachin_shan/
8. Besson J (2010) Continuum models of ductile fracture: a review. Int J Damage Mech. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678950910348210.1177/1056789509103482 ↗
9. Bourih A et al (2018) Effective yield surface of porous media with random overlapping identical spherical voids. J Mater Res Technol 7(2):103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.01.00210.1016/j.jmrt.2017.01.002 ↗
10. Chen S, Osovski S (2019a) Damage evolution around shear loaded intervoid ligaments in plane strain and plane stress. Eur J Mech A/Solids. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2019.10390910.1016/j.euromechsol.2019.103909 ↗
11. Chen S, Osovski S (2019b) The effect of internal pressure in gas pores containing materials on their mechanical stability under shear. Mech Res Commun 98:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2019.05.00810.1016/j.mechrescom.2019.05.008 ↗
12. Chen S, Osovski S (2020) Damage evolution around an embedded pore in quasi-static shear dominant compression and tension specimens. Mech Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.10351310.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103513 ↗
13. Fadida R, Shirizly A, Rittel D (2020) Static and dynamic shear-compression response of additively manufactured Ti6Al4V specimens with embedded voids. Mech Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.10341310.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103413 ↗
14. Fisher JR, Gurland J (1981) Void nucleation in spheroidized carbon steels—1. Experimental. Met Sci 15(5):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1179/03063458179042663310.1179/030634581790426633 ↗
15. Fleck NA, Hutchinson JW (1986) Void growth in shear. Proc R Soc a: Math Phys Eng Sci 407(1833):435–458. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1986.010410.1098/rspa.1986.0104 ↗
16. François D, Pineau A, Zaoui A (2012) Mechanical behaviour of materials: volume II: fracture mechanics and damage. Zhurnal Eksperimental’noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4930-610.1007/978-94-007-4930-6 ↗
17. Goods SH, Brown LM (1979) Overview No. 1. The nucleation of cavities by plastic deformation. Acta Metall 27(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(79)90051-810.1016/0001-6160(79)90051-8 ↗
18. 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(1):2–15. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.344340110.1115/1.3443401 ↗
19. Kiran R, Khandelwal K (2014) Gurson model parameters for ductile fracture simulation in ASTM A992 steels. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 37(2):171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.1209710.1111/ffe.12097 ↗
20. Koplik J, Needleman A (1988) Void growth and coalescence in porous plastic solids. Int J Solids Struct 24(8):835–85310.1016/0020-7683(88)90051-0 ↗
21. Longère P, Bhogaraju S, Craciun D (2015) Void collapse / growth in solid materials under overall shear loading. Mech Res Commun 69:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2015.05.00910.1016/j.mechrescom.2015.05.009 ↗
22. Nahshon K, Hutchinson JW (2008) Modification of the Gurson model for shear failure. Eur J Mech A/Solids 27(August 2007):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2007.08.00210.1016/j.euromechsol.2007.08.002 ↗
23. Needleman A (1987) Continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. Am Soc Mech Eng (pap) 54(1):525–531
24. Nielsen KL, Dahl J, Tvergaard V (2012) Collapse and coalescence of spherical voids subject to intense shearing: studied in full 3D. Int J Fract 177(2):97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-012-9757-410.1007/s10704-012-9757-4 ↗
25. Noell PJ, Carroll JD, Boyce BL (2018) The mechanisms of ductile rupture. Acta Mater 161:83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.09.00610.1016/j.actamat.2018.09.006 ↗
26. Papasidero J, Doquet V, Mohr D (2015) Ductile fracture of aluminum 2024–T351 under proportional and non-proportional multi-axial loading: Bao-Wierzbicki results revisited. Int J Solids Struct 69–70:459–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.00610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.05.006 ↗
27. Simulia DS (2020) ‘Abaqus 2020’, Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide.
28. Torki ME, Benzerga AA (2018) A mechanism of failure in shear bands. Extreme Mech Lett 23:67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2018.06.00810.1016/j.eml.2018.06.008 ↗
29. Tvergaard V (2009) Behaviour of voids in a shear field. Int J Fract 158(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-009-9364-110.1007/s10704-009-9364-1 ↗
30. Tvergaard V (2015) Study of localization in a void-sheet under stress states near pure shear. Int J Solids Struct 75–76:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.08.00810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.08.008 ↗
31. Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall 32(1):157–16910.1016/0001-6160(84)90213-X ↗
32. Verleysen P, Peirs J (2017) Quasi-static and high strain rate fracture behaviour of Ti6Al4V. Int J Impact Eng 108:370–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.03.00110.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.03.001 ↗