Calibration of cohesive parameters for fracture test simulations of sub-sized bend specimens of AM steels
Source abstract
Abstract
Crack extensions in sub-sized side-grooved bend specimens of AM steels are examined with changing cohesive parameters. Two-dimensional FE analyses are first conducted to simulate crack extensions by nodal release. The simulation results indicate the near-tip maximum opening stress and separation work rate increase and then slightly decrease for the bend specimens. The hydrogen-charged bend specimens have lower near-tip maximum opening stresses and average separation work rates than those of the uncharged bend specimens. The changing near-tip maximum opening stresses and the separation work rates with increasing crack extension are determined as references for the changing cohesive strengths and energies, respectively. Two-dimensional FE analyses with different changing cohesive parameters are then performed. The simulation results with calibrated cohesive parameters can match well with the test results. The hydrogen-charged specimens have the lower changing cohesive strength vs crack growth curves compared with those of the uncharged specimens. The hydrogen-charged specimens have either lower or similar changing cohesive energy vs crack growth curves compared with those of the uncharged specimens. Finally, a three-dimensional FE analysis is conducted to simulate crack extension by nodal release in one bend specimen to examine the stress triaxialities in front of the growing crack fronts at different locations from the center plane to the planes near the side groove front with increasing crack extension to identify possible physical reasons for the changing cohesive parameters.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Andersen RG, Felter CL, Nielsen KL (2019) Micro-mechanics based cohesive zone modeling of full scale ductile plate tearing: from initiation to steady-state. Int J Solids Struct 160:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.10.02710.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.10.027 ↗
2. Anvari M, Scheider I, Thaulow C (2006) Simulation of dynamic ductile crack growth using strain-rate and triaxiality-dependent cohesive elements. Eng Fract Mech 73(15):2210–2228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.03.01610.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.03.016 ↗
3. ASTM Standard E647-15e1 (2015) Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0647-15E01.210.1520/E0647-15E01.2 ↗
4. ASTM Standard E1820-20 (2020) Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1820-2010.1520/E1820-20 ↗
5. Banerjee A, Manivasagam R (2009) Triaxiality dependent cohesive zone model. Eng Fract Mech 76(12):1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.03.00910.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.03.009 ↗
6. Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe KH (2003) On the practical application of the cohesive model. Eng Fract Mech 70:1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00134-610.1016/S0013-7944(03)00134-6 ↗
7. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: Part I—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. ASME J Eng Mater Technol 99(1):2–15. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.344340110.1115/1.3443401 ↗
8. Kim Y, Chao YJ, Pechersky MJ, Morgan M (2004) C-specimen fracture toughness testing: effect of side grooves and η factor. ASME J Press Vessel Technol 126(3):293–299. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.176242510.1115/1.1762425 ↗
9. Needleman A, Tvergaard V (1987) An analysis of ductile rupture modes at a crack tip. J Mech Phys Solids 35(2):151–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(87)90034-210.1016/0022-5096(87)90034-2 ↗
10. Park K, Paulino GH, Roesler JR (2009) A unified potential-based cohesive model of mixed-mode fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 57:891–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2008.10.00310.1016/j.jmps.2008.10.003 ↗
11. Park K, Paulino GH (2012) Computational implementation of the PPR potential-based cohesive model in ABAQUS: Educational perspective. Eng Fract Mech 93:239–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.02.00710.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.02.007 ↗
12. Rashid FM, Banerjee A (2017) Simulation of fracture in a low ductility aluminum alloy using a triaxiality dependent cohesive model. Eng Fract Mech 179:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.04.02810.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.04.028 ↗
13. Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. ASME J Appl Mech 35:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.360120610.1115/1.3601206 ↗
14. Roychowdhury S, Arun Roy YD, Dodds RH (2002) Ductile tearing in thin aluminum panels: experiments and analyses using large-displacement, 3-D surface cohesive elements. Eng Fract Mech 69:983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00113-810.1016/S0013-7944(01)00113-8 ↗
15. Scheider I, Brocks W (2003) Simulation of cup-cone fracture using the cohesive model. Eng Fract Mech 70:1943–1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00133-410.1016/S0013-7944(03)00133-4 ↗
16. Scheider I, Brocks W (2006) Cohesive elements for thin-walled structures. Comput Mater Sci 37:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2005.12.04210.1016/j.commatsci.2005.12.042 ↗
17. Schwalbe KH, Scheider I, Cornec A (2013) Guidelines for applying cohesive models to the damage behaviour of engineering materials and structures. Springer, Berlin10.1007/978-3-642-29494-5 ↗
18. Siegmund T, Brocks W (1999) Prediction of the work of separation and implications to modeling. Int J Fract 99(1):97–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101830022668210.1023/A:1018300226682 ↗
19. Siegmund T, Brocks W (2000a) The role of cohesive strength and separation energy for modeling of ductile fracture. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 139–51. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP13400S10.1520/STP13400S ↗
20. Siegmund T, Brocks W (2000b) A numerical study on the correlation between the work of separation and the dissipation rate in ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 67(2):139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(00)00054-010.1016/S0013-7944(00)00054-0 ↗
21. Sung S-J, Pan J, Korinko PS, Morgan M, McWillliams, (2019) Simulations of fracture tests of uncharged and hydrogen-charged additively manufactured 304 stainless steel specimens using cohesive zone modeling. Eng Fract Mech 209:125–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.01.00610.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.01.006 ↗
22. Sung S-J, Wu S, Pan J, Korinko PS (2021a) Simulations of crack extensions in small arc-shaped tension specimens of uncharged and hydrogen-charged 21–6-9 austenitic stainless steels using nodal release method. ASME Press Vessel Pip Div PVP 2021–62648. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2021-6264810.1115/PVP2021-62648 ↗
23. Sung S-J, Wu S, Pan J (2021b) Separation work rate for crack extension in a thin compact tension specimen with finite step nodal release method. ASME Press Vessel Pip Div PVP 2021–62656. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2021-6265610.1115/PVP2021-62656 ↗
24. Woelke PB, Shields MD, Hutchinson JW (2015) Cohesive zone modeling and calibration for mode I tearing of large ductile plates. Eng Fract Mech 147:293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.03.01510.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.03.015 ↗
25. Wu S, Pan J, Korinko PS, Morgan M (2020) Simulations of crack extensions in arc-shaped tension specimens of uncharged and tritium-charged-and-decayed 21–6-9 austenitic stainless steels using cohesive zone modeling. ASME Press Vessel Pip Div PVP 2020–43542. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2020-2173710.1115/PVP2020-21737 ↗
26. Wu S, Pan J, Korinko PS, Morgan M (2021) Simulations of crack extensions in arc-shaped tension specimens of uncharged and hydrogen-charged 21–6-9 austenitic stainless steels using cohesive zone modeling with varying cohesive parameters. Eng Fract Mech 245:107603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.10760310.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.107603 ↗
27. Zhang T, Yuan H, Yang S (2020) Fracture energy and tensile strength depending on stress triaxiality along a running crack front in three-dimensional cohesive modeling. Eng Fract Mech 227:106919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10691910.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.106919 ↗