Predicting failure of the Second Sandia Fracture Challenge geometry with a real-world, time constrained, over-the-counter methodology
Source abstract
Abstract
An over-the-counter methodology to predict fracture initiation and propagation in the challenge specimen of the Second Sandia Fracture Challenge is detailed herein. This pragmatic approach mimics that of an engineer subjected to real-world time constraints and unquantified uncertainty. First, during the blind prediction phase of the challenge, flow and failure locus curves were calibrated for Ti–6Al–4V with provided tensile and shear test data for slow (0.0254 mm/s) and fast (25.4 mm/s) loading rates. Thereafter, these models were applied to a 3D finite-element mesh of the non-standardized challenge geometry with nominal dimensions to predict, among other items, crack path and specimen response. After the blind predictions were submitted to Sandia National Labs, they were improved upon by addressing anisotropic yielding, damage initiation under shear dominance, and boundary condition selection.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (12)
Show source-provided references
1. Atkins AG (1997) Fracture mechanics and metalforming: damage mechanics and the local approach of yesterday and today. In: Rossmanith HP (ed) Fracture research in retrospect: an anniversary volume in honour of G.R. Irwin’s 90th birthday, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp, 327–350
2. Besson J, Steglich D, Brocks W (2001) Modeling of crack growth in round bars and plane strain specimens. Int J Solids Struct 38:8259–8284. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00167-610.1016/S0020-7683(01)00167-6 ↗
3. Boyce BL, Kramer SLB, Bosiljevac TR et al. (2016) The Second Sandia Fracture Challenge: predictions of ductile failure under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading. Int J Frac. doi: 10.1007/s10704-016-0089-710.1007/s10704-016-0089-7 ↗
4. Boyce BL, Kramer SLB, Fang HE et al (2014) The Sandia Fracture Challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract 186:5–68. doi: 10.1007/s10704-013-9904-610.1007/s10704-013-9904-6 ↗
5. Giglio M, Manes A, Mapelli C, Mombelli D (2013) Relation between ductile fracture locus and deformation of phases in Ti–6Al–4V alloy. ISIJ Int 53:2250–2258. doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.53.225010.2355/isijinternational.53.2250 ↗
6. Hancock JW, Mackenzie AC (1976) On the mechanisms of ductile failure in high-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states. J Mech Phys Solids 24:147–160. doi: 10.1016/0022-5096(76)90024-710.1016/0022-5096(76)90024-7 ↗
7. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and physical sciences, vol 193, pp 281–29710.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
8. McClintock FA (1968) A criterion for ductile fracture by the growth of holes. J Appl Mech 35:363. doi: 10.1115/1.360120410.1115/1.3601204 ↗
9. Ohata M, Toyoda M (2004) Damage concept for evaluating ductile cracking of steel structure subjected to large-scale cyclic straining. Sci Technol Adv Mater 5:241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.stam.2003.10.00710.1016/j.stam.2003.10.007 ↗
10. Pack K, Luo M, Wierzbicki T (2014) Sandia Fracture Challenge: blind prediction and full calibration to enhance fracture predictability. Int J Fract 186:155–175. doi: 10.1007/s10704-013-9923-310.1007/s10704-013-9923-3 ↗
11. Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 17:201–217. doi: 10.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-710.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-7 ↗
12. Simulia (2011) Abaqus 6.11 User Manual. Providence, Rhode Island