Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:40:48.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modeling of Ductile Fracture at Engineering Scales: A Mechanism-Based Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2015

Xiaosheng Gao
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, U.S.A.
Jun Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, U.S.A.
Jinyuan Zhai
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

This paper summarizes the work we conducted in recent years on modeling plastic response of metallic alloys and ductile fracture of engineering components, with the emphasis on the effect of the stress state. It is shown that the classical J2 plasticity theory cannot correctly describe the plasticity behavior of many materials. The experimental and numerical studies of a variety of structural alloys result in a general form of plasticity model for isotropic materials, where the yield function and the flow potential are expressed as functions of the first invariant of the stress tensor and the second and third invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor. Several mechanism-based models have been developed to capture the ductile fracture process of metallic alloys. Two of such models are described in this paper. The first one is a cumulative strain damage model where the damage parameter is dependent on the stress triaxiality and the Lode parameter. The second one is a modification to the Gurson-type porous plasticity models, where two damage parameters, representing void damage and shear damage respectively, are coupled into the yield function and flow potential. These models are shown to be able to predict fracture initiation and propagation in various specimens experiencing a wide range of stress states.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

von Mises, R, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 582 (1913).Google Scholar
Gao, X., Zhang, T., Zhou, J., Graham, S., Hayden, M. and Roe, C., International Journal of Plasticity 27, 217 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, J., Gao, X., Sobotka, J., Webler, B. and Cockeram, B., Journal of Nuclear Materials 451, 292 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, J. R. and Tracey, D. M., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17, 201 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. R. and Cook, W. H., Engng Fract. Mech. 21, 31 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurson, A., J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 99, 2 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvergaard, V. and Needleman, A., Acta Metall. 32, 157 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaitre, J., J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 107, 83 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, X., Zhang, T., Hayden, M. and Roe, C., International Journal of Plasticity 25, 2366 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, X. and Kim, J., International Journal of Solids and Structures 43, 6277 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., Gao, X., Hayden, M. and Joyce, J.A., Engng Fract. Mech. 85, 103 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, M., Streit, R. and Reaugh, J., “Cumulative-strain-damage model of ductile fracture: simulation and prediction of engineering fracture tests,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Science Applications, Inc., San Leandro, CA (USA), 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, L. and Wierzbicki, T., Int J Appl. Mech. 1, 267 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C. and Needleman, A., Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 102, 249 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, L., Engng Fract. Mech. 75, 3343 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahshon, K. and Hutchinson, J. W., European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 27, 1 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., Gao, X, Sobotka, J., Webler, B. and Cockeram, B., International Journal of Solids and Structures 51, 3273 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar