00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

45 Ansichten147 SeitenOct 07, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

45 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 147

53
938

15
4
813
93838383

!"#$%$&"%' ()*+,(

-*++()*./($&%#+()*0)*+()*1)*()*"#2 )*

3"4#5"5( !6+()*7(+(

8!$(95+",+((()*&$

5*6+5$8+(($$+

:5#5$:

'; (

;+)*$<=+:(+$%$(>&((8?.95?8+$/+)*$

=+:(+$%$(>&((8?.95?1($-?' +

0 56%

"#+)*@"%&"5<AB?C"#+DEAA

8+(8+(($$++($ "&9$$(+$1)*()*"#F+F#+$*!#+:&"%5F?

42567289$:;<=%<3>>>

4514242142

!

"#!!"##$%#$&'()*'

+*#,-(./!(#,0(1')23)/.

012345745829

214

012314567891

1
467148231929

9714732123149

!"#$%"&'#'&#$(&##)'&#"#$%#%

!"#$%"&'#'&#$*+",#-."#&.'#'&#$*+")#."""+"/"#&"'&#%0%+%"

)122.%'3.4%'3.3

5*&31678#39:;<"%=%#/+#>?7@AAB

C$)>+#*D"(+E+&"*7@AA

<&&+#*++/.3!$)"+$,#)'&#"#$%F">'+)+$..?$+.#%"

++#/"&>F?$++"%F#.?#%"%>,$+F$+'>"%>F"%?&+$%#?

F"%#"&?)$$$)>#%*?+$+.#%*$+$+G#?G#$)+#$+)+F##$%

$,)'&#+3

H+#%.#%I+F"%>3

0DJ!KL64M46NN@4@NNO4P

0DD!@KNP4@6LN

D"(+E+&"*IF';QH3R3JRSA@A6A6Q4P7@A6<"%

H$%1@@NK27N@L2KPKO4@Q&,"T1@@NK27N@L2KPKO4K

0%+%1GGG3"(+3.Q4F"#&1#%,$U"(+3.

Zusammenfassung

Versagensprognose von metallischen Werkstoe ist von groem Interesse in der Automobilindustrie, da sie einen wesentlichen Beitrag zur Verbesserung der Crashsicherheit von

Karosseriebauteilen liefert. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird der Einuss des Spannungszustandes, insbesondere des Lode-Winkel-Parameters (oder der dritten deviatorischen Spannungsinvariante), auf die Schadigungsmodellierung diskutiert und mit Hilfe experimenteller

und numerischer Untersuchungen validiert. Die Implementierung dieser Modellierung f

uhrt

zu einer Erweiterung des Schadigungsmodells GISSMO (Generalized Incremental Stress State

ur 3D-Anwendungen um die Ber

uckdependant damage MOdel) von Neukamm et al. [14] f

sichtigung des Lode-Winkel-Parameters. Der Spannungszustand wird somit durch zwei Spannungszustand-Parameter eindeutig deniert: Die Triaxialitat und der Lode-Winkel-Parameter.

In Folge davon ergibt sich die Duktilitat (oder Bruchdehnung) als Funktion von Triaxialitat

und Lode-Winkel-Parameter.

Der Triaxialitat- und Lode-Winkel-Parameter-Raum wird mit einer Reihe von Versuchen

f

ur das Dualphasenstahl DP600 abgetastet. Versuche mit gekerbten Rundzugproben, glatten

Flachzugproben und Nakazima-Proben werden durchgef

uhrt, um das jeweilige Materialverhalten f

ur die Lode-Winkel-Parameter-Werte 1, 0 und -1 zu untersuchen. Zusatzlich werden

f

ur dazwischenliegende Spannungszustande Versuche mit Buttery-Proben und Flachzugproben durchgef

uhrt.

Die Bruchdehnung eines jeden Versuchs wird durch eine Kombination experimenteller und

numerischer Ergebnissen bestimmt. Parallel werden entsprechende Spannungszustandsparameter mit Hilfe von Gewichtungsfunktionen numerisch bestimmt. Diese in der Arbeit

vorgeschlagene Gewichtungsfunktionen hangen von der nichtlinearen Schadigungsakkumulationsformulierung im GISSMO-Schadigungsmodell.

Die vom Spannungszustand abhangige Bruchdehnungsformulierung wird in den kommerziellen FE-Code LS-DYNA implementiert. Eine auf einem Spannungszustand basierende

analytische Beschreibung der Bruchdehnungsache mit neun Parametern wird vorgeschlagen.

Auerdem wird eine mathematische Funktion der Bruchdehnung basierend auf der biharmonischen Spline-Methode vorgestellt.

Die Untersuchungen zeigen den Einuss des Lode-Winkel-Parameters auf die Duktilitat

ii

des untersuchten Materials DP600. Mit dem vorgestellten Ansatz zur Materialparameteran

passung wird eine gute Ubereinstimmung

zwischen experimentellen und numerischen KraftWeg-Kurven erreicht.

Abstract

Numerical fracture prediction of metals is of great interest in automotive industry, since it is

an eective way to improve crashworthiness of car body parts. In the present thesis, the eect

of stress state on damage modeling with the focus on the Lode angle parameter (or third

deviatoric stress invariant) is discussed and validated by experimental and numerical studies.

The numerical implementation is integrated to the damage model GISSMO (Generalized

Incremental Stress State dependant damage MOdel) as an extension, which was proposed by

Neukamm et al. [14]. The model is extended for 3D usage by utilization of the Lode angle

parameter. The stress state is dened with two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and

Lode angle parameter uniquely. The material ductility (or fracture strain) is considered as a

function of the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter.

The stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter space is covered with a series of tests

for the dual-phase steel DP600. Tests of axisymmetric notched round specimens, grooved

at specimens and Nakazima were conducted to study the material behavior for Lode angle

parameter equal to 1, 0 and -1, respectively. Additionally, for the intermediate stress states,

tests of buttery specimens and at specimens were carried out.

The representative fracture strain of each test is obtained by combining experimental and

numerical results. The corresponding stress state parameters are determined numerically by

using proposed weighting functions, which depend on the nonlinear damage accumulation

formulation in the GISSMO damage model.

The stress state dependent fracture strain formulation is implemented into the commercial

nite element code LS-DYNA. A nine-parameter stress state dependent analytical fracture

locus is proposed. In addition, a mathematical fracture strain function based on biharmonic

spline method is introduced.

The investigations on the material DP600 show the inuence of Lode angle parameter on

the fracture strain. With the introduced calibration approach a good correlation is obtained

between experimental and numerical force-displacement curves.

iv

Acknowledgments

There are many people who have contributed to the work presented in this thesis directly

and indirectly. Without their help and support it would not be possible to nish the current

work.

First of all, I would like to thank Professor Weichert for his guidance and support throughout the thesis. His critical comments kept me on the right track and increased my productivity.

I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Maier for the constructive remarks.

I would like to give my special thanks to the supervisor Dr. Sven David Wolkerling

for his friendliness guidance and support in last three years. I appreciated the constructive

discussions.

I have been very happy to work with Dr. Markus Feucht and Frieder Neukamm. I appreciated the interesting discussions and guidance very much. The discussions we had, improved

my understanding in the application of the ductile fracture models in crashworthiness simulations signicantly. I would also like to Paul Du Bois for his collaboration and for his fruitful

discussions.

I would like to thank to the head of the team Steen Hampel for giving me an opportunity

doing the research in his team.

I am thankful to Dr. Levent Aktay for the reviews during my PhD and continuous support

within three years.

I would like to thank to Dr. Gerhard Summ for the support concerning software and

very friendly discussions. I would like to express my graduates to team members Elzbieta

Skurski, Peter K

ummerlen, David Moncayo, Olivier Cousigne, Maxime Dagonet, Christian

Bou Farhat and Siu Ping Li for their friendship.

The meetings in IWM Freiburg improved my understanding in the subject damage modeling for crashworthiness simulations further. I would like to thank to Dr. Sun for the good

cooperation. I would like to thank to Dr. Florance Andreux for the cooperative work with numerical studies. Thanks are due to Clemense Fehrenbach and Dennis Holletzek for conducting

the experiments.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and my sister, who supported

me continuously in the last three years.

vi

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1

1.2

Thesis objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3

2.1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2

2.3

2.3.1

Micromechanical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.2

2.3.3

3.1

3.2

17

Plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1.1

3.1.2

Material ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2.1

3.2.2

27

4.1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2

Damage rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2.1

Damage variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2.2

4.2.3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.3

4.4

viii

CONTENTS

5 Experimental Program

35

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.2 Un-notched and notched at specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.3

5.4

Grooved at specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Axisymmetric notched round specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.5

5.6

Nakazima tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Buttery tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

53

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.2 Discussion on mesh size eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.3 Determination of the stress-strain curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.4

6.5

6.6

Damage exponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.6.1

6.6.2

6.6.3

6.6.4

6.7

Flat specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grooved at specimens . . . . . . . . . .

Axisymmetric notched round specimens .

Nakazima tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

62

66

69

73

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

87

7.1 Simulation with analytical fracture strain denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

7.1.1 Calibration of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

7.2

7.3

Simulation with mathematical fracture strain surface

7.2.1 Fracture strain surface determination . . . . .

7.2.2 Numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

90

97

97

98

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

105

8.1 Conclusions of the present thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

8.2 Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

A Derivation of stress state dependent fracture function

109

Bibliography

122

List of Figures

1.1

2.1

2.2

specimens, components and full car. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

cylindrical coordinates (r, , z). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geometrical representation of the principal stresses (1 , 2 , 3 ), deviatoric principal stresses (s1 , s2 , s3 ) on the octahedral plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3

Illustration of two fracture mechanisms: Flat dimple fracture and shear dimple

fracture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1

Representation of yield surfaces, Lode angle independent (von-Mises and DruckerPrager) and Lode angle dependent (Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb). . . . . . . . . 18

3.2

Comparison of equivalent stress-strain curves for (a) 2024-T351 aluminum extracted from tension, torsion and compression experiments [5] and (b) 5083

aluminum extracted from torsion and compression experiments [6]. . . . . . . . 20

3.3

Average stress triaxiality vs. fracture strain curves obtained from notched axisymmetric bars for steels and aluminum alloys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.4

tension = 1 and plane strain = 0 for steel grades and aluminum alloys. . . 24

3.5

Bounding curves of the fracture locus proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki [7] and

Bai and Wierzbicki [8]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1

metal forming and crashworthiness simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2

4.3

volume fraction of GTN model with respect to plastic strain. . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4

5.1

LIST OF FIGURES

5.2

Layout of machined specimens on the DP600 sheet plate for at, grooved at

and axisymmetric notched round specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.3

tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.4

5.5

and notched at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.6

5.7

5.8

surface of the un-notched at specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.9

Representation of the thickness and width of the specimen before and after

the deformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.10 Evolutions of the r value and normalized force with respect to global normalized displacement for three duplicate tests of un-notched at specimen. . . . . 41

5.11 Critical dimensions for the grooved at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.12 Evolution of the Lode angle parameter with respect to equivalent plastic strain

with constant tm =0.8mm for dierent ratios of w/tm and t/tm . . . . . . . . . 42

5.13 The geometry and dimensions of the grooved at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.14 The normalized force-displacement curves obtained from tests of grooved at

specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.15 The grooved at specimens after fracture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.16 The geometry and dimensions of the axisymmetric notched round specimens. . 45

5.17 Normalized force-displacement curves obtained from the tests of axisymmetric

notched round specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.18 The post-mortem of axisymmetric notched round specimens. . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.19 The geometry and dimensions of the Nakazima test blank geometries. . . . . . 46

5.20 Punch force-displacement curves obtained from Nakazima tests. . . . . . . . . 47

5.21 The post-mortem of Nakazima tests blanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.22 Illustration of the buttery specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.23 The geometry and dimensions of the buttery specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.24 Buttery test bench set up for 60 loading angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.25 Representation of tested buttery specimen loading angles. . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.26 Representation of the tracking points used for measurements of buttery tests. 50

5.27 Normalized force-displacement curves obtained from the buttery tests. . . . . 51

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

6.1

Comparison of the numerical simulations for the mesh size of 0.1mm, 0.05mm

and 0.025mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.2

Comparison of the experimental engineering stress-strain curves with the numerical one calculated with the calibrated true stress-strain curve. . . . . . . . 58

6.3

6.4

the GISSMO damage rule application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.5

Plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distribution at the

critical section of the un-notched at specimen for global displacement at the

onset of necking and at fracture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

6.6

curves. The plastic strain with respect to global normalized displacement at

the critical location is shown with the blue curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

6.7

Evolution of two stress state parameters with respect to plastic strain and

weighted stress state parameters for the un-notched at specimen. . . . . . . . 64

6.8

curves for notched at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

6.9

Evolution of the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter with respect to

plastic strain at critical location and weighted stress state parameters for the

notched at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.10 Plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distributions at

fracture formation for the grooved at specimens with groove radii R=1mm

and R=4mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.11 Comparison of the experimental and numerical normalized force-displacement

curves and evolution of plastic strain at the center of specimens for the grooved

at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.12 Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality value for the grooved at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.13 The weighted Lode angle parameter values and evolutions of the Lode angle

parameter with respect to plastic strain for the grooved at specimens. . . . . 69

6.14 Distribution of the plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

at fracture initiation deformation for the geometries with notch radii R=1mm

and 4mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.15 Normalized force-displacement curves and evolution of the plastic strain at the

center of specimens for the axisymmetric notched round specimens. . . . . . . 71

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

6.16 Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality values for the specimens with notch radii equal to 0.5mm,

1mm, 2mm and 4mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.17 Histories of Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain and weighted

Lode angle parameter values for the axisymmetric specimens. . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.18 FE model (1/4) of Nakazima tests and a close view of the critical region. . . . 73

6.19 Plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distribution for the

Nakazima tests at fracture formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6.20 Comparison of the force-displacement curves obtained from numerical simulations to the experimental ones and evolution of plastic strain at critical

location with respect to displacement for the Nakazima tests. . . . . . . . . . . 76

6.21 The weighted stress state values and evolution of the stress triaxiality and Lode

angle parameter with respect to the plastic strain for the Nakazima specimens

with blank width of 70mm and 90mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6.22 A view of nite element model discretization of the central region of the buttery specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6.23 Plastic strain distribution contours for the buttery specimens just before the

fracture initiation for all loading angles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6.24 Stress triaxiality and plastic strain evolution on the surface and middle of

thickness of buttery specimens for the loading angles (a) 10 compression

and (b) 60 tension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6.25 Normalized force-displacement curves and evolution of the plastic strain at

critical location for buttery test simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

6.26 Comparison of the deformation just before fracture initiation under loading

angle 0 shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.27 Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality values for simulations of buttery tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.28 Evolution of the Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain and

weighted Lode angle parameter values for simulations of buttery tests. . . . . 82

6.29 Representation of the histories and weighted stress state values obtained from

numerical simulations in the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for the buttery tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

6.30 Fracture strain with respect to weighted stress triaxiality and calibrated JC

equations for test sets of axisymmetric notched round specimens and grooved

at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6.31 Fracture strain versus stress triaxiality for all tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

6.32 Representation of the weighted stress state values in the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6.33 Illustration of the possible additional test types in order to cover negative

stress triaxialities on the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter.

85

7.1

7.2

Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves from numerical simulations and experiments for the notched specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

7.3

specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

7.4

Comparison of the normalized force-displacement response of grooved at specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7.5

Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the grooved

at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7.6

notched round specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations.

93

7.7

Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the axisymmetric notched round specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

7.8

numerical simulations of Nakazima tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

7.9

Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the Nakazima

tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

and numerical simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

7.11 Comparison of the experimental and numerical force-displacement responses

for the buttery tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7.12 Damage indicator distribution at the gauge section of buttery tests. . . . . . 96

7.13 Comparison of the fractured specimens in numerical simulations and experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.14 Illustration of the generated mathematical fracture strain surface. . . . . . . . 99

7.15 Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves from numerical simulations and experiments for the notched specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.16 Comparison of the normalized force-displacement response of grooved at specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.17 Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves obtained from numerical simulations and experiments for the axisymmetric notched round specimens.101

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

7.18 The force-displacement responses obtained from experiments and numerical

simulations with MFS and AFS for the Nakazima tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

7.19 The force-displacement response obtained from experiments and numerical

simulations with MFS and AFS for the buttery tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

7.20 Geometry, FE-model and boundary conditions of the torsion specimens. . . . . 103

7.21 Comparison of the max curves from experiments and numerical simulations

for the torsion specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

A.1 Proposed fracture strain locus and bound curve formulations. . . . . . . . . . . 110

List of Tables

3.1

Johnson-Cook model fracture strain parameters for discussed steel grades and

aluminum alloys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1

5.2

Calculated fracture strain from measured thicknesses for the Nakazima blanks

with width of 70mm and 90mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.1

FE-models of 1/8 specimens for three dierent mesh size and corresponding

total number of elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.2

at high deformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.3

6.4

6.5

Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for at

un-notched and notched specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.6

6.7

Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for the

grooved at specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6.8

6.9

Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for axisymmetric notched round specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.10 Comparison of the numerically determined fracture strains to the experimentally determined ones for the Nakazima tests with blank width of 70mm and

90mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.11 Fracture initiation locations in the main plane and thickness directions of

buttery specimens for dierent loading angles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

6.12 List of fracture strain and weighted stress state parameters for buttery tests.

7.1

80

List of fracture strain and weighted stress state parameters obtained from

numerical simulations of all tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

7.2

Nomenclature

Symbol

Meaning

a, b, c

g, h

weighting functions.

damage exponent.

A0

n.

A0

(n)

Aef f

n.

Aef f

+

0

C1,2

, C1,2

, C1,2

+

0

D1,2,3

, D1,2,3

, D1,2,3

damage.

Dc

critical damage.

D(n)

n.

E0 , Eef f

Fr

force.

I1,2,3

J1,2,3

L0 , L

(n)

xviii

Nomenclature

Symbol

Meaning

moment.

p,l

stress triaxiality.

Lode angle.

engineering strain.

0 +

f , f , f

f,m

pi , pf

nk

px,y,z

true strain.

angle of rotation.

eective stress.

engineering stress.

eq

equivalent stress.

mean stress.

nk

true stress.

Nomenclature

xix

Symbol

Meaning

, ij

stress tensor.

uts

Cauchy stress.

max

AFS

AHSS

CDM

DP600

GISSMO

GTN

Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman.

JC

Johnson-Cook.

MFS

RVE

SEM

xx

Nomenclature

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

In recent years, the importance of numerical simulations in automotive industry increased signicantly, since strong competition leads to shorter development cycles. Numerical simulation

is a very ecient way to shorten the development cycle by reducing very costly experiments

in many aspects, such as crashworthiness, fatigue and noise vibration harshness analyses.

Recently, great eort has been spent in improving crashworthiness of the car body structures in order to comply with strict crash regulations. Structures can be optimized eectively

with crashworthiness simulations in means of passive safety, which is one the key subjects

in automotive industry. Understanding and modeling of fracture phenomena are vital for

accurate predictions in numerical simulations.

In academic world, fracture of materials is also of great interest and investigated deeply

in the range of nanoscale ( 1010 107 meters) to macroscale (> 103 meters) by many

researchers. On the other hand, in engineering community, due to the limitations of modern computer power and size of studied structures, the fracture phenomena is studied in

macroscale. Usually a systematic approach is followed by increasing the complexity gradually as depicted in Fig. 1.1. The characterization of material properties and validation of

numerical models are carried out with basic specimens. As next, the complexity is increased

and the prediction of the model is veried with component tests. Ultimate goal is the precise

prediction of deformation and fracture in the full car crashworthiness simulations. However,

numerical modeling of fracture may be a very challenging task and usually depends on many

inuence factors:

The proper plasticity model is crucial for damage modeling. Therefore many aspects

such as anisotropy, hardening type, hydrostatic pressure and Lode dependence of the

plasticity model should be considered. Which complexity is required to model the fracture of the investigated material and structure?

1 Introduction

specimens (blue box), components (red box) and full car.

Commonly, loss of load carrying capacity is related to hydrostatic pressure dependence.

Should Lode dependence also be considered?

Damage accumulation rule is another important point, which determines the fracture

strain under complex loading. How should the hydrostatic pressure and Lode dependence be utilized in the damage accumulation rule?

The coupling of plasticity model and damage is still debatable. Does the coupling of

damage and plasticity model lead to better results and under which conditions should

be used?

The mentioned points determine the complexity of the numerical simulations used in crashworthiness simulations. The complexity of the modeling approach inuences directly the

calibration method and applicability to practical problems.

1.2

Thesis objectives

The objective of this thesis is the investigation of the stress state dependent damage modeling

with the focus on the Lode angle parameter (third deviatoric stress invariant). Two main

scientic contributions of the thesis are summarized as follows:

The formulation and application of the stress state dependent fracture strain denition.

The denition of the required tests and the corresponding calibration approach for the

proposed model.

The stress state dependent fracture strain formulation is integrated into the damage model

Generalized Incremental Stress State dependant damage MOdel (GISSMO), which was proposed by Neukamm et al. [14] to bridge the gap between metal forming and crashworthiness

simulations. Since the classical methods such as Forming Limit Diagram usually provide unsatisfactory results in metal forming simulations, the model is formulated as an incremental

continuum damage model which is based on the eective stress concept proposed by Lemaitre

[11]. Special emphasis is given to pre-damage and failure in the model. The model can be

used modular simultaneously with the anisotropic constitutive models in metal forming simulations and isotropic constitutive models in crashworthiness simulations also considering the

pre-damage.

The loading environment is room temperature and quasi-static loading. The material is

from the class of advanced high strength steel (AHSS) types Dual Phase steel 600 (DP600)

and the material is assumed to be isotropic.

The presented work includes numerical simulations and experimental study. A hybrid

approach, which combines the experimental and numerical results, is used in order to calibrate the damage model. Specimens are loaded until fracture in order to obtain the fracture

behavior under dierent stress states by varying specimen geometry and loading conditions.

The output of the experiments is force-displacement responses. The stress state and fracture

strain are determined with numerical simulations. In the current work, the material is assumed to fail at macroscopic crack formation (at orders of 0.1-0.2 mm). Thus in the current

research local stress and strain variables are used rather than far eld variables.

In order to realize the objective, the work is examined in subparts as follows:

Overview the literature on the subject ductile damage with the focus of stress state

parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter.

Develop a fracture strain function, which depends on both stress state parameters.

Develop a nonlinear damage accumulation rule incorporating stress state.

Find appropriate specimen types, geometries and loading conditions covering wide

range of stress state for the validation.

Propose a calibration approach for the extended damage model.

Validate the proposed model and calibration approach with the numerical simulations

based on elementary specimen tests.

1.3

1 Introduction

The present thesis consists of six chapters, an appendix and a bibliography of the references.

Each chapter handles a specic part of the research. The contents of the chapters are described

below.

Chapter 2 explains briey the required basics of ductile fracture such as stress state

parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter which are the main focuses of the

current thesis. A brief review of damage modeling approaches is given under three groups,

micromechanical damage models, conventional continuum models with damage formulation

and continuum damage mechanics.

Chapter 3 gives a summary of literature about the stress state dependent damage plasticity and material ductility. The inuence of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter on

the damage plasticity and material ductility is the focus of the chapter. Experimental results

from literature for steel grades and aluminum alloys are presented and numerical approaches

incorporating stress state parameters are discussed.

Chapter 4 explains the damage model GISSMO briey. Stress triaxiality and Lode angle

parameter dependent nine parameter empirical fracture strain function is introduced. The

nonlinear damage rule used in modeling damage is discussed.

Chapter 5 is devoted to the experimental program, which consists of tests of notched and

un-notched at specimens, grooved at specimens, axisymmetric notched round specimens,

Nakazima and buttery specimens. The geometry of specimens and loading conditions are

introduced briey and results of tests are discussed.

Chapter 6 describes the numerical simulations without consideration of damage formulation. The focus of the chapter is the determination of the fracture strain and corresponding

stress state for each test mentioned in Chapter 5. The mesh size inuence is discussed with

numerical simulation results. Weighting functions for the stress state histories are introduced,

which are used in determination of the stress state parameters. Some methods and results

are briey reviewed in the context of damage exponent determination.

Chapter 7 introduces a methodology to generate the fracture locus with the results obtained in Chapter 6. Two dierent approaches are introduced as analytical fracture strain

denition and mathematical fracture strain denition. The rst one is based on the fracture

strain denition derived in Chapter 4, while the latter is a continuous smooth surface generated mathematically. The prediction of the fracture loci are investigated with numerical

simulations and the results are discussed.

Chapter 8 summarizes the contribution of the current thesis and suggests future research

topics.

Chapter 2

A Brief Review of Damage Modeling

Approaches

Abstract: In this chapter, the basics of ductile fracture is explained. The stress vector

is represented in Haigh-Westergaard space and in cylindrical coordinates. The representation is also given with three stress invariants. The stress state parameters, stress

triaxiality and Lode angle parameters are explained in detail. A brief overview of damage modeling approaches is given under three groups; micromechanical models, conventional continuum mechanics models with damage formulation and continuum damage

models. The advantages and disadvantages of the modeling approaches are discussed.

2.1

Introduction

In recent years, importance of prediction of damage is increased signicantly in many industrial applications. Numerical modeling of damage is of great interest, since the numerical

simulation tools are one of the most important links in product development cycles. In recent

four decades damage phenomenon is investigated in various aspects and many models have

been proposed to model damaging of materials.

The term ductile fracture is used ambiguously in literature mainly with two meanings.

In micromechanical investigations, it is mostly used as the fracture type resulting from nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids within the material. On the other hand, for large-scaled

applications it is referred to large deformation that materials exhibit before failure occurs.

In this thesis the term ductility is related to ductile fracture in a more specic sense and

it is used as equivalent plastic strain to fracture formation at the critical location, which can

be also called fracture strain by neglecting the elastic part for large deformations.

The investigations in the eld of strength of materials, which can be related in a way to

damage modeling of materials has started before almost 500 years with Leonardo da Vinci.

In his note Testing the Strength of Iron Wires of Various Lengths he investigated the limit

loads for dierent iron wires experimentally [12]. Galileo carried out the rst tensile test

and concluded that strength of a bar is dependent on its cross-section and not its length

in his famous book Two New Sciences ([12]). The subject damage modeling has been

investigated by many researchers; however it is still an open subject.

2.2

The stress tensor ij of a material point has six components and can be represented in sixdimensional space. However, it is easier to deal with three principal components 1 , 2 , 3

and represent the stress state in Haigh-Westergaard space (Fig. 2.1) in which the coordinates

are three principal stresses. In Haigh-Westergaard space, a specic stress state is represented

2

z

P

N

plane

|NK| =

2

3 eq

K

|ON| =

O

3m

r

1

cylindrical coordinates (r, , z).

with a specic point. The depiction shows mainly the form for a combination of principal

stress components and does not consider the orientation of the principal stress components.

The stress vector OP can be also represented in cylindrical coordinate system (r, , z), as

shown in Fig. 2.1. The z axis is called hydrostatic axis, where all the principal stresses are

equal. The plane, which is passing through the origin O and is perpendicular to z axis, is

called the plane. In cylindrical coordinate system the stress vector OP can be decomposed

into two components as hydrostatic part ON and deviatoric part N P . The vector component

ON is perpendicular to octahedral plane and the vector N P is in the octahedral plane. The

|ON | = 3m ,

(2.1)

1

m = (1 + 2 + 3 ).

3

(2.2)

2

|N P | =

eq ,

3

(2.3)

1

eq =

(1 2 )2 + (1 3 )2 + (2 3 )2 .

2

(2.4)

The third coordinate dierentiates the stress state between tension, shear and compression.

In literature the Lode angle inuence is usually used as Lode dependence and for the Lode

angle there are dierent denitions. In [1315] the Lode angle is dened as the angle to the

positive direction of the 1 = 3 axis, i.e. a in Fig. 2.2. On the other hand, in [1619]

the Lode angle is represented as the positive angle to the positive direction of 1 axis, in

Fig. 2.2. In the present thesis, the latter is used. The Lode angle can be dened through the

|NL| =

2

2 = 1

|NM| =

2 = 3

|MP| =

2 = 3

3

2 s1

3

2 s2

3

2 s3

N 1 = 2

M

N

3 = 1

P

1 = 3

a

L

1

1 = 2

3 = 2

1 = 3

Figure 2.2: Geometrical representation of the principal stresses (1 , 2 , 3 ), deviatoric principal stresses (s1 , s2 , s3 ) on the octahedral plane.

relative ratio of principal stress deviators through

[

)]

(

2

1 1

1

= cot

,

3 2

(2.5)

=

s2 s3

2 3

=

.

s1 s3

1 3

(2.6)

The alternative Lode angle denition a can be also expressed as a relation of relative ratio

of stress deviators

[

a = tan

]

1

(2 1) .

3

(2.7)

The stress state denition in cylindrical coordinate system can be also expressed with

stress invariants uniquely. Above discussed three cylindrical dimensions m , eq and are

described through

1

m = I1 ,

(2.8)

3

eq =

1

= arccos

3

3J2 ,

(

)

3 3J3

,

2J2 3/2

(2.9)

(2.10)

where I1 is the rst stress invariant, J2 and J3 are second and third deviatoric stress invariants.

It should be noted that with three stress invariants the stress state at a material point can

be dened uniquely.

It is convenient to work with the dimensionless pressure , which is dened as the ratio

of hydrostatic pressure to equivalent stress

=

m

.

eq

(2.11)

The parameter , often referred to stress triaxiality, has been used extensively in the ductile

damage investigations ([2025]). The Lode angle can be related to the normalized third

deviatoric invariant through

27 J3

3 3 J3

=

(2.12)

=

= cos(3).

2 eq 3

2 J2 3/2

A detailed derivation is presented in [17]. Hereinafter the normalized third deviatoric invariant

will be called Lode angle parameter, as it is a function of . The range of the Lode angle

parameter is 0 1, since the range of the Lode angle is 0 /3. It can be

showed that = 1 corresponds to axisymmetric tension, = 0 corresponds to generalized

shear condition (plane strain). The lower limit value = 1 corresponds to axisymmetric

compression or equi-biaxial tension [7]. Two dimensionless stress state parameters and

dene the direction of the stress vector in Haigh-Westergaard space.

=1

6

2

= 1 arccos .

(2.13)

It should be noted the two Lode angle parameter denitions and have the same values for

the limiting bounds axisymmetric deviatoric tension ( = 0), plane strain or generalized shear

( = /6) and axisymmetric deviatoric compression ( = /3), whereas for the midrange the

denitions dier slightly.

In order to dene the magnitude of the stress vector, additionally, equivalent stress eq

is required. It should be noted that stress triaxiality is a relation of stress invariants I1

and J2 , whereas the Lode angle parameter is formulated with stress invariants J2 and J3 .

Under proportional loading, which can be also described by constant stress vector direction

in Haigh-Westergaard space, the stress triaxiality and the Lode angle parameter remain

constant during loading.

Wierzbicki and Xue ([7]) showed that for plane stress state (3 = 0) there is a unique

relation between the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter as

(

)

27

1

2

=

.

(2.14)

2

3

It should be noted that in industrial applications the plane stress formulation is widely used,

which requires only one of two stress parameters (, ) to determine the stress state at a

material point. The focus of the thesis is 3-dimensional formulation and two stress parameters

and determines the stress state. The former is used to describe pressure dependence and

the letter describes Lode dependence.

2.3

Since early 1970s, there are many attempts to model the phenomenon of ductile fracture.

Mainly two dierent approaches were used for damage modeling in engineering materials. The

rst one is the microscopic approach, in which the evolution of microscopic variables such as

voids and cracks are examined. The second approach is the macroscopic approach in which

material is represented by its global response. In both groups, various numerical models are

suggested. These models can be discussed more specically in three groups: Micromechanical

models (I) and two groups of macroscopic models, uncoupled continuum models (II) and

continuum damage models (CDM) (III).

2.3.1

Micromechanical models

The microstructure of engineering alloys is usually very complex and contains inclusions and

second phase particles. From micromechanical point of view, ductile fracture is dened as

10

material separation which is the result of void nucleation, evolution of existing micro voids

and cracks, followed by progressive void coalescence. Voids are rst initiated at material

defects such as inclusions. It should be also noted that in many engineering alloys voids

usually preexist. Mainly, void coalescence is the result of the failure of ligament between the

voids (a) perpendicular to loading direction or (b) in the localized shear direction [28]. In

the rst case the inuence of secondary voids is not signicant, coalescence of voids occurs

with necking of ligaments between primary voids. This type of failure occurs at high stress

triaxialities and the tensile mode causes at dimpled fracture morphology (see [29]-(a)). In

the second case, secondary voids initiate on the slip-band and cause ow localization which

is followed by void coalescence [29] as demonstrated in Fig. 2.3-(b).

(a)

(b)

20m

20m

Figure 2.3: Illustration of two fracture mechanisms: (a) Flat dimple fracture where fracture

occurs at high stress triaxialities as a result of void ligament necking followed by failure

and (b) shear dimple fracture where fracture occurs with deformation localization between

primary voids at low triaxialities [30].

In micromechanical models, material is handled as inhomogeneous cells with consideration of voids and micro cracks. Macroscopic material response is determined by the global

response of void containing cell. In these models the holes surrounding material matrix obeys

conventional continuum mechanics. The micromechanical modeling can be divided into three

subgroups as void nucleation modeling, void growth modeling and void coalescence modeling.

The void nucleation modeling studies are much limited compare to void growth and

void coalescence models. The reason of the limited studies is the diculty of the subject,

which requires the modeling of inclusions, interfaces between inclusions and material matrix.

The inclusions are assumed as elastic and brittle particles and void nucleation occurs by

fracture or debonding of inclusions. Beremin [31] calculated the maximum principal stress

within the inclusions using the results of Berveiller and Zaoui [32]. A most widely used model

was proposed by Needleman [33] by using cohesive model between inclusions and material

matrix, where the interfacial strengths are relatively weak. The inclusion fracture, which is

11

also related to void nucleation, was studied by Steglich and Brocks [34] and Shabrov et al.

[35].

The void nucleation stage is followed by void growth. A cylindrical void and a spherical

void containing material was studied by McClintock [20] and Rice and Tracy [21], respectively.

In these investigations the void surrounding material matrix was assumed as perfectly plastic

and analytical expressions dening void growth are derived. In both studies the eect of

stress triaxiality and plastic strain on the void growth is outlined. Rice and Tracy found that

the void growth is exponentially dependent on the stress triaxiality. In fact the most known

and widely used micromechanical model is Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN), which is an

extended version of the model proposed by Gurson [36]. Gurson derived a pressure dependent

yield function from an isolated spherical void in a continuum. The void containing solid is

considered as pressure dependent, dilatant elasto-plastic continuum. The global response of

the solid is correlated to void volume fraction. The yield function of Gurson model is dened

as

eq 2

=

+ 2f cosh

M 2

3m

2M

[

]

1 + f 2 = 0,

(2.15)

where f is the void volume fraction, M is the yield stress of the undamaged matrix material,

eq and m are the macroscopic equivalent stress and the mean stress, respectively. The

matrix yield stress M is a function of matrix plastic strain P . With the assumption of

associative ow rule, the plastic ow function is the same as the yield function. The yield

criterion dened by Gurson implies that the macroscopic plastic strain rate can be found by

the normality rule

p =

,

(2.16)

where is the plastic multiplier, p and are plastic strain tensor and stress tensor, respec represents the time derivative. The rate of work equivalence implies

tively and ()

: p = (1 f )M P .

(2.17)

As above mentioned, the void coalescence occurs through internal ligament necking or

through deformation localization on the shear bands between voids. The rst mechanism was

investigated by Thomason [37]. Benzerga [38] introduced a micromechanical model for void

coalescence with consideration of internal ligament necking. The model is an enhanced version

of the model proposed by Thomason [37]. The second mechanism was studied by Brown and

Embury [39]. They concluded that the coalescence occurs when the spaces between voids

reaches to the order of void height.

The yield function proposed by Gurson predicts the complete loss of load carrying capacity

at f = 1, which means the material is only made of voids and it is unrealistically larger

than experimental results. Tvergaard investigated micromechanical behavior for materials

12

containing periodic distributions of voids and introduced additional two parameters q1 and

q2 in order to improve the yield function proposed by Gurson (Eq. 2.15) [40, 41]. Tvergaard

and Needleman [42] introduced the function f , in order to improve the load carrying capacity

loss (void coalescence) limit,

{

f,

f (f ) =

fc +

1/q1 fc

(f

ff fc

for f fc

,

fc ) for fc f ff

(2.18)

where fc and ff are critical void volume fraction and void volume fraction at coalescence,

respectively. At small deformations the total void volume fraction evolution is described as

the sum of evolution of existing voids (f)growth and nucleation of new voids (f)nucleation

f = (f)nucleation + (f)growth .

(2.19)

Chu and Needleman [43] introduced the strain controlled void nucleation evolution term in a

statistical manner. A normal distribution with respect to matrix plastic strain is proposed

fnucleation = AN M ,

where the normal distribution function AN is dened as

(

{

})

fN

1 P N

exp

AN =

.

2

SN

SN 2

(2.20)

(2.21)

Here, fN is the total void volume fraction that can be nucleated, N and SN are the mean

value and standard deviation of the distribution of the plastic strain.

Although the GTN model is formulated to describe all three stages in metal failure, void

nucleation, growth and coalescence, it possesses some inherent drawbacks:

1. The model is inapplicable to model the localization and fracture for low stress triaxiality, shear dominated deformations, since it does not predict void growth and damage

under shear loading, when fN < ff . However, in engineering applications such as in

crashworthiness simulations, the stress state on the fractured components is complex

and fracture at low stress triaxialities is also observed.

2. The model does not include the Lode dependence.

3. The geometrical shape and shape of voids are considered in a simplied way. It is

assumed that the voids conserve their spherical shape also after deformation. Under

loading with high stress triaxialities the assumption may lead to correct results. On

the other hand at low stress triaxialities the shape of voids tends to be elliptical after

deformation.

13

in a stochastic way with reverse engineering, since experimentally determination of

parameters is very complicated

5. Only void volume fraction is used as a measure of damage. Defects such as volumless

cracks are not considered, which cause also loss of load carrying capacity.

Because of above pointed out drawbacks, the GTN model was extended by many researchers.

Xue [44] and Nahshon and Hutchinson [45] modied the model in a phenomenological way

to account for shear deformation and for the Lode dependence. Gologanu and coworkers

[46] enhanced the model with consideration of axisymmetric elliptical voids. The enhanced

model of Gologanu is further modied by Pardoen and Hutchinson [28] with consideration

of void spacing eects. A comprehensive review of GTN model and its extension was given

by Lassance et al. [47].

2.3.2

The deformation is a complex phenomenon at micro scale. Many ductile materials at macroscale

can be assumed as a continuum. In conventional continuum mechanics models with damage

formulation, macroscopic response is a combination of material matrix, defects like inclusions, voids and micro cracks and globally it is assumed to obey continuum mechanics laws.

The damage indicator is calculated separately and does not inuence the material plasticity. Because of the relative simplicity, in industrial applications the models are widely used.

The most widely used model is proposed by Johnson and Cook [24], which incorporates

phenomenologically the strain rate and temperature factors in the stress-strain function,

[

( )] [

(

)q ]

[

]

p

T T0

N

eq = A + Bf

1 + C ln

1

,

(2.22)

0

Tm T0

where A, B, C and N and q are ve model parameters, T , T0 , Tm are temperature, room

temperature and melting temperature, respectively and 0 is the reference strain rate. Under

proportional loadings the fracture strain f is dened as function of stress triaxiality , plastic

strain rate and temperature

[

]

(

)

T T0

D3

f () = D1 + D2 e

(2.23)

[1 + D4 ln(p /0 )] 1 + D5

Tm T0

where D1 , D2 , D3 , D4 , D5 are ve material constants. In this group of damage models, Lode

dependence was introduced rstly by Wilkins et al. [48] in a cumulative damage formulation. J2 plasticity is used as constitutive plasticity model. The proposed damage formulation

incorporates pressure and Lode dependence as

f (m , Aw ) = Dc (1 aw m ) (2 Aw )w ,

(2.24)

14

where Dc , aw , , w are the model parameters to be calibrated and Aw is the stress eccentricity

and denotes the Lode dependence as

{

}

s2 s2

Aw = max

,

.

(2.25)

s1 s3

Recently Bai and Wierzbicki [8] introduced a stress triaxiality and Lode dependent plasticity

model and cumulative damage model.

2.3.3

The Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) was proposed rstly by Kachanov [49] in the

framework of creep damage. It is further extended by Rabotnov [50] and Lemaitre [11].

The voids, micro cracks and their interactions are depicted in a phenomenological way. The

model is based on the eective stress concept, which is related to the load carrying area after

removing damaged part such as voids and micro cracks. Eective stress is dened as

=

,

1D

(2.26)

where is the Cauchy stress. A macroscopic response of the material is used in constitutive

and damage models. Bonora [51] dened the dissipation potential Fr as the sum of plastic

potential Fp and damage potential Fd , which are functions of associated variables

Fdp = Fp (, Rs , D) + Fd (Y , p , D),

(2.27)

where Rs is the isotropic hardening stress, Y is the damage energy release rate. The elastic

strain increment is dened as

eij =

1 + ij

kk

ij ,

E 1D E1D

(2.28)

where E and are Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively. The plastic strain

increment is dened by

pij =

Fp

3 s ij 1

=

.

ij

2 1 D eq

(2.29)

= Fd .

D

Y

(2.30)

The weakening is also introduced into conventional plasticity models. Brvik et al. [52] introduced weakening factor to Johnson-Cook (JC) model

(

( )] [

)q ]

[

[

]

p

T T0

N

1

eq = (1 D) A + Bf

,

(2.31)

1 + C ln

0

Tm T0

15

where is the model constant in the rst part. The rest of the equation is same as in Eq. 2.22.

In a similar way Xue and Wierzbicki [53] introduced a weakening factor to von Mises plasticity

as

(

)

eq = 1 Dx M ,

(2.32)

where x is the weakening factor and M is the yield stress of the the material matrix.

16

Chapter 3

Stress State Dependence of Damage

Modeling

Abstract: In this chapter, the stress state dependence of damage plasticity and material

ductility is investigated through numerical and experimental studies from the literature.

The experimental results of round bar tests under tension with dierent notch radii

for steel grades and aluminum alloys are discussed to point out the eect of stress

triaxiality (or hydrostatic pressure). The inuence of the Lode angle parameter (or

Lode dependence) is investigated by comparing the experimental results obtained from

tests with axisymmetric tension ( = 1) and plane strain ( = 0) stress state. The

literature overview concludes that stress state dependence of plastic ow and material

ductility varies depending on the material group. A literature overview of stress state

dependent plasticity and material ductility models is given with discussions.

3.1

Plasticity model

The fracture formation is an ultimate process, which follows large plastic deformation at a

material point with high gradients of plastic stress and strain. Therefore the used plasticity

model is very important in ductile fracture modeling.

In the past three centuries various yield criteria are proposed. Trescas well-known maximum shear stress criterion is actually introduced by Coulomb and it is one of the two most

commonly used criteria today. The second most common used yield criterion is the von Mises

criterion. In fact, it is rstly suggested by Maxwell in 1856. It should be noted that von Mises

yield surface only depends on the second stress invariant J2 ; while Tresca yield surface has

dependence on second deviatoric stress invariant J2 and the third deviatoric stress invariant

J3 , which can be also concluded as Lode dependence.

The above described two criteria have no hydrostatic pressure dependence, which means

under hydrostatic loading material never yields. However, some material can yield at su-

18

ciently high hydrostatic tension. Mohr-Coulomb [54] model and Drucker-Prager [55] criteria

are the examples of the rst proposed models incorporating hydrostatic pressure inuence.

The former is the generalized version of the Tresca criterion, while the latter is the modied

version of von Mises criterion (Fig. 3.1). Hydrostatic pressure generally determines the size

(a) von Mises and Drucker-Prager

Mohr-Coulomb

Drucker-Prager

Tresca

von Mises

O

Figure 3.1: Representation of yield surfaces (a) Lode angle independent: von Mises (hydrostatic pressure independent) and Drucker-Prager(hydrostatic pressure dependent) (b) Lode

angle dependent: Tresca (hydrostatic pressure independent) and Mohr-Coulomb (hydrostatic

pressure dependent).

of yield surface, whereas the Lode angle controls the shape of the yield surface. In the 20th

century various plasticity models incorporating hydrostatic pressure and Lode dependence

are proposed basically for the usage of rock and soil mechanics [5658]. On the other hand,

the inuence of hydrostatic pressure and Lode angle on the metal yielding has neglected.

The yield criteria used also as failure criteria by some researchers. For perfect plastic

materials, yielding also implies failure, since the stress level is constant between initial yielding

and fracture points. In this thesis yielding is used as begin of plastic ow, while failure is

used as the ultimate loss of material strength resulting from damage accumulation.

Even though most materials can be treated as isotropic approximately, strictly speaking,

all materials are anisotropic to some extend; that is, the material properties are not the

same in every direction. Hill proposed an orthotropic yield surface, which has three mutually

orthogonal planes and is an extension of von Mises isotropic plasticity [59]. Recently Barlat

et al. [60] presented two 3D yield functions with 13 and 18 parameters, respectively. There

are an abundance of various anisotropic models for plane stress (e.g. [6062]), but the subject

anisotropy is out of the scope of the thesis.

There are various experimental investigations, which showed that material can exhibit

complex plastic hardening behavior under reversal loading. In order to model the hardening

19

behavior, kinematic hardening models [63,64] and combined kinematic-isotropic [65,66] hardening models were proposed. Since neglecting kinematic hardening does not induce signicant

errors under monotonic loadings, the subject will not be discussed further.

In some investigations, the dierence between plastic ow under uniaxial tension and

uniaxial compression is explained as the hydrostatic pressure dierence. In fact the deviatoric

stress state for these two loading cases is not same. The Lode angle parameter diers for

uniaxial tension as = 1 and uniaxial compression as = 1. In order to investigate the

inuence of hydrostatic pressure, the deviatoric stress state should be kept constant. Tensile

tests of axisymmetric round bars or plane strain specimens with dierent notches can be used

for that purpose.

3.1.1

The experimental investigations for the hydrostatic pressure (or in this thesis used form stress

triaxiality) inuence on the yield function can be tracked back to Bridgmans investigations.

Bridgman exposed axisymmetric bars to hydrostatic pressure in a pressure chamber [67],

which was later also used in pressure eect investigations by many researchers [6870]. Superimposed hydrostatic pressure does not change the deviatoric state parameter which is

a relationship between J2 and J3 (2.2). Bridgman tested the axisymmetric specimens under

conning pressures up to 3000Mpa, which are rarely seen in industrial structures. He concluded that hydrostatic pressure has no inuence on the plastic ow. Brownrigg et al. [71] and

Spitzig and Richmond [72] investigated the hydrostatic pressure eect on material yielding,

respectively for 1045 steel and aluminum grade 1100. Brownrigg et al. also concluded a weak

hydrostatic pressure dependence on the material yielding.

Axisymmetric specimens with dierent notch radii have been also used in the investigations of hydrostatic pressure inuence. Wilson studied 2024-T351 aluminum notched

round bars with dierent notches under tension and obtained good numerical results with

hydrostatic pressure dependent Prager-Drucker model [73]. On the other hand, for the same

aluminum alloy 2024-T351, Bao and Wierzbicki [25, 74] observed almost perfect correlation

between experiments and numerical simulations with pressure independent von Mises plasticity (J2 -plasticity). Xue also concluded that hydrostatic pressure inuence of the yielding

is debatable for the same aluminum alloy, 2024-T351 [14]. Experiments of 1045 steel round

bars with dierent notches were carried out by Bai et. al and good results are obtained for

all tests with J2 -plasticity , which indicates no pressure dependence of plasticity model [75].

Brvik et al. [76] and later Teng and Wierzbicki [77] performed numerical simulations of

smooth and notched round bars designed by Brvik et al. [78] for Weldox 460 E steel and

obtained good accordance between numerical and experimental load-displacement responses

with a pressure insensitive plasticity model. Barsoum conducted smooth and notched round

20

bar tests for the medium-strength steel Weldox 460 and high-strength steel Weldox 960 and

it was observed that the pressure dependence on the initial yield strength is not signicant

[79]. Copolla et al. also conrmed for 6 dierent steel grades that plastic ow does not depend

on the hydrostatic pressure [80].

3.1.2

The inuence of the Lode angle parameter can be investigated by keeping the stress triaxiality value constant. However usually the stress state variables are changing on the loading

path, which makes the separation of the inuence of two stress state variables a challenging

task. The inuence can be extracted from axisymmetric and plane strain specimens with

same stress triaxiality values. For both mentioned specimen types the Lode angle parameter remains constant on loading path as = 1 and = 0, respectively. A literature review

shows that experimental investigations on the inuence of Lode angle parameter on material

yielding are scarce. Bai et al. proposed a pressure and Lode dependent yield function [75].

It has been showed that the plasticity model parameters obtained from 2024-T351 axisymmetric specimens require up to 20% deviatoric state (Lode angle dependence) correction,

while the required correction for hydrostatic pressure is relatively small. Seidt [5] investigated the same aluminum alloy 2024-T351 widely. He compared the equivalent stress-strain

curves, which were extracted from axisymmetric tension, axisymmetric compression and torsion tests. Especially for the torsion loading case a signicant dierence (20%) was found

(Fig. 3.2-a), which also particularly conrms the results of Bai et al. . The curves extracted

from torsion and axisymmetric tests for the 5083 aluminum are presented in Fig. 3.2-b. It

(b) 5083 aluminum

700

600

600

700

500

400

300

Tension

Torsion

Compression

200

100

500

400

300

200

Tension

Torsion

100

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.8

1.2

Figure 3.2: Comparison of equivalent stress-strain curves for (a) 2024-T351 aluminum extracted from tension, torsion and compression experiments [5] and (b) 5083 aluminum extracted from torsion and compression experiments [6].

21

can be argued that for the presented cases, the parameter stress triaxiality is also dierent

and can cause the mentioned dierence. The authors showed that the stress triaxiality has

no inuence on the yielding by comparing axisymmetric tests with dierent notches.

Recently the Lode dependence on the plasticity properties was also conrmed for cast

aluminum alloy [81, 82]. On other hand the investigations of Bai [8] showed that for the

steel 1045 the Lode dependence on material plasticity is not signicant. It was shown that

with J2 -plasticity it is possible to obtain good results for both axisymmetric and plane-strain

specimens.

As it is presented above, the Lode (or Lode angle parameter) and pressure (or stress

triaxiality) dependence of plastic ow is material dependent. Especially a correction of Lode

dependence is necessary for the discussed aluminum alloys. For the discussed steel grades,

pressure and Lode insensitive J2 -plasticity can be used without introducing signicant errors. By considering the literature survey and the investigated material DP600, numerical

simulations are run with J2 -plasticity in the current thesis.

3.2

Material ductility

As already stated, in this thesis the term ductility refers equivalent plastic strain at fracture.

Recently the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependence of material ductility has

been investigated by several researchers [8385]. In these investigations the inuence of the

two quantities on the material ductility is assumed to be separable as

f = g1 ()g2 (),

(3.1)

where g1 and g2 are the functions dependent on the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter, respectively. Xue dened the fracture strain as a product of reference fracture strain and

two functions g1 and g2 [83]. Bai [19] dened the fracture strain as a surface over the stress

triaxiality and Lode parameter. In this thesis the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

eects on ductility are assumed to be separable.

3.2.1

elucidate the existence and the general trend of fracture strain on the pressure with specic

type of experimental setups. The axisymmetric specimens with imposed hydrostatic pressure

in a high pressure vessel were tested by various researchers starting with the pioneering work

by Bridgman [67]. In 1970 to 1990 extensive experiments were conducted by many researchers

[70, 8690]. Most of these works reviewed by Lewandowski and Lowhaphandu [68]. In these

22

works it has been generally observed that imposing larger hydrostatic pressures cause also

an increase in the fracture strain.

As in the plasticity studies, the pressure eect on material ductility is also investigated by

testing notched specimens under atmospheric pressure. Similar to adding conning pressure

on a round bar, the lateral tension is added by creating a circumferential notch around the

circular specimens. Brvik et al. [52,78] conducted axisymmetric notched tensile experiments

for Weldox 420E Steel and found out that fracture strain increases in an exponential manner

as the stress triaxiality increases. Barsoum et al. [29, 91] approved the exponential relation

for the Weldox steel 420 and 920. The exponential relationship between fracture strain and

triaxiality is also found for DH36 steel [8,15], 1045 steel [8] and for various steel grades [9294].

Various aluminum alloys were also investigated with axisymmetric notched specimens and

the similar tendency of monotonic increase in hydrostatic pressure has been observed for

2024-T351 [19, 95], 2021 [93] and 5083 [6] aluminum alloys.

For both methods, axisymmetric specimens under dierent superimposed hydrostatic

pressures and axisymmetric notched specimens under atmospheric pressure, the Lode angle parameter remains constant ( = 1) during loading. Similar trends for fracture strain

have been also observed for the plane strain tensile specimens with dierent notches [75, 96],

where the Lode angle parameter remains as = 0.

Rice and Tracy [21] proposed a stress triaxiality fracture strain, which has been derived

by analyzing void growth under hydrostatic loading

C2

f () = C1 e

(3.2)

where C1 and C2 are material constants. As discussed in previous chapter, JC fracture strain

equation (Eq. 2.23) is a similar formulation with an additional parameter when the strain

rate and temperature terms are neglected

(

)

f () = D1 + D2 eD3 .

(3.3)

In fact most of the above discussed experimental results can be described by the fracture strain

denition of Rice and Tracy or Johnson-Cook. In Fig. 3.3, the fracture strain is shown as a

function of the average stress triaxiality through loading for the above discussed experiments.

Calibrated JC fracture strain-average stress triaxiality curves are also depicted. The list of

the calibrated JC parameters is given in Table 3.1.

3.2.2

The determination of the Lode angle parameter inuence on the fracture strain is not trivial,

since the stress triaxiality value is usually not constant through loading. However, comparison

of tted stress triaxiality vs. fracture strain curves for axisymmetric tensile specimens ( = 1)

23

1

Fitted curves

Experimental data

1.5

Weldox-420

DH36

Experimental data

0.8

Fracture strain

Fracture strain

Fitted curves

FE370

0.5

6061-T6

0.6

2021

0.4

2024-T351

0.2

5083-H116

25MnCr6

0

0

0.5

0.8

1.1

1.4

1.7

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

Figure 3.3: Average stress triaxiality vs. fracture strain for a) steels: Weldox-420 [29], DH36

[75], FE370 [97] and 25MnCr6 [80] b) aluminum alloys 2024-T351 [95], 5083-H116 [6], 6061T6 [94] and 2021 [93].

Table 3.1: Johnson-Cook model fracture strain parameters for discussed steel grades and

aluminum alloys.

Material

D1

D2

D3

-0.066

3.861

1.499

DH36 [75]

6.365

2.404

FE370 [97]

2.276

1.234

25MnCr6 [80]

3.839

2.097

2024-T351 [95]

6.859

2.451

5083-H116 [6]

0.640

1.448

6061-T6 [94]

2.604

2.966

2021 [93]

1.280

1.950

Weldox-420 [29]

and plane strain specimens ( = 0) can be compared to investigate the Lode dependence on

the material ductility.

Bai and Wierzbicki [75] examined DH36 and 1045 steel for axisymmetric specimens with

dierent notch radii and grooved at specimens with dierent groove radii. It has been

observed that Lode angle parameter inuence on fracture strain is material dependent. 1045

steel showed Lode dependence on the material ductility, whereas the inuence is scarce for

the DH36 steel (Fig. 3.4-a). The same situation has been also conrmed for aluminum alloys.

24

Strong Lode dependence of material ductility is observed for aluminum alloy 2024-T351 [5].

On the other hand the inuence for the aluminum alloy is less signicant for 5083-H116 [6].

The inuence of the Lode angle parameter on material ductility varies through dierent stress

(a) Steel grades

0.8

Fracture strain

1.5

= 1 - Fitted curves

= 0 - Fitted curves

= 1 - Experimental data

= 0 - Experimental data

0.6

Fracture strain

= 1 - Fitted curves

= 0 - Fitted curves

= 1 - Experimental data

= 0 - Experimental data

5083-H116

0.4

1

DH36

1045

2024-T351

0.2

0.5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Figure 3.4: Comparison of average stress triaxiality-fracture strain curves for axisymmetric

tension = 1 and plane strain = 0 for steel grades and aluminum alloys. The tted curves

(solid curves for = 1 and dashed curves for = 1) and experimental average values (circles

for = 1 and squares for = 0) are plotted for a) steels: DH36 [75] and 1045 [75] b) for

aluminum alloys 5083-H116 [6] and 2024-T351 [5].

triaxiality ranges. Generally, the eect becomes weak for high stress triaxialities.

Fracture locus maps based on bounding curves has been proposed by several researchers.

0

The three bounding curves, +

f , f and f are the stress triaxiality dependent curves with

constant Lode angle parameter values, which correspond to axisymmetric deviatoric tension

= 1, plane strain or generalized shear = 0 and deviatoric compression = 1, respectively

(Fig. 3.5). Xue and Wierzbicki [7] extended the Wilkins model and Rice-Tracys criterion and

proposed a symmetric (+

f = f ) fracture locus depending on Lode angle parameter and stress

triaxiality

[

] 2

0

0

f (, ) = +

f f f ,

(3.4)

0

where +

f and f are stress triaxiality dependent Rice-Tracy criteria. The asymmetry of

the fracture has been investigated by various researchers. Using experimental data on three

f > f . Bardet [99] studied the

f > f .

Theoretical analysis based on unit cell by Zhang et. al [101], Gao and Kim [102], showed

that for constant stress triaxiality values, fracture strain for axisymmetric biaxial tension is

25

Fracture strain

+

f

0f

Stress triaxiality

-1

0

Lode angle parameter ( or )

Figure 3.5: Bounding curves of the fracture locus proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki [7], f (,

) and Bai and Wierzbicki [8], f (, ).

+

higher than the axisymmetric uniaxial tension (

f > f ). Wan et al. [103] investigated the

+

growth of void in the unit cell and concluded also the same (

f > f ).

+

Bai and Wierzbicki [8] proposed an asymmetric fracture strain surface

f = f , which has

a parabolic behavior in the Lode angle parameter direction and Rice-Tracy type exponential

[

]

1 +

1

0

0

f (, ) =

(f + f ) f 2 + (+

f ) + f

2

2 f

[

]

)

1( +

+

0

0

=

C exp(C2 ) + C1 exp(C2 ) C1 exp(C2 ) 2

2 1

)

1( +

()

+

C1 exp(C2+ ) C1 exp(C2 ) + C10 exp(C20 ),

2

(3.5)

where C1+ , C2+ , C10 , C20 , C1 and C2 are six fracture locus parameters. It should be noted that

Bai and Wierzbicki [8] used the second denition of Lode angle parameter .

26

Chapter 4

The GISSMO Damage Model

Abstract: The phenomenological damage model GISSMO was proposed by Neukamm

et al. [14] in order to bridge the gap between metal forming and crashworthiness

simulations. The extension and the used features in the current thesis are discussed

in detail. The term damage is explained and experimental damage quantication

methods are discussed briey. The derivation of the nonlinear damage accumulation rule

is presented in detail. A stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent material

ductility (fracture strain) function is proposed. The other features of the damage model

such as material instability modeling and coupling of the damage with plasticity model

are discussed briey.

4.1

Introduction

in material delivery state. The car body metal sheet parts are deformed in a metal forming

process before they are used as car components. Metal forming causes local deformations

on the metal sheet, which can change the material properties locally. Neglecting the predeformation can lead to wrong results in crashworthiness simulations.

In metal forming simulations, the classical models such Forming Limit Diagrams usually

predict relatively bad results. Therefore the damage model GISSMO is formulated as an

incremental continuum damage model, which is based on eective stress concept (see Eq. 2.26)

proposed by Lemaitre [11] in post-critical range of deformation.

In crashworthiness simulations, usually isotropic models such as J2 -plasticity are used.

On the other hand in metal forming more sophisticated anisotropic yield loci are considered.

Thus it is necessary to use dierent constitutive laws in the process chain. The damage model

GISSMO is used both in metal forming and crashworthiness simulations simultaneously with

constitutive plasticity models.

The integration of the damage model GISSMO into the process chain consisting of metal

28

forming and crashworthiness numerical simulations is illustrated in Fig. 4.1. The model is

b) Mapping

p , t

Material model

, p , q

c) Crashworthiness simulation

0p , t0

Material model

, p , q

D

D, q

GISSMO

0

D 0 , q

GISSMO

Figure 4.1: Integration of the damage model GISSMO to the process chain consisting of metal

forming and crashworthiness simulations [2].

modularly integrated into material models in both stages. In the metal forming simulation

stage, the distribution of the plastic strain p , thickness t, damage D and internal variables

q distribution are calculated. In the intermediate step, the mentioned variables are mapped

from ne mesh to relatively coarse mesh, which is commonly used in crash simulations. In

the third stage the mapped variables are used as initial values for the crash simulation. The

damage model can be used as damage indicator uncoupled with a constitutive model as in

continuum material models with damage formulation discussed in subsection 2.3.2 or can

be coupled to the constitutive plastic models as continuum damage mechanics discussed in

subsection 2.3.3.

In the current thesis, the pre-deformation is not considered, since all the specimens are

machined from the sheet metal plate. Therefore the concerned part is only the crashworthiness

numerical simulations. As already discussed in Chapter 3, the plastic ow properties dier

for dierent type of metals. For example, in general the aluminum alloys have Lode angle

dependent plastic ow, whereas the plastic ow is not stress state dependent for the steels.

Furthermore some steels and aluminum alloys have signicant anisotropic plastic ow. Thus,

dierent complexity of constitutive model is required depending on the investigated material.

The damage model GISSMO can be used simultaneously with dierent constitutive models.

Therefore, in this thesis formulated stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent

fracture surface is integrated to the damage model GISSMO in order to use the denition

with dierent type of constitutive models.

4.2

4.2.1

29

Damage rule

Damage variables

The word damage is used as the relative measure of change in physical properties of partial

damaged material compared to the undamaged material. These physical properties include

elastic modulus, remaining ductility, hardness and local mass density.

From micromechanical point of view, ductile fracture is a process, which follows nucleation, growth and coalescence of micro voids and cracks. In micromechanical models damage

is usually dened as the void fraction in a Representative Volume Element (RVE). At a

specic void fraction, which is material dependent, the material is assumed to fail.

The damage variable was rstly introduced for creep by Kachanov [49], and later by

Rabotnov [50] in the framework of continuum damage mechanics. From the physical point

of view, damage can be dened as the reduction of the nominal section area in the RVE

which is the result of micro cracks and micro voids. Murakami and Ohno [104] were the rst

n , cutting RVE as represented in Fig. 4.2.

(a) Damaged configuration

F

Removing voids

and cracks

Ae

A0

F

Ad

Figure 4.2: Representative volume element subjected to uniaxial tension. (a) Volume with

damage and (b) eective load carrying material volume.

n is dened through

(n)

D

(n)

(n)

=1

Aef f

(n)

(4.1)

A0

(n)

where A0 is the reference area of cross-section and Aef f is eective resisting area after subtracting the micro cracks and micro voids from reference area. It should be noted that in this

n . Therefore according

to denition the damage should be dened as a tensor. Chaboche [105] introduced a fourthorder damage tensor and second order damage tensors were introduced by Kachanov [106],

Krajcinovic [107], Chow and Wang [108], Murakami [109], Hammi et al. [110] and Br

unig

30

[111]. However in these models, the identication of parameters becomes a very complicated

and challenging task with limited published examples in the literature [112,113], which makes

the models for industrial applications not practical.

By assuming the damage as isotropic, Eq. 4.1 can be written as

D =1

Aef f

,

A0

(4.2)

where D is isotropic scalar damage, Aef f /A0 is the ratio independent of chosen orientation.

In many industrial applications the damage indicator has been modeled as a scalar value and

good results have been obtained. [114116]. Therefore the damage is represented by a scalar

quantity in the present thesis.

4.2.2

The experimental determination of the damage possesses some diculties and usually it is

modeled as an internal variable. Lemaitre and Chaboche [117] proposed Youngs modulus

reduction as a measure of damage,

D =1

Eef f

,

E0

(4.3)

where E0 and Eef f are Youngs modulus of undamaged and damaged materials, respectively.

Alves et al. [118] and Bonora et al. [119] used the proposed method for dierent stress

triaxialities. It should be noted that, with this method an average value through the critical

cross-section of the specimen is obtained. However for materials with high ductility, plastic

strain and damage localization occur especially at the center of critical cross-sections of

axisymmetric round specimens. Thus the mentioned model can lead to slightly conservative

results for the materials with high ductility. X-ray micro-tomography was used by Weck et

al. [120] and Tasan [10] to observe void (damage volume fraction) evolution. Other damage

quantication methods, micro indentation method based on hardness measurements was

examined by Tasan et al. [121] and brittle-fracture methodology was proposed by Hoefnagels

[122].

4.2.3

In recent years various damage accumulation rules have been proposed. These criteria were

basically empirical and based on observation and experience. The cumulative strain damage models assume that fracture occurs due to the plastic deformation history. For a given

material, damage occurs, when the damage indicator integral reaches the critical value Dc

h(eld variables)dp = Dc ,

(4.4)

31

components ij , plastic strain p , plastic strain rate p , temperature T and current damage

D. Normalization both sides of the integral lead to

g(eld variables)dp = 1.

(4.5)

The simplest and most commonly used damage potential is the linear function which is

dened through

p

D= .

(4.6)

f

For a given fracture strain, the damage increment is dened as

dD =

1

dp ,

f

(4.7)

which was also used by many researchers [24, 123125]. In this case the damage increment

is linear with respect to the plastic strain increment. However, some researchers showed

that damage increment and plastic strain increment do not have necessarily linear relation.

Bonora [51], Bai et al. [126] and Xue [126] proposed nonlinear damage accumulation rules.

Recently Weck et al. [127, 128] investigated metallic sheets containing laser drilled holes.

It has been concluded that the void growth rate is nonlinear with respect to local strain.

Tasan [10] measured the void growth at dierent plastic strain levels with Scanning Electron

Microscopy (SEM) and concluded a nonlinear void growth with respect to plastic strain. In

micromechanical models such as proposed by Gurson [36] and Barsoum and Falskog [91], the

void volume fraction, which can be also considered as damage, increases nonlinearly with

respect to increasing plastic strain.

In the GISSMO damage model, the damage potential under proportional loading is dened

as a power function

( )n

p

D=

,

(4.8)

f

where n is the damage exponent, which denes the nonlinearity level of the damage accumulation. Corresponding damage increment can be dened as

dD =

n (n1)

p

dp = g(f , p , n)dp ,

f n

(4.9)

where g is a weighting function. The fracture strain f in the formulation is stress state

dependent. More precisely f is a function of stress state parameters, the stress triaxiality

and Lode angle parameter . A similar damage evolution equation was used by Xue [129]. It

should be noted that the damage increment depends on the current p . In micromechanical

models such as Gurson model, void volume fraction evolution is calculated from the current

32

volume fracture. By substituting Eq. 4.8 into Eq. 4.9, one gets the damage evolution increment

used in the GISSMO damage model

n1

n

D n dp = g(f , D, n)dp ,

f (, )

dD =

(4.10)

where in the weighting function g instead of current p , current D is used. From this point

of view, the phenomenological damage evolution rule proposed in GISSMO damage model is

motivated by micromechanical models. Under proportional loading conditions both formulations lead to identical results, whereas the damage prediction of the formulations diers

under non-proportional loading through loading path. Under proportional loading the damage increment is integrated as

D=

g(f , D, n)dp = 1.

(4.11)

The initial and end conditions for the integral in Eq. 4.11 correspond to D = 0 at p = 0 and

D = 1 at p = f . Depending on the chosen damage exponent n, the functional g represents

an innite number of solutions for the integral. Linear damage accumulation of JC n = 1,

nonlinear damage accumulation with n = 2 and evolution of normalized void volume fraction

in GTN with respect to plastic strain are compared in Fig. 4.3. Under complex loading

1

Johnson-Cook n=1

GISSMO n=2

Gurson

D or f /ff

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

p /f

Figure 4.3: Evolution comparison of linear damage (n = 1), nonlinear damage (n = 2) and

normalized void volume fraction of GTN model with respect to plastic strain.

histories (non-proportional loading) the damage is accumulated incrementally and material

fails when integral reaches unity

D=

g(f , D, n)dp = 1.

0

(4.12)

4.3

33

A similar but extended fracture locus proposed by Bai and Wierzbicki (Eq. 3.5) is introduced

in dependence of and . Three bound curves (Fig. 4.4) axisymmetric tension = 1, plane

strain or generalized shear = 0 and axisymmetric deviatoric compression = 1 are dened

as reduced form of JC equation (Eq. 3.3). The dependence of the Lode angle parameter is

+

+

+

+

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 )

Fracture strain

0f = D10 + D20 exp(D30 )

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 )

-1

Figure 4.4: Proposed fracture locus and formulations for bound limit curves.

2

a, b and c are found with respect to three limiting curves and the 9 parameter asymmetric

fracture locus f is introduced.

[

]

)

)

1(

1(

+

0

+

+

0

0

f (, ) =

D1 + D1 D1 +

D2 exp(D3 ) + D2 exp(D3 ) D2 exp(D3 ) 2

2

2

[

]

) 1( +

)

1( +

+

D1 D1 +

D2 exp(D3 ) D2 exp(D3 )

2

2

+ D10 + D20 exp(D30 ),

(4.13)

where D1 , D2 , D3 , D10 , D20 , D30 , D1+ , D2+ and D3+ are nine parameters of the fracture locus.

Many special cases can be recovered from the proposed fracture locus. By omitting D1 , D10 ,

D1+ terms the function becomes the Eq. 3.5 proposed by Bai and Wierzbicki. By requiring

f = f ) additional to omitted terms, the function becomes the

Eq. 3.4 proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki. By neglecting the Lode angle parameter inuence

( = 0), JC equation (Eq. 3.3) is obtained.

34

4.4

The modeling of local material stability is of great interest in metal forming simulations.

Although in literature some methods [130] are proposed to model the instability of material,

it is dicult to acquire the required stress and strain rates in experiments [3]. In damage

model GISSMO the instability variable Fr is determined using an evolution equation for the

forming intensity in a cumulative way

dFr =

n1

n

Fr n dp ,

p,l ()

(4.14)

where p,l is the stress triaxiality dependent equivalent plastic strain at the begin of instability and n is the exponent, which is also used in damage accumulation. In crashworthiness

simulations, usage of limited mesh size requires regularization of dissipated energy to the

crack formation. The regularization issue is treated with coupling the damage with stress

tensor and dening element size dependent fracture strain. Damage D and stress tensor are

coupled through

{

(

(

)m ) for D Dc ;

=

(4.15)

c

1 DD

for D > Dc ,

1Dc

where Dc is the critical damage, which is discussed in detail in [131] and m is the fading

exponent, which controls the rate of stress reduction on the element.

Chapter 5

Experimental Program

Abstract: The present chapter discusses the experimental program presented in the

current thesis. Flat un-notched and notched specimens with two notch radii, grooved

at specimens with four groove radii, axisymmetric notched round specimens with four

notch radii, buttery tests with ve dierent loading angles and Nakazima tests with two

dierent blank geometries are investigated. Geometry of specimens, loading conditions

and experimental force-displacement results are presented with discussions. In-plane

anisotropy in two orthogonal directions is briey discussed based on experimental results

of un-notched specimens.

5.1

Introduction

Recently, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) are used widely in automotive industry

since they show good strength, formability and weldability behavior. Also their cost is lower

than equivalent heat-treated alloys since the desired characteristics are achieved directly from

hot rolling. In Fig. 5.1, AHSS are compared with the low strength and HSS steels. In this

thesis, DP600 from AHSS family is investigated. DP-steels are low-carbon steels and contain

large amount of manganese and silicon and small amount of microalloying. The chemical

composition of the investigated material DP600 is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: The chemical composition of the dual phase steel DP600.

Weight %

Si

Mn

Al

0.14

0.50

2.0

0.07

0.015

0.015

0.005

axisymmetric notched round specimens, at grooved specimens, Nakazima tests and Buttery

tests. All specimens were machined from the DP600 sheet metal plates with thickness of

36

5 Experimental Program

70

60

50

IF

40

MILD IFHS

BH

30

CM

20

TRI

P

DP

- CP

HSLA

10

MS

0

0

200

500

800

1100

1400

1700

Figure 5.1: Comparison of AHSS (transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP) steels, dual phase

(DP) steels and martensitic (MS) steels) with low strength and HSS steels [132].

2mm, which were provided by the company Alcan. The tests of at specimens, axisymmetric

notched round specimens, at grooved specimens were conducted in Fraunhofer Institute

for Mechanics of Materials IWM, the Nakazima tests in Department of Ferrous Metallurgy

IEHK-RWTH and buttery tests in Institute of General Mechanics IAM-RWTH.

The experiments were conducted at room temperature and type of loading is quasi-static.

All specimens are machined from the rolling direction in order to avoid anisotropy eects

(Fig. 5.2).

(a) Flat and axisymmetric round specimens

Flat specimens

Axisymmetric notched round specimens

Rolling direction

Figure 5.2: Layout of machined specimens on the DP600 sheet plate (a) at and axisymmetric

notched round specimens (b) grooved at specimens.

As explained in previous chapters, material ductility depends on the stress state, which can

37

be experimentally acquired with dierent specimen types and loading conditions. Usually the

parameters of the numerical damage models can not be determined from experiments directly,

which necessitates a hybrid methodology combining numerical simulations and experiments.

Each specimen or loading condition represents a specic stress state, which is dened with

two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter in this thesis.

The covered stress states by the investigated sets of tests are depicted in Fig. 5.3.

Lode angle

parameter

1

tter

fly

Flat specimens

Bu

0.5

tes

ts

Plane stress

Axisymmetric notched

round specimens

0

-1

-0.5

0.5

Grooved flat

specimens

1

Stress triaxiality

1.5

Plane strain

-0.5

-1

Nakazima

tests

Figure 5.3: Illustration of covered stress state by the investigated sets of specimens and tests.

5.2

Un-notched and two notched specimens with Radius (R)=2mm and 4mm are machined from

the rolling direction of the sheet metal. The specimens were loaded with 0.01mm/s machine

speed to complete separation. For each geometry three duplicate tests were conducted. The

un-notched specimens are used to extract the material properties under uniaxial stress state,

whereas the two notched specimens are used to cover higher stress triaxiality values. The

geometry and dimensions used in this set of study are shown in Fig. 5.4.

The displacement was measured directly on the specimens by a gauge and the gauge

length L0 for the un-notched and notched at specimens is 10mm and 30mm, respectively.

The experimental results for the un-notched and notched specimens are presented in

Fig. 5.5. The results are presented as normalized force and displacement curves; the recorded

force F is normalized with the undeformed critical cross-section perpendicular to loading

direction A0 and the measured gauge displacement L is normalized with initial gauge

length L0 .

38

5 Experimental Program

Notched R=2mm

20

L0 =30

R2

80

L0 =30

60

L0 =10

Lc =14

18

2

2

R4

80

4.1

4.1

4.1

Notched R=4mm

9

Un-notched

18

R5

10

10

10

20

20

Figure 5.4: The un-notched and notched at specimens. From left to right: un-notched, notch

radii R=2mm and 4mm.

(b) Notched: R=2mm and R=4mm

0.8

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) Un-notched

0.8

0.4

0.2

Noched R=2mm

Noched R=4mm

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.4

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

L/L0

0.05

0.06

Figure 5.5: Normalized force-displacement curves obtained from the tests of (a) un-notched

at specimens and (b) notched at specimen (R=4mm and 2mm) tests.

It is observed that normalized force-displacement curves for the un-notched and notched

specimens do not vary to maximum force. The notched specimens with R=4mm and R=2mm

also do not show scatter in the normalized force-displacement levels after maximum points to

complete separation. However, the normalized displacement at fracture varies for the notched

specimens (downward arrows in Fig. 5.5-(b)). The observed maximum dierence is 5%, which

is observed for tests of the notched specimen with R=4mm.

Ductile materials usually form a localized, inhomogeneous high strain location before

fracture [133]. The fracture occurs in the localized zone, since the order of plastic strain

is signicantly higher than the rest of the specimen. Depending on the specimen geometry

and material properties, a second shear-band deformation can be also formed, which leads

39

the second localized zone [134, 135]. The un-notched at specimens show a signicant diuse

necking zone but not a second localized shear band localization (Fig. 5.6). The specimens after

complete separation are shown in Fig. 5.7. The SEM micrograph of microstructure is shown

Un-notched

Notched R=2mm

Notched R=4mm

Figure 5.7: The post-mortem of un-notched at specimens and notched at specimens with

notch radii R=2mm and 4mm.

in Fig. 5.8-(a). The white and dark zones are ferritic and martensitic zones, respectively. The

fracture surface shows a typical ductile fracture with high stress triaxiality, where dimples

are observed Fig. 5.8-(b). The average size of the voids in the fracture surface is 5 m.

5.2.1

The previous investigations for DP600 steel sheets with thickness (t) of 1.5mm showed that

in-plane anisotropy is not signicant for the investigated material [136]. The comparison of the

plastic strains in the thickness and width direction can be used to determine the anisotropy

40

5 Experimental Program

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.8: (a) SEM micrograph of the microstructure of undeformed DP600 steel (ferrite

phase is white and martensite phase is dark) and (b) fracture surface of the un-notched at

specimen.

between compared two directions. For this purpose typically used r value is dened through

r=

ln(w/w0 )

,

ln(t/t0 )

(5.1)

where t0 is the thickness before deformation and t is the deformed thickness of the at unnotched specimen. w0 and w are the width of specimen before and after the deformation,

respectively Fig. 5.9. However, due to the relative small dimension of the sheet metal thickness

on

cti

t0

ire

gd

n

i

ad

Lo

w

w0

Figure 5.9: Representation of the thickness and width of the specimen before and after the

deformation.

and sensitivity of r value to measurement errors, the thickness terms in the Eq. 5.1 are

substituted according to the postulate of constant volume in plasticity theory,

( )

ln ww0

(5.2)

r = ( L0 w 0 ) .

ln Lw

The r value for three un-notched at specimens is recorded for technical strains at 5%,

10%, 15%, 20% and after complete separation. The evolution of the r value with respect to

41

Fig. 5.10. On the onset of necking the value r increases slightly and average value of r=0.92 is

F/A0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

Test 1 F/A0

Test 2 F/A0

Test 3 F/A0

Test 1 r value

Test 2 r value

Test 3 r value

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

r value

0.3

0.4

0

0.5

L/L0

Figure 5.10: Evolutions of the r value and normalized force with respect to global normalized

displacement for three duplicate tests of un-notched at specimen.

recorded at fracture points, which indicates that the anisotropy between longitudinal direction

and thickness direction is not signicant.

5.3

The double side grooved at specimens were tested to investigate the material plasticity

and ductility under plane strain conditions, which corresponds to the Lode angle parameter

= 0, where the principal strain component in width direction is negligibly small compared

to the other two principal strain components. By introducing dierent groove radii, a range

of stress triaxiality at constant Lode angle parameter = 0 can be investigated (Fig. 5.3).

The specimens were cut from the rolling direction of the plates (Fig. 5.2-(b)) and loaded with

machine speed 0.01mm/s until fracture.

In order to ensure the plain strain conditions, the specimens must be dimensioned properly, since the dimensions thickness t, width w and minimum thickness at the center of groove

tm (see Fig. 5.11) have signicant inuence on the stress state. Bai and Wierzbicki [8] assigned

the ratios w/tm = 32.25 and t/tm = 3.125, Benzerga [38] applied the ratios w/tm = 16.6 and

t/tm = 3.

The geometry of the grooved at specimens was optimized with numerical simulations.

Numerical simulations for the specimen with groove radius R=2mm were carried out for

dierent ratios of w/tm and t/tm . Minimum thickness at the groove center was kept constant

42

5 Experimental Program

w

tm

tm =0.8mm and other two dimensions w and t were varied. The material point at the center of

the specimen was investigated. Inuence of dierent ratios of w/tm and t/tm on the evolution

of Lode angle parameter with respect to equivalent plastic strain is demonstrated in Fig. 5.12.

It is observed that, as expected, the w/tm ratio aects the evolution signicantly and for ratio

1

w/tm

w/tm

w/tm

w/tm

w/tm

w/tm

0.8

0.6

= 6.25 and t/tm

= 12.5 and t/tm

= 12.5 and t/tm

= 25.0 and t/tm

= 25.0 and t/tm

= 2.5

= 5.0

= 2.5

= 5.0

= 2.5

= 5.0

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Plastic strain

Figure 5.12: Evolution of the Lode angle parameter with respect to equivalent plastic strain

with constant tm =0.8mm for dierent ratios of w/tm and t/tm .

values greater than 12.5, plane strain conditions are achieved. By considering the machining

abilities and the thickness of metal sheet plates, the ratios of w/tm = 12.5 and w/tm = 2.5

were assigned to the specimens in this line of study. In order to investigate a range of stress

triaxiality under plane strain conditions, tests of specimens with grove radii equal to 0.5mm,

1mm, 2mm and 4mm were conducted Fig. 5.13.

The displacement was recorded by a clip gauge with a length of 20mm in all tests of

grooved at specimens. The normalized force-displacement curves for the grooved at specimens with groove radii R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm are plotted together in Fig. 5.14

with two duplicate tests for each specimen geometry. The scattering of experimental results

concerning material plasticity is negligibly small. All duplicate curves are almost identical in terms of normalized force-displacement level. The fracture points are indicated with

downward arrows in Fig. 5.14. The maximum scattering of material ductility, which can be

43

34

R0.5

30.5

10

R1

R2

0.8

0.8

R0.5

R1

R4

0.8

0.8

R2

R4

110

.1

22

9.5

15

19

30.5

9.5

L0 =20

Lc =25

R12

Figure 5.13: The geometry and dimensions of the grooved at specimens with groove radii

equal to 0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm.

1

0.8

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

1

0.6

0.4

R=0.5mm Test 1

R=0.5mm Test 2

R=1.0mm Test 1

R=1.0mm Test 2

0.2

0

0.005

0.01

L/L0

0.6

0.4

R=2.0mm Test 1

R=2.0mm Test 2

R=4.0mm Test 1

R=4.0mm Test 2

0.2

0.015

0.02

0.005

0.01

0.015 0.02

L/L0

0.025

0.03

Figure 5.14: The normalized force-displacement curves obtained from tests of grooved at

specimens with groove radii (a) R=0.5mm and R=1mm and (b) R=2mm and R=4mm.

described as the end of force-displacement curves, was observed for the specimen geometry

with groove radius R=1mm (%8 in terms of global normalized displacements between two

duplicate tests).

The post-mortem of grooved at specimens are shown in Fig. 5.15.

44

5 Experimental Program

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Figure 5.15: The grooved at specimens with groove radii R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm

after fracture.

5.4

The tests of axisymmetric notched round specimens were carried out to characterize material

properties under axial symmetric stress state, which corresponds to Lode angle parameter

=1 (Fig. 5.3). By the variation of notch radius, it is possible to investigate the inuence of

the stress triaxiality for a specic range. The minimum value of the stress triaxiality that

can be obtained with this group of specimens is = 1/3, which is the stress state of the unnotched round specimen before the onset of necking. Decreasing the notch radius increases

the stress triaxiality value.

In this study, experiments of axisymmetric notched round specimens with notch radii

R = 0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm were conducted. The geometry and dimensions of the

specimens are illustrated in Fig. 5.16.

The loading speed was set to 0.01mm/s in order to assure quasi-static loading conditions.

The displacement is measured with a gauge with length of 10mm. For each notch geometry two duplicate tests with the same loading conditions were conducted. The normalized

force-displacement curves are plotted in Fig. 5.17. The scatter of force-displacement levels is

negligible. The maximum dierence in material ductility is observed for the specimen with

smallest notch radius R=0.5mm as 13% in normalized displacement at fracture.

The post-mortem specimens are shown in Fig. 5.18.

45

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Figure 5.16: The geometry and dimensions of the axisymmetric notched round specimens

with notch radii R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm.

(b) R=2mm and R=4mm

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

R=0.5mm Test 1

R=0.5mm Test 2

R=1.0mm Test 1

R=1.0mm Test 2

0.2

0.4

R=2.0mm Test 1

R=2.0mm Test 2

R=4.0mm Test 1

R=4.0mm Test 2

0.2

0

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.02

L/L0

0.04

0.06

L/L0

Figure 5.17: Normalized force-displacement curves obtained from the tests of axisymmetric

notched round specimens for notch radii (a) R=0.5mm and 1mm (b) R=2mm and 4mm.

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Figure 5.18: The post-mortem of axisymmetric notched round specimens with notch radii

R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm.

46

5.5

5 Experimental Program

Nakazima tests

Nakazima tests are commonly used to assess deformation under biaxial conditions in sheet

metals. The load is applied by a hemisphere punch on the metal blanks to fracture. A lubricant

between punch and blank (sheet metal) is used in order to overcome possible friction eects.

By changing the geometry of metal blank, a range of stress state between uniaxial tension

(=1/3, =1) and equi-biaxial tension (=2/3, =-1) can be covered [137].

For the current thesis, Nakazima tests with two dierent blank geometries were carried

out. The dimensions of the two blank geometries, with width of 90mm and 70mm are demonstrated in Fig. 5.19. In the blank with initial width of 90mm the stress state is equi-biaxial,

whereas the blank with width of 70mm has a slightly dierent stress state.

(a) 90mm

(b) 70mm

Punch

Punch

Blank

holder

8.75

12.5

12.5

Punch

8.75

R15

R15

Blank

70

87.5

90

107.5

Die

115

thickness =2

115

Figure 5.19: The geometry and dimensions of the Nakazima test blank geometries with initial

width of (a) 70mm and (b) 90mm.

For each blank geometry three duplicate tests were run. The punch force-displacement

curves are shown in Fig. 5.20. Since in Nakazima tests force does not ow through a section

on the blank, the force-displacement curves are not normalized as for the other specimen sets.

The duplicate tests show negligible scatter in force-displacement levels. The displacement of

punch at fracture diers between duplicate tests for the blank geometry with width of 70mm

and 90mm 5% and 4%, respectively.

The post-mortem of Nakazima blanks are illustrated in Fig. 5.21. It should be noted

that the fracture initiates in the middle and propagates through plane of symmetry. Under

equi-biaxial tension, the equivalent plastic strain after fracture can be calculated with the

assumptions of incompressibility and constant strain distribution through the thickness of

the specimens. The plastic strain in thickness direction pz is calculated through

pz

( )

t

= ln

,

t0

(5.3)

47

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

120

120

100

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

80

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

100

60

40

20

0

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

80

60

40

20

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

Figure 5.20: Punch force-displacement curves obtained from Nakazima tests with blank width

of (a) 90mm and (b) 70mm.

Width=70mm

Width=90mm

Fracture

Fracture

Figure 5.21: The post-mortem of Nakazima test blanks with width of 70mm and 90mm.

where t is the thickness after fracture and t0 is the thickness at undeformed state. Assumptions

of constant volume and similarity of other two in-plane principal plastic components (px =

px = pz /2) lead to

[

]

2

p =

(px )2 + (py )2 + (pz )2 = pz .

3

(5.4)

After fracture, the specimens were cut through the plane of symmetry, where the fracture

initiated and propagated. The thickness t is measured in the middle of the blank where the

fracture assumed to initiate and initial thickness t0 is the maximum measured thickness on

the cut specimens. The calculated fracture strains f and arithmetic mean of fracture strains

f,m for two blank geometries are presented in Table 5.2.

48

5 Experimental Program

Table 5.2: Calculated fracture strain from measured thicknesses for the Nakazima blanks with

width of 70mm and 90mm.

Geometry and Test

5.6

f = ln

( )

70mm-Test1

0.516

70mm-Test2

0.703

70mm-Test3

0.493

90mm-Test1

0.787

90mm-Test2

0.970

90mm-Test3

0.872

t

t0

f,m

0.570

0.876

Butterfly tests

The last of experiments are buttery tests, which cover a wide range of the stress triaxiality

and Lode angle parameter with a single specimen geometry (Fig. 5.3). The unique design

of the buttery specimen leads to deformation concentration at the center of the specimen

under dierent loading directions, which determines the fracture initiation location in the

specimen.

Mohr and Treitler [138] used buttery shaped specimens in order to investigate fracture

strain in the range 0-0.6 of stress triaxiality. Bai and Wierzbicki [8] calibrated the stress

triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent fracture locus for high strength steel

A710 with a single buttery specimen geometry loaded under dierent angles.

The buttery specimen investigated in this thesis, was optimized with numerical simulations before running the tests by considering also the maximum sheet metal thickness and

machining abilities. The geometry features two curvatures in order to force the strain localization to occur in the middle of specimen, where the thickness jump is maximum between

the gauge section and the shoulders (Fig. 5.22).

The detailed buttery specimen geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig. 5.23.

The buttery specimens assessed in the current study were machined and tested in Institute of General Mechanics (IAM) of RWTH Aachen University. The experiments were

carried out in a custom-made testing machine similar to that used by Mohr and Treitler

[138]. The test bench with subparts is illustrated in Fig. 5.24. The moving parts (2b, 3b, 4b

and 5 in Fig. 5.24) are connected to two guides (1), which move vertically. The loading angle

is adjusted by rotating the two inner discs (3a and 3b). A homogeneous displacement eld

on the shoulders of buttery specimen is obtained by xing the specimen to the inner discs

49

Shoulder

Shoulder

50

17

12.75

8.1

12.65

5

R1.2

R4.

10.25

R18

.5

32

R6.

37.5

3.5

25

.93

R52

1

2

with two grips (4a and 4b). The force is applied vertically by the actuator (5). In order to

eliminate dynamic eects, the tests were run at a very low speed, v=0.01mm/s. The test sets,

at un-notched and notched, at grooved, axisymmetric notched round and Nakazima cover

the range for high stress triaxiality values. Therefore, the loading angles in buttery tests are

mainly chosen to represent the stress states with low stress triaxialities. The specimens were

tested under ve loading angles, 10 compression , 0 shear, 10 tension, 20 tension and 60

tension (Fig. 5.25). The approximate range of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

covered by buttery tests is depicted in Fig. 5.3

For each loading angle three duplicate tests were conducted. The displacement measurement was carried out optically by a camera. The measurement is carried out by tracking

two chosen material points on the specimen. The tracking material points were chosen on

the shoulders of the buttery specimens. The initial distance between track points were set

as 6.5mm for the loading angles 10 compression , 0 shear, 10 tension, 20 tension and as

5.0mm for the 60 tension (Fig. 5.26). The force signal measured by the testing machine,

which was synchronized with the optical displacement measurements.

50

5 Experimental Program

(a)

1

2a

Specimen

(b)

3a

4a

4b

60

3b

2b

5

Force

Figure 5.24: Buttery test bench set up for 60 loading angle. (a) Universal test machine

components: Inner discs (3a, 3b), grips (4a, 4b), connecting parts (2a, 2b), guides (1) and

force applying actuator (5). (b) Closer look to the specimen xed by grips after fracture.

10 Compression

0 Shear

10 Tension

20 Tension

60 Tension

shear, 10 tension, 20 tension and 60 tension.

(b)

45

6.

(a)

60

Figure 5.26: Representation of the tracking points used for measurements of buttery tests

with loading angles, (a) 10 compression, 0 shear, 10 tension, 20 tension and (b) 60

tension.

51

The measured force is normalized with respect to cross-section area parallel to shoulders

at the center of specimens. The normalized force-displacement curves from the tests with ve

dierent loading angles are shown in Fig. 5.27. The scatter of normalized force-displacement

(b) 0 shear

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) 10 compression

0.5

0.4

0.3

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.5

0.4

0.3

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

0.2

0.1

0

0.4

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

0.2

0.1

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

L/L0

0.1

0.15

0.2

L/L0

0.25

0.3

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(c) 10 tension

0.05

0.2

0.5

60 tension

0.4

0.3

20 tension

0.2

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

0.1

0.25

0.05

0.1

L/L0

0.15

0.2

Figure 5.27: Normalized force-displacement curves obtained from the buttery tests with

loading angles (a) 10 compression (b) 0 shear (c) 10 (d) 20 and 60 tension.

levels for the duplicate tests is scarce, whereas the dierence in global displacement at fracture

is signicant. The minimum dierence at the normalized displacement at complete fracture

is 8% for the loading angle 20 compression, whereas maximum dierence was observed for

the tests with loading angles 10 compression and 60 tension as 19%. In fact the relative

high scatter may be the result of machining errors on the surface, since the gauge section has

a complex geometry. The fracture initiation occurs on the surface of the gauge section and

small machining irregularities on the surface may lead to change on the fracture initiation

times.

52

5 Experimental Program

Chapter 6

Determination of Fracture Strain and

Stress State

Abstract: In this chapter, a hybrid method combining the numerical simulations with

experimental results is discussed. The experimental global force-displacement responses

discussed in the previous chapter are used as reference for the numerical simulations. Numerical simulations are carried out to determine the numerical global force-displacement

responses and the components of stress and strain tensors. Material ductility (fracture

strain) and two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

are calculated from strain and stress tensors, respectively. A weighting function based

on the damage accumulation rule is proposed, since the stress state parameter values are not constant through the loading path. Numerical simulations are carried out

with isotropic J2 -plasticity. The damage accumulation is assumed to be nonlinear with

respect to plastic strain (n=2). The eect of mesh size on the physical quantities is

discussed briey.

6.1

Introduction

Experimental investigations give information about the physical nature of the material. However, in reality, the experimental measurements are usually not sucient to calibrate the

complex numerical models. Ductile fracture is an occurrence at local material points where

the fracture initiates. In conventional experimental methods, usually the needed physical information can not be acquired, since it is not possible to perform direct measurements at

local fracture initiation points. Therefore, numerical simulations are required to reveal the

physical information in conjunction with experiments.

A hybrid methodology is proposed, which combines the numerical simulations and experimental results. The experimental global force-displacement responses discussed in chapter 5

are used as reference for the numerical simulations. Numerical simulations are carried out to

54

determine the numerical global force-displacement responses and the components of stress

and strain tensors. Material ductility (fracture strain) in dependence of two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter , which is the focus of the thesis,

are calculated from strain and stress tensors obtained in numerical simulations.

The determination of the fracture initiation point is vital for the determination of fracture

strain and corresponding stress state. For some specimen types and loading cases fracture

initiation location can be observed optically. However the observation can be a challenging

task, if the fracture initiates inside the specimen or propagates very fast. In the present study,

the fracture initiation locations are determined numerically according to maximum plastic

strain and stress triaxiality locations in the specimens. With a few exceptions, the location of

the maximum plastic strain and maximum stress triaxiality in the specimens are coincident

for the investigated tests.

As shown in chapter 3, plastic ow can be stress state dependent especially for some

aluminum alloys. On the other hand, the stress state dependency of plastic ow for steels is

scarce. Also by consideration of applicability to crashworthiness simulations, the numerical

simulations are run with isotropic J2 -plasticity1 .

In CDM and micromechanical models (section 2.3) the stress-strain curve is specied for

the matrix material and global response is determined as the response of RVE which consists

of matrix material and damage (voids and cracks). On the other hand, the macroscopic

stress-strain curve measured in experiments is the combined response of material hardening

and damaging process, which makes the separation of plastic hardening of matrix material

and damage experimentally impossible. This implies that the material deforms according to

classical plasticity rule, without coupling the plastic ow and damage [119, 139]. Therefore,

in this study classical J2 -plasticity is used and damage is calculated simultaneously but it

does not aect the plastic ow.

In current crashworthiness simulations the mesh size of FE-models varies in the range of

1mm and 10mm. Especially for the coarse mesh size the post-critical response and fracture

strain is strongly mesh size dependent. In fact with course mesh it is not possible to model the

post-critical response and fracture strain accurately, since the mesh size is often larger than

physical localization region. In order to regularize the dissipated energy through deformation

to fracture, the damage is coupled with plasticity formulation in the GISSMO damage model.

The degree of coupling of plasticity with damage as well as fracture strain is set as a function

of mesh size numerically [1, 4]. Investigation of mesh size dependency of plasticity model is

not in the scope of the current thesis, since ne mesh size of 0.05mm-0.1mm is used in the

investigations.

1

J2 -plasticity refers to *MAT24 (*MAT PIECEWISE LINEAR PLASTICITY) in the context of finite

element code LS-DYNA.

6.2

55

In the current thesis it is intended to investigate the physical quantities fracture strain f ,

stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter without introducing numerical errors caused

by mesh size. Therefore, the numerical simulations are carried out with ne mesh size. The

geometrical dimensions of critical locations dier for dierent sets of specimens. For example,

the critical gauge section has a length of 14mm for the un-notched at specimen, whereas

the critical section for the grooved at specimen with the groove radii equal to 0.5mm has

length of around 2mm. The deformation is localized in the investigated tests. In order to

complete the numerical simulations in reasonable times, in the noncritical regions (with low

deformation) of the specimens a coarse mesh is used.

The convergence analysis of mesh size was carried out for the un-notched at specimen

geometry, since it exhibits the maximum fracture strain in the experimental program within

all tests. FE models with mesh size of 0.1mm, 0.05mm and 0.025mm are investigated. Due

to symmetry conditions, 1/8 of the full specimen was modeled with applied symmetry conditions. The total number of elements of the FE-models are given in Table 6.2.

Table 6.1: FE-models of 1/8 specimens for three dierent mesh size and corresponding total

number of elements.

Mesh size

0.1mm

0.05mm

0.025mm

Number of elements

29280

234240

710720

In the convergence study, the global force-displacement responses and evolution of the

stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter were compared.

In Fig. 6.1-(a) the normalized force-displacement curves are compared in the range of the

normalized displacement 0-0.45, which corresponds to maximum local plastic strain of around

150%. In Fig. 6.1-(b) at the critical location (center of the specimen) the evolution of the

stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain is shown.

The maximum normalized displacement at fracture for three duplicate tests is around 0.43.

It is observed that the global force-displacement responses of three models are identical before

the onset of highly localized deformation. Also evolution of the stress triaxiality and Lode

angle parameters shows a similar trend. The assessed quantities are compared for dierent

mesh sizes at plastic strain of 1.5 in Table 6.2 by choosing the numerical model with mesh

size 0.05mm as reference. It is concluded that even for localized high deformation the results

are converged at the mesh size of 0.05mm.

56

(a)

(b)

1

0.8

0.8

or

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.1mm

0.05mm

0.025mm

0.2

0.1mm

0.05mm

0.025mm

0.2

0.1mm

0.05mm

0.025mm

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

L/L0

Figure 6.1: Comparison of the numerical simulations for the mesh size of 0.1mm, 0.05mm and

0.025mm. (a) Normalized force-displacement curves and (b) the stress triaxiality and Lode

angle parameter with respect to plastic strain at the center of the specimen.

Table 6.2: Comparison of the numerical results of FE models with dierent discretization at

high deformation. Model with mesh size of 0.05mm is chosen as the reference and relative

dierence of other two models.

F

A0

6.3

(Gpa) at

L

=0.45

L0

at p =1.5

at p =1.5

0.1mm

+3%

-3%

+8%

0.05mm

0.384 (Ref.)

0.835 (Ref.)

0.411 (Ref.)

0.025mm

-1%

+1%

-3%

As rst step in the numerical simulations the equivalent stress-strain curve is obtained. Commonly, un-notched at or axisymmetric specimens are used in the determination process. In

the present thesis, for this purpose un-notched at specimens are used, since the manufacturing of axisymmetric round specimens from the sheet metal with thickness of 2mm is prone

to geometrical deviations. The middle one of three experimental curves (Fig. 5.5-(a) is taken

as the reference curve for the task of stress-strain curve determination.

The stress-strain curve is determined in three steps. In the rst step, the experimental

measured quantities force F and displacement L are recorded. The engineering stress e

and engineering strain e are determined through

e =

F

,

A0

(6.1)

and

e =

57

L

,

L0

(6.2)

In the second step, engineering stress-strain curve is transformed to true stress-strain

(t -t ) curve with the equations

t = e (1 + e ) ,

(6.3)

t = ln(e + 1).

(6.4)

and

In the J2 -plasticity the scalar physical quantities equivalent stress eq and equivalent plastic

strain p dene the plastic ow. Before onset of necking, the stress state through the gauge

section is homogeneous and stress tensor has one component (uniaxial tension), which is

equal to equivalent stress. Also the strain distribution is homogeneous in the gauge section

and the equivalent plastic strain is equal to the component in loading direction in the plastic

strain tensor. However beyond the onset of necking, deformation localization occurs, which

leads to an inhomogeneous stress state in the gauge section. Therefore calculation of true

stress-strain (t - t ) is valid before onset of necking, which occurs at 16% of true strain

for the current material. The necking process is initiated when Consideres condition [140]

is met. Consideres condition is fullled at the maximum engineering stress level, which is

called ultimate tensile strength uts . When the elastic strain part is ignored, the condition is

dened in terms of equivalent stress eq and equivalent plastic strain p as

eq

= eq ,

p

(6.5)

where the corresponding equivalent stress and equivalent plastic strain values are called

necking equivalent stress nk and necking equivalent plastic strain nk (0.16 for the DP600 ),

respectively.

In the third step the stress-strain curve is extrapolated for the strains beyond uniform

elongation. In recent years many extrapolation methods have been proposed [141,142]. However most of them are geometry and material dependent, which necessitates an iterative

approach. In the current study, beyond onset of necking the stress-strain is extrapolated with

the power law of Ludwik [143] where stress is dened as a function of equivalent plastic strain

eq = a + bp c ,

(6.6)

where a, b and c are three Ludwik parameters. In order to obtain a continuous dierentiable

curve the stress-strain curve is extrapolated by consideration of following initial conditions

deq

eq |p =nk = nk and

= nk .

(6.7)

dp p =nk

58

a

0.42

0.61

0.47

The two power law parameters a and c are determined by the two initial conditions, which

leaves the parameter b as the only adjustable parameter to control the behavior of the curve.

The parameter b is changed iteratively until a good correlation is obtained between the experimental engineering stress-strain curve and numerical one. The three calibrated parameters

are shown in Table 6.3. The comparison of the engineering stress-strain curves of experiments

and numerical simulation with the calibrated stress-strain curve is demonstrated in Fig. 6.2.

It should be noted that experimental curve lies in the middle is used for the calibration.

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

necking

0.5

0.4

0.3

e e Experiments

e e Experiments

t t Simulation

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Figure 6.2: Comparison of the experimental engineering stress-strain curves with the numerical one calculated with the calibrated true stress-strain curve (blue).

6.4

Each specimen is assumed to represent a single point in the space of stress triaxiality, Lode

angle parameter and fracture strain. However, usually the two stress state parameter values

do not remain constant on the loading path to fracture, which make the calibration procedure

complicated. A typical example can be seen in Fig. 6.1, where both stress triaxiality and Lode

angle parameter change signicantly after the onset of necking. Thus weighting functions are

used in order to obtain discrete values for the two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality

59

and Lode angle parameter. The weighting function should be based on damage increment

formulation in order to be consistent. In the current thesis, the weighting function is based

on the damage increment formulation of GISSMO damage model (Eq. 4.10) and dened as

g=

n1

n

D n .

f (, )

(6.8)

The weighted stress triaxiality w and weighted Lode angle parameter w are dened as

1 pf

w =

g (p ) dp ,

(6.9)

D pi

and

1

w =

D

pf

g (p ) dp ,

(6.10)

pi

where pi and pf are the lower and upper bounds for the integral. In the current thesis,

the damage is assumed to accumulate as the material starts to deform plastically. Then,

the lower bound of the integral is equal to zero (pi = 0) and the upper bound is equal to

fracture strain (pf = f ) where damage D is equal to unity. It should be noted that the

damage exponent n eects the integrals signicantly. For linear damage accumulation n = 1

the whole deformation (plastic strain) range has the same signicance. On the other hand,

for high damage exponents the plastic strain range at high deformation has more signicance.

The damage exponent inuence is removed, if the stress state parameter values are constant

during loading. These kinds of specimens/tests are of great importance, since the calibration

errors, which can be caused from damage exponent are eliminated.

6.5

Damage exponent

As in previous section stated, the damage exponent has signicant inuence on the determination of stress state parameters, which corresponds to specic fracture strain. The

nonlinearity of the damage accumulation with respect to plastic strain has been shown by

many researchers [51,128]. However, determination of the damage exponent n is a signicant

challenge. One method is to carry out stepwise experiments, which was applied by Tai [9]

as depicted in Fig. 6.3. Two tests with dierent notch radii correspond to stress triaxiality

values 1 and 2 are run to fracture as the reference tests. The third test with the stress

triaxiality 1 is run until a specic plastic strain level and stopped. The deformed specimen

is machined as it has the notch radius of second specimen geometry in order to set the stress

triaxiality value to 2 and then loaded to fracture. The damage exponent is determined by

integrating the damage in stepwise experiments with the help of reference experiments. It

should be noted that the Lode angle parameter inuence on the fracture strain is eliminated,

since for the axisymmetric notched round specimens it has a constant value ( = 1) during

60

eq

No. 1

1

2

eq

No. 2

2

eq

(a)

(b)

loading. On the other hand, for the materials with high ductility, the stress triaxiality value

usually changes during the loading and makes the described methodology dicult to apply

practically.

In fact step wise experiments were carried out rstly by Bridgman [67] in high pressure

vessels. He introduced the stress triaxiality dierence by adjusting the hydrostatic pressure.

Another method is the Nakazima tests followed by machining at specimens. However, in

this method not only stress triaxiality but also the Lode angle parameter is changed from

= 1 to = 1. The method is valid for plane stress state conditions.

By using Bridgmans stepwise experiments for ductile steel and assuming constant stress

triaxiality through the loading, Xue [14] calculated the damage exponent as n = 2.21 for a

similar damage accumulation formulation.

Recently, Tasan [10] investigated dierent damage quantication methods under two

main groups, material property-based methods and morphology-based methods for DP600,

which is also the investigated material in the current thesis. He concluded that the material property-based methodologies have higher accuracy than morphology-based methods. In

Fig. 6.4 damage calculated from a material property-based methodology (density measurement) is depicted. The damage rule in GISSMO damage model is applied to the start and

end points of the measured damage data for the damage exponents of n = 2 and n = 3.

By considering slightly better correlation with damage exponent n = 2 and determination of

Xue, in this thesis, as an assumption nonlinear damage accumulation with damage exponent

n = 2 is considered.

61

Damage (%)

5

4

3

n=3

n=2

2

1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Equivalent strain

Figure 6.4: Damage quantication with the methodology of density measurement [10] and

GISSMO damage rule application for the damage exponents of n = 2 and n = 3.

6.6

Numerical simulations

The subject of the current section is the determination of the representative fracture strain,

stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter values for each test. The numerical simulations

of the conducted tests discussed in the chapter 5 were carried out. The used plasticity model

is J2 -plasticity and all numerical simulations are run with the stress-strain curve obtained in

section 6.3. In this chapter damage is not considered in the numerical code.

For each test the fracture strain and two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and

Lode angle parameter are determined at the location of fracture initiation. The fracture

initiation location can be observed optically. However, as already mentioned, usually it is a

very challenging task since fracture can be initiated inside the specimen or propagates very

fast during loading. In this case the two questions have to be answered; where and at which

global displacement the fracture initiates? The fracture initiation location for specimens can

be investigated experimentally by interrupting the tests at dierent displacement levels and

slicing the specimen followed by examination with a microscope. This approach has been

applied by some researchers for the investigation of axisymmetric round bars and it has

been found that crack initiates at the center of the specimen where stress triaxiality and

equivalent plastic strain are the largest [22]. The experimental force-displacement responses

can also give information about global displacement at fracture initiation. Usually there is

a signicant drop as the crack initiates [74]. In this section fracture initiation locations and

displacement at fracture are determined by consideration of following assumptions:

The fracture process is very fast and the global displacement dierence between fracture

initiation and signicant amount of material failure is relatively small.

62

The fracture initiation is controlled by the stress triaxiality and plastic strain during

loading. Therefore the fracture initiates at the location with highest stress triaxiality

and plastic strain values.

Material damaging occurs as material starts to deform plastically.

The damage accumulation is nonlinear with respect to plastic strain and the damage

exponent (n) is equal to 2.

6.6.1

Flat specimens

The simulations are based on un-notched at specimens and notched at specimens with

radii of 2mm and 4mm. Due of the symmetry conditions, only a 1/8 of the specimens are

modeled. The number of elements of the FE models is listed in Table 6.4 The numerical

Table 6.4: Number of elements of 1/8 at-specimen FE models.

un-notched

notched R=4mm

notched R=2mm

Mesh size

0.05mm

0.05mm

0.05mm

Number of elements

234240

194880

246160

simulations are run with fully integrated 8-node brick elements (LS-DYNA ETYPE 2 2 ).

In Fig. 6.5 the plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distribution at

the critical section of the un-notched at specimen is shown for the global displacement at

the onset of necking and at fracture initiation. For all three at specimen geometries, the

material point at the center of the specimen has the highest value of the stress triaxiality

and plastic strain at fracture. Therefore the fracture is assumed to initiate at the center of

specimens.

For the un-notched at specimen, the comparison of the normalized force-displacement

curves obtained from numerical simulation and experiments is depicted in Fig. 6.6. The

evolution of the plastic strain at the center of the specimen with respect to normalized

global displacement is shown with the blue curve. The x marks in Fig. 6.6 indicate the

deformation state (onset of necking and fracture initiation) in Fig. 6.5. The experimental

curve in the middle is the reference curve for the numerical simulations. The fracture strain

is determined as 1.41 for the un-notched specimen. It is observed that beyond the onset of

necking, the evolution of the plastic strain is highly nonlinear with respect to normalized

global displacement.

2

63

Plastic strain

(a)

1.50

0.8

1.0

1.35

0.7

0.9

0.8

1.20

0.6

1.05

0.5

0.90

0.4

0.75

0.3

0.60

0.2

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.1

0.45

0.3

0.30

(b)

Stress triaxiality

0.2

0.15

0.1

Figure 6.5: Plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distribution at the

critical section of the un-notched at specimen for global displacement (a) at the onset of

necking and (b) at fracture.

1.6

0.8

1.4

0.7

(a)

1.2

Fracture

0.5

(b)

0.4

0.8

F/A0 - Experiment-1,2,3

F/A0 - Simulation

p - Simulation

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Plastic strain

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.6

L/L0

curves (L0 =10mm). The plastic strain with respect to global normalized displacement at the

critical location is shown with the blue curve.

The evolution of the stress state variables, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

with respect to plastic strain is illustrated in Fig. 6.7. It can be seen that, both stress state

parameters indicate exactly the stress state of uniaxial tension state before the onset of

necking. The weighted stress state parameters w and w are calculated with the assumption

of nonlinear damage accumulation (n=2) and fracture strain of 1.41.

The comparison of the experimental and numerical normalized force-displacement curves

64

Stress triaxiality or

Lode angle parameter

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

Plastic strain

Figure 6.7: Evolution of two stress state parameters with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress state parameters (squares) for the un-notched at specimen. x marks denote the

fracture strain.

for the notched specimens with notch radii R=2mm and 4mm are presented in Fig. 6.8.

It is observed that after the maximum force there is dierence between the experimental

0.7

1.4

0.6

1.2

F/A0 - R=4mm-Exp.1,2,3

F/A0 - R=4mm-Sim.

p - R=4mm-Sim.

0.4

1

0.8

F/A0 - R=2mm-Exp.1,2,3

F/A0 - R=2mm-Sim.

p - R=2mm-Sim.

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Plastic strain

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.5

L/L0

curves (L0 =30mm) for notched at specimens R=4mm and 2mm. The plastic strains with

respect to global normalized displacement at the critical locations are shown with the blue

curves.

and numerical normalized force-displacement curves. Global displacements at fracture are

65

depicted with downward arrows for the experiments. The values for the numerical simulations

are depicted with x marks, which are calculated as the mean values of three duplicate tests

for both notch geometries. The fracture strains at the center of specimens are determined as

0.81 and 0.78 for the notch radii R=4mm and R=2mm, respectively. The evolution of the

stress state parameters with respect to plastic strain and weighted values at fracture strain

are demonstrated in Fig. 6.9.

1

Stress triaxiality or

Lode angle parameter

0.8

0.6

0.4

R=4mm

R=4mm

w R=4mm

w R=4mm

R=2mm

R=2mm

w R=2mm

w R=2mm

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Plastic strain

Figure 6.9: Evolution of the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic

strain at critical location and weighted stress state parameters (squares) for the notched at

specimens.

The fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter values for all

three specimens are represented in Table 6.5

Table 6.5: Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for at unnotched and notched specimens.

Un-notched

Notched R=4mm

Notched R=2mm

Fracture strain f

1.41

0.81

0.78

0.61

0.63

0.67

0.73

0.59

0.36

66

6.6.2

In this section the grooved at specimens with groove radii R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm

are investigated. By consideration of symmetry conditions 1/8 of the specimens are modeled

with applied symmetry boundary conditions. Special attention is given for the mesh size in

the groove section and mesh size of 0.05mm is applied. Number of elements of FE models

used in the investigation are listed in Table 6.6. In the numerical simulations fully integrated

Table 6.6: Number of elements of the grooved at specimens ( 1/8 FE models).

Mesh size

Number of elements

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

0.05mm

0.05mm

0.05mm

0.05mm

40300

52600

65200

52800

The fracture formation location is determined from numerical simulations by investigation

of the stress triaxiality and plastic strain distributions in the specimens. At fracture initiation,

the contour plot of plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter in the groove

section are shown in Fig. 6.10 for two geometries with groove radii R=1mm and 4mm. It is

observed that plastic strains (Fig. 6.10-(a),(b)) and stress triaxiality (Fig. 6.10-(c),(d)) values

are the highest at the center of the specimens. Therefore, it is likely that fracture initiates

at the center. It should be emphasized that the stress state is plane strain (=0) at a wide

region on the plane which passes through the center perpendicular to loading direction and

it changes to uniaxial tension state at the edges. The size of the plane strain and transition

region is determined mainly with the thickness and width at the center of groove as explained

in section 5.3.

The comparison of the experimental normalized force-displacement curves with the numerical ones are shown in Fig. 6.11. In order to determine the fracture strain at the center

of the specimen, the evolutions of the plastic strain with respect to global normalized displacement are shown with blue curves. The fracture is assumed to propagate very fast after

the initiation and the global displacement dierence at fracture initiation and complete separation of specimen is assumed to be negligible. The x marks denote the fracture points,

which are determined as the average of end points of the curves of two duplicate tests for each

groove radius geometry. For all specimen geometries a good correlation is achieved between

experiments and numerical simulations in terms of force-displacement responses.

The histories of stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain at the center of specimens

are shown in Fig. 6.12.

Except the geometry with notch radius R=0.5mm, the stress triaxiality shows a slightly

67

0.7

1.05

0.6

0.90

0.5

0.75

0.4

0.60

0.3

0.45

0.2

0.30

0.1

0.15

0.875

1.05

0.90

0.750

0.75

0.625

0.60

0.500

0.45

0.375

0.30

0.250

0.15

0.125

1.00

0.75

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.00

0.00

-0.25

-0.25

-0.50

-0.50

-0.75

-0.75

-1.00

-1.00

Figure 6.10: Plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter distributions at fracture formation for the grooved at specimens with groove radii R=1mm ((a),(c),(e)) and

R=4mm ((b),(d),(f)).

increasing trend through deformation. The maximum dierence of stress triaxiality between

the beginning and end of deformation is around 23% for the specimen with notch radius

R=4mm, which is relatively low.

The evolution of the Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain is illustrated in

Fig. 6.13 for all groove radii.

It is observed that the Lode angle parameter converges very quickly to the plane stress

state ( = 0) and remains constant through the loading to fracture. The weighted stress

state values w and w are calculated by considering the damage exponent n=2 and shown

in Fig. 6.12 and Fig. 6.13.

The detailed information of fracture strain and weighted stress state values w and w is

given in Table 6.7.

68

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

L/L0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

1

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.8

p

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.8

L/L0

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

F/A0 - Exp.-1,2,3

F/A0 - Sim.

p - Sim.

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

0

0

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

L/L0

L/L0

curves (L0 =20mm) and evolution of plastic strain at the center of specimens for the grooved

at specimens with groove radii (a) R=0.5mm, (b) R=1mm, (c) R=2mm and (d) R=4mm.

1.2

Stress triaxiality

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

R=0.5mm

w R=0.5mm

R=1mm

w R=1mm

R=2mm

w R=2mm

R=4mm

w R=4mm

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Plastic strain

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 6.12: Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality values for the grooved at specimens with groove radii equal to 0.5mm,

1mm, 2mm and 4mm. x marks denote the fracture strain.

69

0.8

0.6

0.4

R=0.5mm

w R=0.5mm

R=1mm

w R=1mm

R=2mm

w R=2mm

R=4mm

w R=4mm

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Plastic strain

Figure 6.13: The weighted Lode angle parameter values and evolutions of the Lode angle

parameter with respect to plastic strain for the grooved at specimens with groove radii

equal to 0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm.x marks denote the fracture strain.

Table 6.7: Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for the

grooved at specimens.

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Fracture strain f

0.59

0.70

0.84

0.98

1.03

0.88

0.80

0.76

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

6.6.3

Numerical simulations based on the set of axisymmetric notched round specimen tests were

investigated. The mesh size is chosen as 0.04mm at the critical location, which corresponds

to notch of the specimens. Due to symmetry only 1/8 of the specimens are modeled by

applying symmetry boundary conditions. The number of elements are listed in Table 6.8.

The numerical simulations were run with fully integrated 8-node brick elements.

Table 6.8: Number of elements of axisymmetric notched round specimens ( 1/8 FE models).

Mesh size

Number of elements

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

0.04mm

0.04mm

0.04mm

0.04mm

64929

73992

52872

51168

For the notch geometries R=1mm and R=4mm the distribution of plastic strain and two

70

stress state parameters are shown in Fig. 6.14. It should be noted that Lode angle parameter

(a) Plastic strain R=1mm

0.8

1.05

0.6

0.90

0.5

0.75

0.4

0.60

0.3

0.45

0.2

0.30

0.1

0.15

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.20

0.7

1.00

1.00

0.75

0.75

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.00

0.00

-0.25

-0.25

-0.50

-0.50

-0.75

-0.75

-1.00

-1.00

Figure 6.14: Distribution of the plastic strain, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter at

fracture initiation deformation for the geometries with notch radii R=1mm and 4mm.

is constant ( = 1) through the midplane for the specimens, which disables the Lode angle

parameter to be an inuence factor within the investigated notch geometries. For all notch

geometries, the regions with the highest plastic strain and stress triaxiality are coincident and

they correspond to the center of specimens (See. Fig. 6.14-(a),(c) for R=1mm and Fig. 6.14(b),(d) for R=4mm). Therefore it is reasonable to assume the center of the specimens as

fracture initiation location.

The force-displacement curves and history of plastic strain at the center of specimens

are shown in Fig. 6.15. In terms of maximum normalized force there is dierence of around

7% and 6% for the notch radii R=0.5mm and R=1mm, respectively. This may be caused

from machining uncertainties, since the dimensions of the specimens are small and machining smaller radii can lead to geometrical deviations. The other possible cause may be pressure

71

1.2

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.8

1.2

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 - Exp.-1,2

F/A0 - Sim.

p - Sim.

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

L/L0

L/L0

0.8

1.2

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

1.2

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

L/L0

Figure 6.15: Normalized force-displacement curves (L0 =10mm) and evolution of the plastic

strain at the center of specimens for the axisymmetric notched round specimens with notch

radii (a) R=0.5mm, (b) R=1mm, (c) R=2mm and (d) R=4mm.

dependence of plastic ow especially at high pressure values. It should be noted that the nonlinearity of the evolution of the plastic strain with respect to global displacement increases

as the notch radius increases, which indicates signicant deformation localization. The normalized displacement at fracture initiation (x marks) is determined as the mean of two

duplicate tests (downward arrows) for each notch geometry.

The evolutions of the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic

strain are given in Fig. 6.16 and Fig. 6.17, respectively. It is observed that through the

loading, the stress triaxiality value changes signicantly especially for the notch radii R=2mm

and 4mm, in which the localization is severe compare to other notch geometries. As expected

the Lode angle parameter has a constant value = 1 for all specimen geometries through

loading Fig. 6.17. In both diagrams the determined fracture strains (x marks) and weighted

stress state values (squares) with damage exponent n = 2 are illustrated.

The fracture strains and weighted stress state parameters are listed in Table 6.9

72

1.2

Stress triaxiality

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

R=0.5mm

w R=0.5mm

R=1mm

w R=1mm

R=2mm

w R=2mm

R=4mm

w R=4mm

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Plastic strain

0.8

1.2

Figure 6.16: Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality valuesfor the axisymmetric specimens with notch radii equal to 0.5mm,

1mm, 2mm and 4mm. x marks denote the fracture strain for the corresponding test.

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

R=0.5mm

w R=0.5mm

R=1mm

w R=1mm

R=2mm

w R=2mm

R=4mm

w R=4mm

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Plastic strain

1.2

Figure 6.17: Histories of Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain and weighted

Lode angle parameter values for the axisymmetric specimens with notch radii R=0.5mm,

1mm, 2mm and 4mm. x marks illustrate the fracture strain for the corresponding test.

Table 6.9: Fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for axisymmetric notched round specimens.

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Fracture strain f

0.67

0.88

1.08

1.19

0.95

0.82

0.74

0.70

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

6.6.4

73

Nakazima tests

Numerical simulations of Nakazima tests were carried out for two blank geometries with

width of 70mm and 90mm (section 5.5). The fracture initiation occurs at the center of blanks

for the both geometries. The mesh size is chosen as 0.2mm at the center of specimens by

considering the relatively big dimensions of the blanks. As it can be seen in Fig. 5.19, the

blank geometries have two symmetry planes. Thus, 1/4 of the test components are modeled

and on the symmetry planes corresponding displacement and rotations are constrained. Main

factor in the consideration is to complete the numerical simulations within a reasonable

amount of time. The FE models of blanks with width of 70mm and 90mm have 144348 and

125726 8 node brick elements, respectively. The components, die, punch and punch holder

are modeled as rigid bodies, since the deformation is assumed to be negligible on these parts.

The FE model of the Nakazima test with blank width of 90mm is shown in Fig. 6.18. The

(a)

(b)

Die

Blank holder

Punch

Figure 6.18: (a) FE model (1/4) of Nakazima test with blank width of 90mm and (b) a close

view of the critical region.

numerical simulations are run with fully integrated solid elements. The friction coecient is

set to be 0.01 between punch and blank, since in experiments friction eects are minimized.

As in the experiments, in the numerical simulations the displacement and force responses are

measured on the punch.

It can be argued that, mesh size of 0.2mm is not consistent with the numerical simulations

of other tests. The mesh size inuence was investigated by developing models with mesh size of

0.1mm. The global force-displacement curve, plastic strain and two stress state parameters

at critical locations were compared. It was observed that the dierence in plastic strain

evolutions and stress state parameters obtained from the models with mesh size 0.1mm and

0.2mm is negligibly small and global-force-displacement curves are identical for both models.

It is concluded that the numerical results converge at the mesh size of 0.2mm for the Nakazima

74

tests. In fact the deformation is not very localized for the Nakazima tests and fracture strains

are low compare to other tests, which also explains the convergence for relatively coarse mesh

size.

In the experiments, for both blank geometries fracture was observed through the symmetry plane at the center of the blanks (Fig. 5.21). The deformation at the center region is the

largest for both tests. However it is not highly concentrated. For both tests, the contour plot

of plastic strain at fracture initiation is shown in Fig. 6.19-(a),(b). The stress triaxiality value

is around 2/3 over a wide region on the upper side of blanks for both tests Fig. 6.19-(c),(d).

By considering the experimental and numerical results, the fracture is assumed to initiate at

the center of the upper surface of blanks and the fracture strain and stress state parameters

are determined according to these locations.

The force-displacement curves obtained by numerical simulations are compared to experimental curves in Fig. 6.20. For both tests there is a dierence in the force-displacement

responses between numerical simulations and experiments. The dierence in force level at

fracture initiation point is 12% and 6%, respectively. The plastic strain evolution at fracture initiation location with respect to global displacement is also shown in Fig. 6.20. The

fracture points are determined from the average of peaks of three duplicate tests and shown

with x marks on the numerical force-displacement and plastic strain-displacement curves.

For both blank geometries numerical determined fracture strains are consistent with experimental calculated ones in section 5.5. The comparison of the experimentally and numerically

determined fracture strains is shown in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10: Comparison of the numerically determined fracture strains to the experimentally

determined ones for the Nakazima tests with blank width of 70mm and 90mm.

Width=70mm

Width=90mm

0.57

0.88

0.55

0.84

The evolution stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain

p at critical location are shown in Fig. 6.21. For the test with blank with of 90mm, stress

state is exactly equi-biaxial ( = 2/3 and = 1) through the loading to fracture initiation.

The numerical results with the blank width of 70mm diers from the equi-biaxial stress state

especially in the Lode angle parameter value and not in the stress triaxiality value (w = 0.64

and w = 0.74). From this point of view, it is clear that the signicant dierence in fracture

strains between two tests indicates the inuence of Lode angle parameter.

75

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

0.50

0.9

0.45

0.8

0.40

0.7

Plastic strain

0.35

0.6

0.30

0.5

0.25

0.4

0.20

0.3

0.15

0.2

0.10

0.1

0.05

(c) Width=70mm

(d) Width=90mm

Stress triaxiality

0.7

(e) Width=70mm

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.0

(f) Width=90mm

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

-0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.6

-0.8

-0.8

-1.0

-1.0

Figure 6.19: Plastic strain ((a), (b)), stress triaxiality ((c), (d)) and Lode angle parameter

((e), (f)) distribution for the Nakazima tests with blank width of 70mm and 90mm at fracture

formation.

6.6.5

Butterfly tests

The numerical simulations of buttery tests are investigated for the loading angles 10 compression , 0 shear, 10 tension, 20 tension and 60 tension. In experimental setup the force

is measured from the machine and displacement is measured optically. By considering the

dimensions of the test bench, the machine stiness is assumed to be suciently large and

machine is not modeled in numerical simulations. The boundary conditions at the grips are

76

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

100

0.8

60

0.6

40

0.4

20

0.2

Force (kN)

80

120

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

F-d Exp.-1,2,3

F-d Sim.

p -d Sim.

80

1

0.8

60

0.6

40

0.4

20

0.2

0

0

1.2

25

F-d Exp.-1,2,3

F-d Sim.

p -d Sim.

100

1.2

Force (kN)

120

0

0

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

Figure 6.20: Comparison of the force-displacement curves obtained from numerical simulations to the experimental ones and evolution of plastic strain at critical location with respect

to displacement for Nakazima test blank geometries with width of (a) 70mm and (b) 90mm.

1

Stress triaxiality or

Lode angle parameter

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

-0.25

w=70mm

w=70mm

w w=70mm

w w=70mm

w=90mm

w=90mm

w w=90mm

w w=90mm

-0.5

-0.75

-1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Plastic strain

Figure 6.21: The weighted stress state values and evolution of the stress triaxiality and Lode

angle parameter with respect to the plastic strain for the Nakazima specimens with blank

width of 70mm and 90mm.

applied to shoulders of the buttery specimen as in the test bench.

At the critical location a mesh size of 0.075mm is used, which is consistent with previous

numerical simulations explained in this section. Due to symmetry conditions only 1/2 of

the specimen is modeled with applied symmetry conditions. The 1/2 FE model has 79.000

8-node fully integrated brick elements. The nite element discretization of the central region

of specimen is shown in Fig. 6.22 in detail.

Further assessment of mesh size inuence is carried out by developing a FE model with

mesh size of 0.0375mm in the gauge section. The dierence between two models in terms

77

Figure 6.22: A view of nite element model discretization of the central region of the buttery

specimen.

of plastic strain and stress state parameters at fracture initiation is around 0-3% for ve

loading angles. Therefore, in the current thesis the results for the mesh size of 0.075mm are

presented.

For all loading angles the plastic strain distribution on specimens just before fracture

initiation are shown in Fig. 6.23.

10 compression

0 shear

10 tension

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.5

0.7

0.7

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

20 tension

60 tension

0.45

0.7

0.40

0.6

0.35

0.5

0.30

0.4

0.25

0.3

0.20

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.10

0.05

0

Figure 6.23: Plastic strain distribution contours for the buttery specimens just before the

fracture initiation for all loading angles.

Due to the unique geometry of the buttery specimen for all loading cases, the deformation is highly concentrated at the center of the specimen. Thus, it is reasonable to assume

that the fracture formation occurs at the center of the specimens, however usually it is not

78

possible to observe the exact location of the fracture formation through the thickness of the

specimen. Therefore, the fracture formation location is determined from numerical simulations by checking the elements located at the center of specimen beginning from the surface

to the middle of thickness. The quantities, plastic strain and stress triaxiality are used for the

assessment of fracture formation location through the thickness. For the loading angles 10

compression , 0 shear and 10 tension the dierence in the stress triaxiality on the surface

and middle of thickness is not signicant. For these loading angles, the locations with higher

plastic strain are used for the calibration. For the loading angle 20 tension the stress triaxiality is slightly higher at the middle of thickness, whereas the plastic strain is higher on the

surface at the center of specimens. For this loading angle fracture is assumed to initiate at

the surface. For the loading angle 60 tension, the location with the highest stress triaxiality

and plastic strain is the middle of thickness. The evolution of the stress triaxiality and plastic

strain on the surface and middle of thickness for the loading angles 10 compression and 60

tension are shown in Fig. 6.24. The shown experimental normalized force-displacement curve

is the one, which lies in the middle of three curves.

(a) 10 compression

(b) 60 tension

0.8

0.6

F/A0 Exp.

0.4

p S

p M

0.2

0

-0.2

M

0

0.1

0.2

L/L0

0.3

0.4

P or or F/A0 (Gpa)

P or or F/A0 (Gpa)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

L/L0

Figure 6.24: Stress triaxiality and plastic strain evolution on the surface and middle of thickness of buttery specimens for the loading angles (a) 10 compression and (b) 60 tension.

Determined fracture initiation locations in the main plane and in the thickness direction

for all loading angles are listed in Table 6.11.

Numerical normalized force-displacement curves are compared with experimental ones in

Fig. 6.25.

The results obtained from numerical simulations are in a very good accordance with experimental ones. The maximum dierence is observed for the loading angle 10 compression

as around 3% at normalized displacement 0.05. Since the buttery tests cover a wide range on

the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter plane, it may be concluded that the investigated material does not exhibit stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent plastic

79

Table 6.11: Fracture initiation locations in the main plane and thickness directions of buttery

specimens for dierent loading angles.

Loading angle

10 compression

Center

Surface

shear

Center

Surface

10 tension

Center

Surface

20

tension

Center

Surface

60 tension

Center

Middle of thickness

ow in the stress triaxiality range of [-0.1:0.8]. The evolution of plastic strain at determined

critical locations are also shown in Fig. 6.25. Tests with loading angles 10 compression, 0

shear and 10 tension exhibit globally slightly softening before fracture. For these loading

angles the fracture is assumed to initiate just after maximum of the global normalized force.

Due to scatter in duplicate tests, the mean of three tests are used in determination of displacement at fracture initiation. The normalized global displacement at fracture initiation

and corresponding plastic strains are depicted with x marks in Fig. 6.25.

Also correlation between experiments and simulations is good in terms of deformation.

The deformations of the gauge section and edge curves in experiments are captured in numerical simulations. The deformation comparison for the loading angle 0 shear is shown in

Fig. 6.26.

The evolutions of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain at critical location

for all loading angles are demonstrated in Fig. 6.27. It should be emphasized that the stress

triaxiality has a relatively constant trend with increasing plastic strain. The weighted stress

triaxiality values (squares in Fig. 6.27) are calculated by assuming the damage exponent n=2.

The Lode angle parameter vs. plastic strain at critical locations are shown in Fig. 6.28.

Unlike stress triaxiality evolution, the Lode angle parameter evolution is not constant with

respect to plastic strain especially for the loading angles 10 compression and 0 shear.

In Fig. 6.29 the histories for ve loading cases are shown in the space of Lode angle

parameter and stress triaxiality. It should be noted that stress state is plane stress from the

beginning of loading to fracture for the tests with loading angles 10 compression, 0 shear,

10 and 20 tension. Thus tests with mentioned loading angles also give information that can

be applied in 2-dimensional applications.

The determined fracture strains and weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

values are listed in Table 6.12

(b) 0 shear

0.8

1.2

0.6

0.9

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0

0.4

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

L/L0

0.25

0

0.3

L/L0

(c) 10 tension

(d) 20 tension

1.2

0.8

1.2

0.6

0.9

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.2

0

0.25

0

0

0.05

0.1

L/L0

0.15

0.2

F/A0 (Gpa)

1.2

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) 10 compression

0.8

80

0

0.25

L/L0

p - Sim.

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

0.03

0.06

0.09

L/L0

0.12

F/A0 - Exp.-1,2,3

F/A0 - Sim.

F/A0 (Gpa)

(e) 60 tension

0.8

0

0.15

Figure 6.25: Normalized force-displacement curves and evolution of the plastic strain at critical location for buttery test simulations with loading angles (a) 0 compression, (b) 0 shear,

(c) 10 tension, (d) 20 tension and 60 tension. The gauge length L0 for the loading angle

60 tension is 5mm, for the rest L0 =6.5mm.

Table 6.12: List of fracture strain and weighted stress state parameters for buttery tests.

10 comp.

0 sh.

10 ten.

20 ten.

60 ten.

Fracture strain

1.02

1.08

0.70

0.83

0.44

Stress triaxiality

-0.06

0.07

0.18

0.52

0.82

-0.25

0.27

0.70

0.99

0.28

81

Experiment

Simulation

Figure 6.26: Comparison of the deformation just before fracture initiation under loading angle

0 shear.

1

10 compression

0.8

0 shear

Stress triaxiality

10 tension

0.6

20 tension

60 tension

0.4

w 10 compression

w 0 shear

0.2

w 10 tension

w 20 tension

w 60 tension

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Plastic strain

0.8

1.2

Figure 6.27: Evolution of the stress triaxiality with respect to plastic strain and weighted

stress triaxiality values for simulations of buttery tests with loading angles 10 compression,

0 shear, 10 , 20 and 60 tension. x marks denote the fracture strain for corresponding

loading angle.

82

1

0.8

10 compression

0.6

0 shear

0.4

10 tension

20 tension

0.2

60 tension

w 10 compression

-0.2

w 0 shear

-0.4

w 10 tension

-0.6

w 20 tension

w 60 tension

-0.8

-1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Plastic strain

0.8

1.2

Figure 6.28: Evolution of the Lode angle parameter with respect to plastic strain and weighted

Lode angle parameter values for simulations of buttery tests with loading angles 0 compression, 0 shear, 10 , 20 and 60 tension. x marks denote the fracture strain for corresponding

loading angle.

1

0.8

Plane stress

0.6

10 compression

0.4

0 shear

10 tension

0.2

20 tension

60 tension

10 comp. weighted

-0.2

0 shear weighted

(

)

= 27

2 13

2

-0.4

10 tension weighted

-0.6

20 tension weighted

-0.8

60 tension weighted

-1

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Stress triaxiality

Figure 6.29: Representation of the histories and weighted stress state values obtained from

numerical simulations in the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter for the

buttery tests.

6.7 Discussion

6.7

83

Discussion

The inuence of the two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter

can be separated by keeping one of them constant in the investigations. As discussed in

previous section, the Lode angle parameter has a constant value through deformation to

fracture for the set of axisymmetric notched round specimens ( = 1) and for the set of

grooved at specimens it converges quickly to = 0 at the beginning of the deformation.

Thus, the inuence of stress triaxiality may be examined for two dierent constant Lode

angle parameter values. The JC equation can be applied to the two sets separately by mean

square error method with a good correlation (Fig. 6.30). However, it should be noted the

1.5

Fracture strain

1.2

0.9

0.33 + 12.35 exp (3.81)

w Grooved flat

0.6

w Notched round

0.3

0

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Stress triaxiality

Figure 6.30: Fracture strain with respect to weighted stress triaxiality and calibrated JC

equations for test sets of axisymmetric notched round specimens and grooved at specimens.

range of stress triaxiality for the calibration is relatively small.

For all tests, the fracture strain with respect to weighted stress triaxiality values is plotted

in Fig. 6.31. It is clear that the material ductility of the examined material exhibits Lode angle

parameter sensitivity, as some tests with similar stress triaxiality show signicant dierence

in fracture strain. For example, the two Nakazima tests and axisymmetric notched round

specimen with notch radius R=4mm have similar stress triaxiality values; however fracture

strain dierence is signicant (%118 between the lowest and highest fracture strain).

The calibrated curve obtained at high stress triaxiality range is unlikely to t for the low

stress triaxiality values. The calibrated curve obtained from the set of axisymmetric notched

round specimens mismatches the buttery test with loading angle 20 tension signicantly,

which has a similar Lode angle parameter value (w = 0.96). The similar trend is also observed

for the tting curve obtained from grooved at specimens. The fracture strain of buttery

tests with loading angles 10 compression (w =-0.06) and 10 shear (w =0.07) are lower than

84

1.5

Flat specimens

R=2mm

Smooth

Fracture strain

1.2

R=4mm

R=0.5mm

0.9

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

R=0.5mm

0.6

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Butterfly tests

10 compression

10 tension

20 tension

0.3

0 shear

60 tension

Nakazima tests

w=70mm

w=90mm

0

-0.3

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

Stress triaxiality

Figure 6.31: Fracture strain versus stress triaxiality for all tests.

the tting curve of grooved at specimens predicts. Therefore all points may be used to

generate a tting curve, which will be an optimum curve rather than matching every single

point.

The fracture strain of tests are shown in stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter space

in Fig. 6.32. Usually the at specimen tests are used to determine the material properties

1

Flat specimens

0.75

R=2mm

Smooth

R=4mm

0.5

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

0.25

Notched round specimens

0

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Butterfly tests

-0.25

-0.5

-0.75

10 compression

0 shear

20 tension

60 tension

10 tension

Nakazima tests

w=70mm

w=90mm

-1

-0.3

0.3

0.6

Stress triaxiality

0.9

1.2

Figure 6.32: Representation of the weighted stress state values in the plane of stress triaxiality

and Lode angle parameter.

under plane stress state. However, it is seen that none of the at specimens are on the plane

stress curve in Fig. 6.32. It can be concluded that the ratio of width with respect to thickness

6.7 Discussion

85

of specimen is a determining factor. In the current study a ratio of 2.5 is applied and the stress

state deviates from the plane stress. As discussed previously (subsection 6.6.5), buttery tests

with four loading angles and two Nakazima tests have plane stress at the critical locations.

For the current research, it is shown that there are not any experiments that represent

the negative stress triaxiality range less than = 0.06. Many researchers pointed out

that the fracture strain is signicantly higher at high stress triaxialities compare to low

stress triaxialities ([144]). The material is unlikely to fail under negative stress triaxialities

in practical applications. However the negative stress triaxialities may be investigated with

uniaxial compression tests and biaxial compression tests further. The covered stress state

regions by uniaxial and biaxial compression tests are shown as blue boxes in Fig. 6.33.

Lode angle

parameter

1

Axisymmetric notched

round specimens

Bu

Plane stress

Flat specimens

tter

fly

0.5

tes

ts

Biaxial

compression

tests

0

-1

-0.5

0.5

Grooved flat

specimens

1

Stress triaxiality

1.5

Plane strain

-0.5

Uniaxial

compression -1

tests

Nakazima

tests

Figure 6.33: Illustration of the possible additional test types (depicted as blue boxes) in

order to cover negative stress triaxialities on the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle

parameter.

86

Chapter 7

Determination of Fracture Locus

Abstract: In this chapter, the fracture strain is dened as the third dimension over

the plane of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter. Two dierent fracture strain

surfaces are generated as analytical and mathematical fracture strain surface. The numerical simulations are carried out with generated fracture strain denition. The parameters of analytical fracture locus derived in section 4.3 are calibrated by considering

all data points (fracture strain and weighted stress state values) obtained in numerical simulations of tests. As the second approach, mathematical fracture strain surface

based on biharmonic spline method is generated. In this approach a continuous dierentiable fracture strain surface is placed exactly on the data points in fracture strain,

stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter space. The numerical results obtained with

fracture strain denitions with damage exponent n=2 are presented. Predictions of two

fracture surface denitions are compared with experimental results.

7.1

7.1.1

Calibration of parameters

The nine-parameter (D1+ ...D3 ) fracture strain denition derived in section 4.3 is calibrated

according to data points (fracture strain, weighted stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter) obtained in numerical simulations of tests in section 6.6. A MATLAB code is used in

order to minimize the dierence between the fracture strains obtained from numerical simulations of tests f ,i and analytical fracture strain f ,i denitions. The optimization is done

with the method of nonlinear least squares. The nine damage parameters are held in the

vector p and minimum of error function is dened through

M in Error (w , w ; p) = M in

i=1

[f ,i (w , w ) f ,i (w , w ; p)]2 .

(7.1)

88

In previous chapter numerically obtained fracture strains and weighted stress state parameters are summarized in (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1: List of fracture strain and weighted stress state parameters obtained from numerical

simulations of all tests.

Stress triaxiality

Fracture strain

smooth

0.61

0.73

1.41

R=2mm

0.67

0.36

0.78

R=4mm

0.63

0.59

0.81

R=0.5mm

1.03

0.01

0.59

R=1mm

0.88

0.01

0.70

R=2mm

0.80

0.01

0.84

R=4mm

0.76

0.01

0.98

R=0.5mm

0.95

1.00

0.67

R=1mm

0.82

1.00

0.88

R=2mm

0.74

1.00

1.08

R=4mm

0.70

1.00

1.19

w=70mm

0.64

-0.74

0.55

w=90mm

0.66

-1.00

0.84

10 compression

-0.06

-0.25

1.02

0.07

0.27

1.08

Flat specimens

Nakazima tests

Butterfly tests

shear

10

tension

0.18

0.70

0.70

20

tension

0.34

0.96

0.95

60 tension

0.82

0.28

0.44

As the initial values for the optimization process, the parameters obtained for the sets of

axisymmetric notched round specimens and grooved at specimens (section 6.7) are used for

the bound curves with = 1 and = 0, respectively. The parameters obtained for the set

of axisymmetric notched round specimens are also used as initial values for the remaining

bound curve = 1.

The list of optimized nine parameters is given in Table 7.2.

The calibrated fracture locus is represented in Fig. 7.1. In the stress triaxiality range of

89

Table 7.2: A list of calibrated parameters of the analytical fracture strain surface.

D2+

D3+

D10

D20

D30

D1

D2

D3

0.391

0.953

0.404

0.534

0.706

0.018

1.298

0.725

D1+

0.783

(a)

Flat specimens

1.5

R=2mm

Smooth

R=4mm

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

0.5

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

Butterfly tests

10 compression

0 shear

10 tension

20 tension

60 tension

0.4

0.8

1.2

-0.5

-1

0.5

Nakazima tests

w=70mm

w=90mm

(b)

(c)

1.5

1.5

1

f

f

0.5

0.5

0

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

-1

-0.5

0.5

Figure 7.1: Illustration of the generated analytical fracture surface from (a) perspective (b)

f plane and (c) f plane view. The vertical lines on the data points denote the range

of fracture strain obtained from the duplicate tests.

[-0.3-1.2], the calibrated fracture strain surface predicts the minimum dierence in fracture

strain through the Lode angle parameter direction at = 0.3 (25%) and maximum dierence

at = 1.2 (47%). It is clear that, the generated fracture surface does not match perfectly for

the all data points and it is an optimum solution for the all data points.

90

7.1.2

Numerical simulations

The numerical simulations of the tests are carried out with J2 -plasticity and GISSMO damage

model1 is activated. The plasticity and damage indicator are not coupled, which means plastic

ow is not aected by damage. The material damage is modeled by eroding elements as the

damage indicator reaches the unity D = 1.

The fracture locus is implemented as a table denition into commercial code LS-DYNA

under *MAT ADD EROSION material card. Table denition consists of stress triaxiality

dependent fracture strain curves for dierent Lode angle parameters. In LS-DYNA the fracture strain value for a specic combination of a stress state parameters is calculated by linear

interpolation of the nearest curves. In order to obtain a high resolution, the calibrated analytical fracture locus is generated for the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter increments

of 0.01.

Flat specimens

The numerical simulations were run for the un-notched and notched at specimens with notch

radii R=4mm and 2mm. The numerical normalized force-displacement curves are compared

with experimental ones in Fig. 7.2. It is observed that for un-notched at specimen the

(b) Notched: R=2mm and R=4mm

0.8

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) Un-notched

0.8

0.4

Experiments

Simulation

0.2

0.4

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm

Exp. R=2mm

Sim. R=2mm

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.4

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

L/L0

0.05

0.06

Figure 7.2: Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves from numerical simulations and experiments for the (a) un-notched (L0 =10mm) and (b) notched at specimens

with notch radii equal to 2mm and 4mm (L0 =30mm).

normalized displacement at fracture is 9% lower than the experimental reference curve. On

the other hand, plastic strain at the center of the specimen is 41% lower than the fracture

strain for the specimen determined in subsection 6.6.1. The high dierence indicates the

severe strain localization at high plastic strains for the specimen, which is already mentioned

1

GISSMO damage model is implemented in *MAT ADD EROSION in finite element code LS-DYNA.

91

in subsection 6.6.1. For notched specimens, the normalized displacements at fracture obtained

from numerical simulations have good agreement with experimental ones. For the specimen

with notch radius R=2mm, the displacement at fracture initiation is within the range of

experimental data. For the notch radius R=4mm, the displacement at fracture initiation

is slightly higher (2%) then the duplicate experiment curve with maximum displacement

at fracture. In fact the results are consistent with the calibrated fracture strain surface in

previous section.

The distribution of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation is illustrated in Fig. 7.3.

It can be seen that, damage is highly localized at the center of specimens, which is also

(a) Un-notched

(b) R=2mm

(c) R=4mm

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

Figure 7.3: Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the at specimens; (a) un-notched, notched with (b) R=2mm and (c) R=4mm.

consistent with the assumption of occurrence of fracture initiation at the material point with

highest stress triaxiality and plastic strain.

Grooved flat specimens

Numerical simulations of the tests of grooved at specimens were run. The normalized forcedisplacement curves obtained in numerical simulations are compared to experimental ones in

Fig. 7.4. A good correlation is obtained between numerical simulations and tests in terms of

global displacement at fracture for the specimens with groove radii R=0.5mm and 1mm. On

the other hand, the numerical displacement at fracture is lower than the experiments for the

groove radii R=2mm and especially for R=4mm. The dierence between the curves of the

numerical simulation and the duplicate test with lower displacement at fracture is %11 for

R=2mm and %15 for R=4mm, even though the plastic strain value at the center of specimens

diers %20 and %27, respectively. This situation indicates the localization phenomena.

The contour plot of damage indicator at fracture initiation deformation is shown in

Fig. 7.5.

The damage is highest at the center of the specimens, where maximum stress triaxiality

and plastic strain are observed and in the numerical simulations the rst failed element is

92

(b) R=1mm and R=2mm

1

0.8

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

1

0.6

Exp. R=0.5mm

Sim. R=0.5mm

Exp. R=1mm

Sim. R=1mm

0.4

0.2

0.6

Exp. R=2mm

Sim. R=2mm

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.005

0.01

L/L0

0.015

0.02

0.005

0.01

0.015 0.02

L/L0

0.025

0.03

Figure 7.4: Comparison of the normalized force-displacement response (L0 =20mm) of grooved

at specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations for the groove radii (a)

R=0.5mm, 1mm, (b) 2mm and 4mm.

(a) R=0.5mm

(b) R=1mm

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

(c) R=2mm

0.4

0.5

(d) R=4mm

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Figure 7.5: Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the grooved at

specimens for groove radii (a) R=0.5mm, (b) R=1mm, (c) R=2mm and (d) R=4mm.

exactly located at the center of the specimens.

Axisymmetric notched round specimens

The numerical simulations were run for the specimens with notch radii R=0.5mm, 1mm,

2mm and 4mm. The comparison of numerical and experimental force-displacement responses

are presented in Fig. 7.6. For the specimen geometry with R=0.5mm the numerical normalized displacement at fracture is signicantly higher (19%) than the experimental curve with

higher fracture point; on the contrary for the specimen geometry with R=4mm the numerical

prediction is conservative (10%) compared to experiments. The numerical displacements at

fracture are slightly outside of the range obtained in experiments for the specimens with notch

radii R=1mm and 2mm. The numerical results are consistent with the calibrated fracture

locus (see Fig. 7.1 the bound curve with red color).

(b) R=2mm and R=4mm

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

0.4

Exp. R=0.5mm

Sim. R=0.5mm

Exp. R=1mm

Sim. R=1mm

0.2

93

0.4

Exp. R=2mm

Sim. R=2mm

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm

0.2

0

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

L/L0

0.04

0.02

0.04

L/L0

0.06

Figure 7.6: Comparison of the normalized force-displacement responses (L0 =10mm) of axisymmetric notched round specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations for

the notch radii (a) R=0.5mm, 1mm, (b) 2mm and 4mm.

The contour plot of damage indicator is shown in Fig. 7.7. As expected, the damage

(a) R=0.5mm

(b) R=1mm

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

(c) R=2mm

0.4

0.5

(d) R=4mm

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Figure 7.7: Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the axisymmetric

notched round specimens for notch radii (a) R=0.5mm, (b) R=1mm, (c) R=2mm and (d)

R=4mm.

localization occurs at the center of specimens and fracture initiates exactly at the center of

the specimen, which corresponds to the location with highest stress triaxiality and fracture

strain.

Nakazima tests

The numerical simulations are carried out for the Nakazima tests with blank width of 70mm

and 90mm. The comparison between numerical and experimental results in terms of punch

force-displacement curves are illustrated in Fig. 7.8 The correlation between numerical sim-

94

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

120

120

100

Experiments

Simulation

80

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

100

60

60

40

40

20

20

Experiments

Simulation

80

0

0

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

Figure 7.8: A comparison of the force-displacement curves obtained from experiments and

numerical simulations of Nakazima tests.

ulation and experiments in terms of displacement at fracture is satisfactory for the test with

blank width of w=90m. On the other hand the displacement at fracture is overestimated for

the blank width w=70mm, as expected from the calibrated fracture locus (see Fig. 7.1). The

fracture strain prediction of the calibrated analytical fracture surface is about 40% higher

than the determined fracture strain in previous chapter. However, due of the nonlinear behavior of plastic strain at critical region with respect to global displacement (see Fig. 6.20),

the dierence is 15% in terms of global displacement at fracture initiation.

The distribution of the damage indicator D is presented in Fig. 7.9. It is observed that,

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Figure 7.9: Contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation for the Nakazima

tests with blank width of (a) 70mm and (b) 90mm.

the damage is not localized in a small region, but spans a larger area compared to other sets

of tests. Thus there is as a relatively wide region, where the fracture initiation can occur. The

exact location of fracture initiation can be also inuenced by the local material irregularities

95

in the experiments. The post-mortem state of the blanks is compared between the numerical

simulations and experiments in Fig. 7.10.

(a) w=70mm

Experiment

(b) w=90mm

Experiment

Figure 7.10: Comparison of the post-mortem state of Nakazima tests between experiments

and numerical simulations for the tests with blank width of (a) w=70mm and (b) w=90mm.

Butterfly tests

The numerical simulations are run for the loading angles 10 compression , 0 shear, 10

tension, 20 tension and 60 tension. Comparison of the numerical and experimental forcedisplacement responses are presented in Fig. 7.11. The agreement between numerical simulation and experiments in terms of global displacement at fracture initiation is satisfactory for

the loading angles 10 compression and 20 tension. On the other hand, numerical simulation

under predicts the global displacement at fracture initiation for the loading angle of 0 shear

(10% ), while the results are signicantly over predicted for the loading angles of 10 tension

(20%) and 60 tension (27%).

The contour plot of the damage indicator D at fracture initiation in numerical simulations

is shown in Fig. 7.12. It should be noted that damage concentration location is at the center

of the main plane. However location through the thickness diers depending on the loading

angle. For the loading angles 10 compression , 0 shear, 10 and 20 tension the damage is

localized on the surface and for the loading angle 60 tension the highest damage is observed

in the middle of the thickness. These results are consistent with the chosen locations for

the calibration in subsection 6.6.5. The critical region for the buttery specimens tends to

move from the surface to the middle of the thickness with increasing loading angle (stress

triaxiality).

The deformation comparison of the fractured specimens in numerical simulations and experiments are presented in Fig. 7.13. The deformation and fracture path of tests are captured

successfully in numerical simulations.

96

(b) 0 shear and 10 tension

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) 10 compression

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation

0.2

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.4

0.3

Exp. 0 shear

Sim. 0 shear

Exp. 10 tension

Sim. 10 tension

0.2

0.1

0

0.4

0.05

0.1

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation

0.2

0.1

0

0.25

(d) 60 tension

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(c) 20 tension

0.15

0.2

L/L0

0.1

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

L/L0

0.25

0.3

0.05

0.1

L/L0

0.15

0.2

Figure 7.11: Comparison of the experimental and numerical force-displacement responses for

the buttery tests with loading angles (a) 10 compression, (b) 0 shear, 10 , (c) 20 and (d)

60 tension (L0 =5.0mm for the loading angle 60 tension, for the rest L0 =6.5mm).

(a) 10 compression

(b) 0 shear

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

(d)

20

shear

(c) 10 tension

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

(e)

60

tension

Figure 7.12: Damage indicator distribution at the gauge section of buttery tests for the

loading angles (a) 10 compression , (b) 0 shear, (c) 10 , (d) 20 and (e) 60 tension.

(a) 10 compression

Simulation

(b) 0 shear

Experiment

Simulation

(c) 10 tension

Experiment

(d) 20 shear

Simulation

Experiment

97

Simulation

Experiment

(e) 60 tension

Simulation

Experiment

Figure 7.13: Comparison of the fractured specimens in numerical simulations and experiments.

7.2

In previous section it is shown that the determined analytical fracture strain surface denition

can lead to good results in terms of global displacement at fracture in general. However the

dierence is signicant for some tests. As an alternative approach a mathematical fracture

strain surface is generated in order to enhance the prediction of the numerical simulations. The

mathematical surface is generated on the data points (w , w , f ) determined in chapter 6.

The used method MATLAB v4 [145] is based on biharmonic spline method [146]. The

generated surface is continuous and dierentiable, which always passes through the data

points. The discussion on interpolation methods is not in the scope of thesis and will not

discussed further. As in the previous section, the table is dened with stress triaxiality and

Lode angle parameter increments of 0.01 in order to obtain a good resolution.

7.2.1

The data points obtained from all sets of experiments are used in the interpolation process

of fracture strain surface. In addition, the generated fracture surface is controlled by some

assumptions for the high and negative stress triaxialities, where no experimental data exists.

98

For the current research, there are not any experimental results for the negative stress

triaxiality range less than = 0.06. It has been shown by many researches that the fracture

strain values for negative stress triaxialities are signicantly higher than the values at high

stress triaxialities. Bao [144] dened a cut-o negative triaxiality at the stress triaxiality =1/3, below which material never fails. In the current section, material is assumed to fail at a

fracture strain value of 3 at stress triaxiality = 1/3 in all Lode angle parameter range.

The second assumption is done for the high stress triaxiality range, 1.2. For the Lode

angle parameters = 1 and = 0 the fracture strain is assumed to follow the exponential

trend obtained from the sets of axisymmetric notched round specimens and grooved at

specimens (see section 6.7), respectively. The fracture strain for the range of stress triaxiality

1.2 at = 1, = 0.5 and = 0.5 is also assumed to follow the exponential trend

obtained from the notched specimens.

The mathematical fracture strain surface generated over the plane of stress triaxiality

and Lode angle parameter is demonstrated in Fig. 7.14. Since the generated fracture surface

follows the data points, it has no certain behavior in the stress triaxiality and Lode angle

parameter direction as for the analytical fracture strain surface. Similar fracture strain surface

with local extrema was also introduced by Seid [5].

7.2.2

Numerical simulations

The numerical simulations with the denition of Mathematical Fracture Strain surface (MFS)

are investigated. Numerical force-displacement responses are compared to the experimental

ones. In order to assess the improvement, the numerical force-displacement results obtained

in previous section with Analytical Fracture Strain surface (AFS) are also shown in the

diagrams.

Flat specimens

The comparison of the force-displacement responses for the experiments and numerical simulations for the at specimens are shown in (Fig. 7.15). The agreement in terms of forcedisplacement responses between experiments and numerical simulations is slightly improved

with the denition of MFS, whereas for the notched at specimen with R=2mm the agreement with MFS is slightly worsened, which can be caused by the history path of stress state

variables through the loading.

Grooved flat specimens

The numerical simulations were run for the set of grooved at specimens with the MFS.

The force-displacement responses obtained from numerical simulations with AFS and MFS

99

(a)

2.5

2

f

1.5

1

1

0.5

0.5

0

-0.5

0.4

0.8

(b)

1.2

-1

Flat specimens

R=2mm

Smooth

2.5

R=4mm

R=0.5mm

f 1.5

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

R=0.5mm

R=1mm

R=2mm

R=4mm

1

Butterfly tests

0.5

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

10 compression

0 shear

20 tension

60 tension

10 tension

Nakazima tests

w=70mm

w=90mm

are compared to experimental ones for the groove radii R=0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm and 4mm

in Fig. 7.16. The correlation between experiments and numerical simulations with MFS in

terms of global displacement at fracture strain is good for all groove radii. The numerical

simulations with MFS show signicant improvement compared to numerical simulations with

AFS especially for the groove radii R=2mm and 4mm (see Fig. 7.16).

Axisymmetric notched round specimens

The numerical simulations of axisymmetric notched round specimens were run with MFS.

The force-displacement curves obtained from experiments and numerical simulations with

denitions of AFS and MFS are compared in Fig. 7.17. As for the grooved at specimens,

100

(b) Notched: R=2mm and R=4mm

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) Un-notched

0.4

Experiments

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

0.2

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm MFS

Sim. R=4mm AFS

Exp. R=2mm

Sim. R=2mm MFS

Sim. R=2mm AFS

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.4

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

L/L0

0.05

0.06

Figure 7.15: Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves from numerical simulations (with mathematical fracture surface (MFS) and analytical fracture surface (AFS)) and

experiments for the (a) un-notched (L0 =10mm) and (b) notched at specimens with notch

radii R=2mm and R=4mm (L0 =30mm).

1

0.8

0.8

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

1

0.6

Exp. R=0.5mm

Sim. R=0.5mm MFS

Sim. R=0.5mm AFS

Exp. R=1mm

Sim. R=1mm MFS

Sim. R=1mm AFS

0.4

0.2

0.6

Exp. R=2mm,,

Sim. R=2mm MFS

Sim. R=2mm AFS

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm MFS

Sim. R=4mm AFS

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.005

0.01

L/L0

0.015

0.02

0.005

0.01

0.015 0.02

L/L0

0.025

0.03

grooved at specimens between the experiments and numerical simulations with analytical and mathematical fracture strain denitions for the groove radii (a) R=0.5mm, 1mm, (b)

2mm and 4mm.

the correlations between experiments and numerical simulations with MFS are good in terms

of global displacement at fracture initiation for all notch radii. Signicant improvement is

obtained in numerical simulations with MFS for the notch radii R=0.5mm and 4mm, for

which the numerical simulations with AFS over predict and under predict the experimental

results, respectively.

101

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

Exp. R=0.5mm

Sim. R=0.5mm MFS

Sim. R=0.5mm AFS

Exp. R=1mm

Sim. R=1mm MFS

Sim. R=1mm AFS

0.4

0.2

Exp. R=2mm

Sim. R=2mm MFS

Sim. R=2mm AFS

Exp. R=4mm

Sim. R=4mm MFS

Sim. R=4mm AFS

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

L/L0

0.04

0.02

0.04

L/L0

0.06

Figure 7.17: Comparison of the normalized force-displacement curves (L0 =10mm) obtained

from experiments and numerical simulations with AFS and MFS for the axisymmetric

notched round specimens for the notch radii (a) R=0.5mm, 1mm, (b) 2mm and 4mm.

Nakazima tests

The numerical simulations are carried out for the Nakazima tests with blank width w=70mm

and 90mm. The force-displacement responses of experiments and numerical simulations with

MFS and AFS are illustrated in Fig. 7.18. The Nakazima blank with width of 90mm shows no

(a) Width=70mm

(b) Width=90mm

120

120

Experiments

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

80

Experiments

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

100

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

100

60

80

60

40

40

20

20

0

0

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

10

15

20

Displacement (mm)

25

Figure 7.18: The force-displacement response comparison for the experiments and numerical

simulations with MFS and AFS for the Nakazima tests.

signicant dierence in terms of force-displacement response for the numerical simulations

with MFS and AFS. In fact for both fracture strain surface denitions, the data point of

the specimen is on the generated surfaces. For the blank geometry with width of 70mm

the displacement at fracture initiation is vastly improved in the numerical simulations with

102

MFS compare to AFS, since the MFS follows the fracture strain point of the test, which is

overestimated in the generated AFS.

Butterfly tests

The numerical simulations with MFS were run for the buttery tests. The normalized forcedisplacement curves acquired from numerical simulations with MFS and AFS and experiments are compared in Fig. 7.14. It is shown that the correlation between experiments and

(b) 0 shear and 10 tension

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(a) 10 compression

0.7

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

0.2

0.1

Sim. 0 shear AFS

0.4

0.3

Exp. 0 shear

Sim. 0 shear MFS

Exp. 10 tension

Sim. 10 tension MFS

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

L/L0

0.4

0.05

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

0.2

0.1

0.15

0.2

L/L0

0.25

0.3

(d) 60 tension

F/A0 (Gpa)

F/A0 (Gpa)

(c) 20 tension

0.1

0.4

0.3

Experimens

Simulation MFS

Simulation AFS

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

L/L0

0.25

0.3

0.05

0.1

L/L0

0.15

0.2

Figure 7.19: The force-displacement response comparison for the experiments and numerical

simulations with MFS and AFS for the buttery tests. The gauge length L0 for the loading

angle 60 tension is 5mm, for the rest of loading angles L0 =6.5mm.

numerical simulations in terms of global displacement at fracture is good with MFS for all

loading angles. The agreement between experiments and numerical simulations is enhanced

for the loading angles 0 shear, 10 tension (Fig. 7.19-(b)) and 60 tension (Fig. 7.19-(d))

with the MFS.

103

Torsion tests

Torsion tests are not used in the calibration of the fracture strain surfaces (AFS and MFS).

The tests are used for the validation of the presented approach in this thesis. The numerical

simulations were run with the calibrated stress-strain curve obtained in section 6.3 and the

assumption of nonlinear damage accumulation n = 2 in order to be consistent with the other

numerical simulations in this chapter. The mesh size is chosen as 0.04mm at the critical location, which corresponds to the outer surface of the middle section. The numerical simulations

are run with both fracture strain surfaces AFS and MFS.

The geometry of the specimens and FE-model are shown in Fig. 7.20.

(a) Dimensions

(b) FE-modell

1.8

R2

Fixed

Figure 7.20: (a) Geometry and dimensions of the torsion specimens. (b) FE-model and applied

boundary conditions.

In the experiments the moment M and rotation angle of the specimens were recorded.

The maximum shear stress max on the specimens is calculated through

max =

2M

,

R3

(7.2)

where R is the radius at the center of the cross-section (In Fig. 7.20-(a) R=0.5mm) of the

circular specimen. The experimental and numerical max - responses are shown in Fig. 7.21.

A good correlation between experiments and numerical simulations in terms of shear stress

level is achieved. The deviation of rotation angle at fracture initiation between experiments

and numerical simulations with AFS and MFS are 11% and 19%, respectively.

104

0.8

max (Gpa)

0.6

0.4

Experiments 1-4

Simulation AFS

Simulation MFS

0.2

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

(rad)

Figure 7.21: Comparison of the max curves from experiments and numerical simulations

for the torsion specimens.

7.3

Discussion

Two dierent approaches are introduced to dene a stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent fracture strain surface. The analytical fracture strain surface has the exponential behavior in the stress triaxiality direction and second order polynomial in the Lode

angle parameter direction. In the second approach a dierentiable, continuous mathematical

fracture strain surface is generated on the data points obtained from numerical simulations

of tests.

It is clear that the analytical generated fracture strain surface is a compromise for all data

points acquired from tests. It is also observed that the error in local fracture strains is not

reected directly to the global response of the specimens, since the plastic strain evolution

at critical locations has a nonlinear behavior with respect to global displacement. The error

of local fracture strains is higher than the error in global displacement at fracture initiation,

which is the result of high material ductility.

It is shown that, with the mathematical surface denition for all specimens a good correlation is obtained between numerical simulations and experiments in terms of global displacements at fracture initiation. However this method requires many experiments and assumptions. In lack of experimental data the usage is limited. Besides the accordance between

the experiments and numerical simulations with analytical fracture surface in terms of global

displacement at fracture is also promising.

Chapter 8

Conclusions and Future Research

8.1

The aim of this thesis is the investigation of the inuence of stress state on damage modeling

with the focus on the Lode angle parameter. The stress state at a material point is dened

by two stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter uniquely. The

damage model GISSMO proposed by Neukamm et al. [1, 2] is extended to incorporate the

Lode angle dependence for the 3D-case. The subject damage modeling is divided into

two parts; damage plasticity and material ductility (fracture strain). The inuence of the

stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter is veried through an experimental program. The

numerical simulations were run with ne mesh size. In the current thesis, DP600 from dual

phase steel groups is investigated. The important conclusions and ndings that fall out from

the prior chapters are summarized below.

Stress state dependence of plasticity model : The damage is usually the ultimate

result of the loss of load carrying capacity at local material points with high stress and

strain gradients. Therefore the accuracy of the plasticity model is the key factor in numerical

damage modeling. The experimental results taken from the literature indicate that stress

state sensitivity of the material plasticity diers depending on the material groups. It was

concluded that the plastic ow for the aluminum alloys may be especially sensitive to the

Lode angle parameter, whereas for steels the stress state sensitivity of plasticity is negligible.

For the investigated material, the stress state dependence of plastic ow is not signicant. It

has been shown that in numerical simulations and experiments a good correlation is obtained

in terms of force-displacement responses with the J2 -plasticity.

Coupling of damage with plasticity model : The stress-strain curve used in numerical simulations was calculated with the assumption that damaged material and undamaged

material matrix can not be separated. The damage does not inuence the plastic ow. It has

been shown that in numerical simulations with uncoupled damage and plasticity formulation

a good correlation in terms of force-displacement curves can be obtained for the tests with

106

Stress state dependence of material ductility : Stress triaxiality dependence of the

material ductility has been shown by many researchers, whereas the inuence of the Lode

angle parameter usually has been neglected. In recent years, the inuence was pointed out

by some researchers. In the current study material ductility (fracture strain) is modeled

as a function of two independent stress state parameters, stress triaxiality and Lode angle

parameter. It has been found out that for the investigated material DP600 both stress state

parameters inuence the material ductility.

Determination of fracture strain and stress state parameters : A hybrid approach

combining experimental and numerical results is presented. A wide range on the stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter plane is covered with the proposed experimental program.

The stress triaxiality and plastic strain are assumed as controlling quantities of fracture. For

most of the tests the location with highest stress triaxiality and plastic strain is coincident

in the specimens. In order to obtain representative stress state parameters, weighting functions depending on the nonlinear damage increment rule in GISSMO damage model were

introduced.

Fracture locus determination : For the fracture locus determination two dierent

approaches are introduced. In the rst approach, a nine-parameter analytical fracture strain

denition, which is a function of stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter, is proposed.

The proposed analytical fracture strain surface is calibrated based on the representative

stress state parameters and fracture strain obtained from numerical simulations of the tests.

A good correlation between experiments and numerical results is achieved. In the second

approach, the fracture strain is generated as a mathematical surface on the plane of stress

triaxiality and Lode angle parameter based on biharmonic spline method. The correlation

between experimental and numerical results is further increased with the second approach.

However, the second approach requires some assumptions and a relatively large number of

experiments. It is concluded that the analytical fracture strain surface denition is more

appropriate for engineering applications since it delivers good results and can be calibrated

with less numbers of experiments.

Butterfly specimens : The buttery specimens rstly used by Bai and Wierzbicki [8]

are optimized according to investigated material. It was shown that it is possible to investigate

the material ductility for dierent stress states with a single specimen geometry by changing

the loading angle. At low stress triaxialities the obtained stress state at critical location of

the specimen is plane stress, which is also relevant for the 2D applications such as thin sheet

metal components in crashworthiness simulations.

8.2

107

Future research

Regularization : The current research has done with very ne discretization (0.050.2mm). On the other hand, the mesh size used in the current crashworthiness simulations are

relatively limited (2-10mm). The mesh size has a signicant inuence for post-critical response

especially for the coarse mesh sizes which are used in current crashworthiness simulations.

Therefore further eort for the subject regularization must be spent.

Strain rate influence: The presented thesis considers the quasi-static loading case. In

crashworthiness simulations the components are subjected to strain rates ranging from quasistatic case to strain rates up to 150 (1/s). Thus numerical modeling of strain rate inuence

on the fracture strain is another topic for future investigation.

Determination of damage exponent: Some methods used in damage exponent determination and their diculties are pointed out. In the present research, nonlinear damage

accumulation (n=2) with respect to equivalent plastic strain is considered. Well designed

multistep experiments with constant evolution of stress state parameters at crack initiation

points or new experimental techniques to determine damage exponent are of great interest.

108

Appendix A

Derivation of stress state dependent

fracture function

The stress triaxiality and Lode angle parameter dependent fracture locus is derived. Three

bound curves (Fig. A.1) axisymmetric deviatoric tension = 1, plane strain = 0 and

axisymmetric deviatoric compression = 1 are dened as reduced form of the JC equation

(Eq. 3.3).

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 ),

(A.1)

(A.2)

+

+

+

+

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 ),

(A.3)

where D1 , D2 , D3 are JC parameteres for = 1, D10 , D20 , D30 are JC parameteres for = 0

and D1+ , D2+ and D3+ are JC parameteres for = 1.

The dependence of the Lode angle parameter is described with a second order polynomial

functional and the fracture locus is dened as

2

(A.4)

The functional coecents a, b and c are functions of stress triaxiality and can be specied

+

0

with three limiting bounds

f , f and f . = 0 yields that

f (, = 0) = c = 0f .

(A.5)

f and f (, = 1) = f , other two

a=

)

1( +

0

f +

f f ,

2

(A.6)

110

+

+

+

+

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 )

Fracture strain

0f = D10 + D20 exp(D30 )

f = D1 + D2 exp(D3 )

-1

Figure A.1: Proposed fracture strain locus and bound curve formulations.

)

1( +

f

(A.7)

f .

2

Substituting the Eq. A.6, Eq. A.7 and Eq. A.5 into Eq. A.4, one gets the fracture surface

denition with 9 parameters

[

]

)

)

1(

1(

+

0

+

+

0

0

f (, ) =

D1 + D1 D1 +

D2 exp(D3 ) + D2 exp(D3 ) D2 exp(D3 ) 2

2

2

[

]

) 1( +

)

1( +

+

D1 D1 +

D2 exp(D3 ) D2 exp(D3 )

2

2

+ D10 + D20 exp(D30 ).

(A.8)

b=

Bibliography

[1] F. Neukamm, M. Feucht, and A. Haufe. Considering damage history in crashworthiness

simulations. In The 7th European LS-DYNA Conference, Salzburg, Austria, 2009.

[2] F. Neukamm, M. Feucht, and A. Haufe. Consistent damage modelling in the process chain of forming to crashworthiness simulations. In The 7th German LS-DYNA

Conference, Bamberg, Germany, volume 30.

[3] F. Neukamm, M. Feucht, and M. Bischo. On the application of continuum damage

models to sheet metal forming simulations. In Proceedings, X International Conference

on Computational Plasticity. CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, 2009.

[4] F. Neukamm. Lokalisierung und Versagen von Blechwerkstoffen. PhD thesis, University

of Stuttgart, in preperation.

[5] J.D. Seidt. Plastic deformation and ductile fracture of 2024-T351 aluminum under

various loading conditions. PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 2010.

[6] X. Gao, T. Zhang, M. Hayden, and C. Roe. Eects of the stress state on plasticity and

ductile failure of an aluminum 5083 alloy. Int. J. Plast., 25(12):23662382, 2009.

[7] T. Wierzbicki and L. Xue. On the eect of the third invariant of the stress deviator

on ductile fracture. Technical report, Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (USA), 2005.

[8] Y. Bai and T. Wierzbicki. A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure

and lode dependence. Int. J. Plast., 24(6):1071 1096, 2008.

[9] W.H. Tai. Plastic damage and ductile fracture in mild steels. Eng. Fract. Mech.,

37(4):853 880, 1990.

[10] C.C. Tasan. Micro-mechanical characterization of ductile damage in sheet metal. PhD

thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2010.

[11] J. Lemaitre. A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. J. Eng. Mater.

Technol., 107(1):8389, 1985.

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[12] S.P. Timoshenko. History of Strength of Materials: with a Brief Account of the History

of Theory of Elasticity and Theory of Structures. Dover Pubns, 1983.

[13] R.O. Davis and A.P.S. Selvadurai. Plasticity and Geomechanics. Cambridge Univ Pr,

2002.

[14] L. Xue. Ductile fracture modeling - theory, experimental investigation and numerical

verification. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007.

[15] X. Gao, G. Zhang, and C. Roe. A study on the eect of the stress state on ductile

fracture. Int. J. Damage Mech., 19(1):75, 2010.

[16] W.F. Chen, D.J. Han, and DJ Han. Plasticity for Structural Engineers. J Ross Pub,

2007.

[17] N.S. Ottosen and M. Ristinmaa. The Mechanics of Constitutive Modeling. Elsevier

Science Ltd, 2005.

[18] M. Yu. Generalized Plasticity. Springer Verlag, 2006.

[19] Y. Bai. Effect of loading history in necking and fracture. PhD thesis, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, 2008.

[20] F.A. McClintock. A criterion for ductile fracture by the growth of holes. J. appl. Mech,

35(2):363371, 1968.

[21] J.R. Rice and D.M. Tracey. On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress elds.

J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 17(3):201 217, 1969.

[22] J.W. Hancock and A.C. Mackenzie. On the mechanisms of ductile failure in highstrength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 24(2-3):147

160, 1976.

[23] A.C. Mackenzie, J.W. Hancock, and D.K. Brown. On the inuence of state of stress on

ductile failure initiation in high strength steels. Eng. Fract. Mech., 9(1):167168, 1977.

[24] G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to

various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng. Fract. Mech., 21(1):31

48, 1985.

[25] Y. Bao and T. Wierzbicki. A comparative study on various ductile crack formation

criteria. J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 126:314, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

113

[26] Y. Bai and T. Wierzbicki. Forming severity concept for predicting sheet necking under

complex loading histories. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 50(6):1012 1022, 2008.

[27] M. Luo and T. Wierzbicki. Numerical failure analysis of a stretch-bending test on

dual-phase steel sheets using a phenomenological fracture model. Int. J. Solids Struct.,

47(22-23):3084 3102, 2010.

[28] T. Pardoen and J.W. Hutchinson. An extended model for void growth and coalescence.

J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 48(12):2467 2512, 2000.

[29] I. Barsoum and J. Faleskog. Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear:

Experiments. Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(6):1768 1786, 2007.

[30] F. Bron and J. Besson. Simulation of the ductile tearing for two grades of 2024 aluminum alloy thin sheets. Eng. Fract. Mech., 73(11):1531 1552, 2006.

[31] F. Beremin. Cavity formation from inclusions in ductile fracture of A508 steel. Metall.

Mater. Trans. A, 12:723731, 1981.

[32] M. Berveiller and A. Zaoui. An extension of the self-consistent scheme to plasticallyowing polycrystals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 26(5-6):325 344, 1978.

[33] A. Needleman. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J.

Appl. Mech., 54(3):525531, 1987.

[34] D. Steglich and W. Brocks. Micromechanical modelling of the behaviour of ductile

materials including particles. Comp. Mater. Sci., 9(1-2):7 17, 1997.

[35] M. Shabrov, C. Briant, A. Needleman, S. Kim, E. Sylven, D. Sherman, and L. Chuzhoy.

Void nucleation by inclusion cracking. Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 35:17451755, 2004.

[36] A.L. Gurson. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth,

1. Yield criteria and ow rules for porous ductile media. J. Eng. Mater-T. Asme,

99(1):215, 1977.

[37] P.F. Thomason. A three-dimensional model for ductile fracture by the growth and

coalescence of microvoids. Acta Metall., 33(6):1087 1095, 1985.

[38] A.A. Benzerga. Micromechanics of coalescence in ductile fracture. J. Mech. Phys.

Solids, 50(6):1331 1362, 2002.

[39] L.M. Brown and J.D. Embury. Initiation and growth of voids at second-phase particles. In Proc. Conf. on Microstructure and Design of Alloys, volume 1, pages 164169.

Institute of Metals and Iron and Steel Insitute, London, 1973.

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[40] V. Tvergaard. Inuence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain conditions. Int. J. Fract., 17:389407, 1981.

[41] V. Tvergaard. On localization in ductile materials containing spherical voids. Int. J.

Fract., 18(4):237252, 1982.

[42] V. Tvergaard and A. Needleman. Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile

bar. Acta Metall., 32(1):157 169, 1984.

[43] C.C. Chu and A. Needleman. Void nucleation eects in biaxially stretched sheets. J.

Eng. Mater. Technol., 102(3):249256, 1980.

[44] L. Xue. Constitutive modeling of void shearing eect in ductile fracture of porous

materials. Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(11):3343 3366, 2008.

[45] K. Nahshon and J.W. Hutchinson. Modication of the Gurson model for shear failure.

Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids, 27(1):1 17, 2008.

[46] M. Gologanu, J.-B. Leblond, and J.Devaux. Approximate models for ductile metals

containing non-spherical voids - case of axisymmetric prolate ellipsoidal cavities. J.

Mech. Phys. Solids, 41(11):1723 1754, 1993.

[47] D. Lassance, D. Fabregue, F. Delannay, and T. Pardoen. Micromechanics of room and

high temperature fracture in 6xxx al alloys. Prog. Mater Sci., 52(1):62 129, 2007.

[48] M.L. Wilkins, R.D. Streit, and J.E. Reaugh. Cumulative-strain-damage model of ductile

fracture: simulation and prediction of engineering fracture tests. Technical report,

UCRL-53058, Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (USA); Science Applications,

Inc., San Leandro, CA (USA), 1980.

[49] M. Kachanov. Rupture time under creep conditions. Int. J. Fract., 97:1118, 1999.

[50] Y.N. Rabotnov. On the equation of state of creep. In ARCHIVE: Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Conference Proceedings 1964-1970 (vols 178-184),

Various titles labelled Volumes A to S, volume 178, pages 117122. Prof Eng Publishing,

1963.

[51] N. Bonora. A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng. Fract. Mech., 58(1-2):11

28, 1997.

[52] T. Brvik, O.S. Hopperstad, S. Dey, E.V. Pizzinato, M. Langseth, and C. Albertini.

Strength and ductility of Weldox 460 E steel at high strain rates, elevated temperatures

and various stress triaxialities. Eng. Fract. Mech., 72(7):1071 1087, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

115

[53] L. Xue and T. Wierzbicki. Ductile fracture initiation and propagation modeling using

damage plasticity theory. Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(11):3276 3293, 2008.

[54] O. Mohr. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der technischen Mechanik; mit zahlreichen

Textabbildungen. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, 1906.

[55] D.C. Drucker and W. Prager. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q.

Appl. Math., 10(2):157165, 1952.

[56] S.S. Hsieh, E.C. Ting, and W.F. Chen. A plasticity-fracture model for concrete. Int.

J. Solids Struct., 18(3):181197, 1982.

[57] K.J. Willam and E.P. Warnke. Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete. In Proceedings, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,

volume 19, pages 130. ISMES, Bergamo, Italy, 1975.

[58] N.S. Ottosen. Constitutive model for short-time loading of concrete. J. Eng. Mech.

Div., 105(1):127141, 1979.

[59] R. Hill. On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference to localized necking in

thin sheets. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1(1):19 30, 1952.

[60] F. Barlat and K. Lian. Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Part I:

A yield function for orthotropic sheets under plane stress conditions. Int. J. Plast.,

5(1):51 66, 1989.

[61] A.P. Karallis and M.C. Boyce. A general anisotropic yield criterion using bounds and

a transformation weighting tensor. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 41(12):1859 1886, 1993.

[62] H. Vegter and A.H. van den Boogaard. A plane stress yield function for anisotropic

sheet material by interpolation of biaxial stress states. Int. J. Plast., 22(3):557 580,

2006.

[63] H. Ziegler. A modication of Pragers hardening rule. Quart. Appl. Math, 17(1):5565,

1959.

[64] J.L. Chaboche and G. Rousselier. On the plastic and viscoplastic constitutive equations

- Part I: Rules developed with internal variable concept. J. Pressure Vessel Technol.,

105(2):153158, 1983.

[65] K. Chung, M.-G. Lee, D. Kim, C. Kim, M.L. Wenner, and F. Barlat. Spring-back

evaluation of automotive sheets based on isotropic-kinematic hardening laws and nonquadratic anisotropic yield functions: Part I: Theory and formulation. Int. J. Plast.,

21(5):861 882, 2005.

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[66] L. Geng and R.H. Wagoner. Role of plastic anisotropy and its evolution on springback.

Int. J. Mech. Sci., 44(1):123 148, 2002.

[67] P.W. Bridgman. Studies in Large Plastic Flow and Fracture. McGrraw-Hill, New York,

1952.

[68] J.J. Lewandowski and P. Lowhaphandu. Eects of hydrostatic pressure on mechanical

behaviour and deformation processing of materials. Int. Mater. Rev., 43(4):145187,

1998.

[69] I.E. French and P.F. Weinrich. The inuence of hydrostatic pressure on the tensile

deformation and fracture of copper. Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 6(4):785790, 1975.

[70] P.F. Weinrich and I.E. French. The inuence of hydrostatic pressure on the fracture

mechanisms of sheet tensile specimens of copper and brass. Acta Metall., 24(4):317

322, 1976.

[71] A. Brownrigg, W.A. Spitzig, O. Richmond, D. Teirlinck, and J.D. Embury. The inuence of hydrostatic pressure on the ow stress and ductility of a spherodized 1045 steel.

Acta Metall., 31(8):11411150, 1983.

[72] W.A. Spitzig and O. Richmond. The eect of pressure on the ow stress of metals.

Acta Metall., 32(3):457463, 1984.

[73] C.D. Wilson. A critical reexamination of classical metal plasticity. J. Appl. Mech.,

69:63, 2002.

[74] Y. Bao and T. Wierzbicki. On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 46(1):8198, 2004.

[75] Y. Bai, X. Teng, and T. Wierzbicki. On the application of stress triaxiality formula for

plane strain fracture testing. J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 131(2):021002, 2009.

[76] T. Brvik, O.S. Hopperstad, and T. Berstad. On the inuence of stress triaxiality and

strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel. Part II. Numerical study. Eur. J.

Mech. A. Solids, 22(1):1532, 2003.

[77] X. Teng and T. Wierzbicki. Evaluation of six fracture models in high velocity perforation. Eng. Fract. Mech., 73(12):16531678, 2006.

[78] T. Brvik, O.S. Hopperstad, T. Berstad, and M. Langseth. A computational model

of viscoplasticity and ductile damage growth of for impact and penetration. Eur. J.

Mech. A. Solids, 20(5):685 712, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

[79] I. Barsoum. The effect of stress state in ductile failure. PhD thesis, Royal Institute of

Technology, 2008.

[80] T. Coppola, L. Cortese, and P. Folgarait. The eect of stress invariants on ductile

fracture limit in steels. Eng. Fract. Mech., 76(9):1288 1302, 2009.

[81] H. Mae, X. Teng, Y. Bai, and T. Wierzbiki. Correlation between tensile/ shear fracture strains and pore sizes in a cast aluminum alloyalloy. The Japanese Society for

Experimental Mechanics, 9(2):129135, 2009.

[82] X. Teng, H. Mae, Y. Bai, and T. Wierzbicki. Statistical analysis of ductile fracture

properties of an aluminum casting. Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(15):46104625, 2008.

[83] L. Xue. Stress based fracture envelope for damage plastic solids. Eng. Fract. Mech.,

76(3):419438, 2009.

[84] H. Huang and L. Xue. Prediction of slant ductile fracture using damage plasticity

theory. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 86(5):319328, 2009.

[85] A. Kamoulakos, P. Culiere, and T. Araki. Prediction of ductile metal rupture with

the EW model in PAM-CRASH. In Proceedings of the International Body Engineering

Conference, Chiba, 2003.

[86] I.E. French and P.F. Weinrich. The eect of hydrostatic pressure on the tensile fracture

of [alpha]-brass. Acta Metall., 21(11):1533 1537, 1973.

[87] I.E. French and P.F. Weinrich. The unusual variation of the tensile fracture strain of

brasses at high pressures. Scr. Metall., 8(1):7 9, 1974.

[88] A. Brownrigg, W.A. Spitzig, O. Richmond, D. Teirlinck, and J.D. Embury. The inuence of hydrostatic pressure on the ow stress and ductility of a spherodized 1045 steel.

Acta Metall., 31(8):1141 1150, 1983.

[89] A.S. Kao, H. Kuhn, O. Richmond, and W.A. Spitzig. Tensile fracture and fractographic

analysis of 1045 spheroidized steel under hydrostatic pressure. J. Mater. Res., 5(1):83

91, 1990.

[90] W.A. Spitzig. Eect of hydrostatic pressure on deformation, damage evolution, and

fracture of iron with various initial porosities. Acta Metall. Mater., 38(8):1445 1453,

1990.

[91] I. Barsoum and J. Faleskog. Rupture mechanisms in combined tension and shear:

Micromechanics. Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(17):5481 5498, 2007.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

notched specimens. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 47(3):643 667, 1999.

[93] G. Mirone. Role of stress triaxiality in elastoplastic characterization and ductile failure

prediction. Eng. Fract. Mech., 74(8):1203 1221, 2007.

[94] H. Li, M.W. Fu, J. Lu, and H. Yang. Ductile fracture: Experiments and computations.

Int. J. Plast., 27(2):147 180, 2011.

[95] Y. Bao. Dependence of ductile crack formation in tensile tests on stress triaxiality,

stress and strain ratios. Eng. Fract. Mech., 72(4):505 522, 2005.

[96] J.W. Hancock and D.K. Brown. On the role of strain and stress state in ductile failure.

J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 31(1):1 24, 1983.

[97] G. Mirone and D. Corallo. A local viewpoint for evaluating the inuence of stress

triaxiality and lode angle on ductile failure and hardening. Int. J. Plast., 26(3):348

371, 2010.

[98] D.J. Han and W.F. Chen. A nonuniform hardening plasticity model for concrete materials. Mech. Mater., 4(3-4):283 302, 1985.

[99] J.P. Bardet. Lode dependences for isotropic pressure-sensitive elastoplastic materials.

J. Appl. Mech., 57(3):498506, 1990.

[100] T. Nakai, H. Matsuoka, N. Okuno, and K. Tsuzuki. True triaxial tests on normally

consolidated clay and analysis of the observed shear behaviour using elastoplastic constitutive models. Soils Found., 26(4):6778, 1986.

[101] K.S. Zhang, J.B. Bai, and D. Franois. Numerical analysis of the inuence of the lode

parameter on void growth. Int. J. Solids Struct., 38(32-33):5847 5856, 2001.

[102] X. Gao and J. Kim. Modeling of ductile fracture: Signicance of void coalescence. Int.

J. Solids Struct., 43(20):6277 6293, 2006.

[103] J. Wan, Z. Lu, and Z. Yue. Growth of casting microcrack and micropore in singlecrystal superalloys analysed by three-dimensional unit cell. J. Mater. Sci. Technol,

22(2):183, 2006.

[104] S. Murakami and N. Ohno. A continuum theory of creep and creep damage. In Creep

in Structures, 3 rd IUTAM Symposium; Leicester, pages 422444. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberger Platz 3, D-1000 Berlin 33, 1980.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

[105] J.L. Chaboche. Anisotropic creep damage in the framework of continuum damage

mechanics. Nucl. Eng. Des., 79(3):309 319, 1984.

[106] M. Kachanov. Continuum model of medium with cracks.

106(5):10391051, 1980.

50(2):355360, 1983.

J. Appl. Mech.,

[108] C.L. Chow and June Wang. An anisotropic theory of continuum damage mechanics for

ductile fracture. Eng. Fract. Mech., 27(5):547 558, 1987.

[109] S. Murakami. Mechanical modeling of material damage. J. Appl. Mech., 55(2):280286,

1988.

[110] Y. Hammi, D.J. Bammann, and M.F. Horstemeyer. Modeling of anisotropic damage for

ductile materials in metal forming processes. Int. J. Damage Mech., 13(2):123, 2004.

[111] M. Br

unig. Numerical analysis of anisotropic ductile continuum damage. Comput.

Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 192(26-27):2949 2976, 2003.

[112] A.M. Habraken, J.F. Charles, and S. Cescotto.

Woody Ju George Z. Voyiadjis and Jean-Louis Chaboche, editors, Damage Mechanics in Engineering Materials, volume 46 of Studies in Applied Mechanics, pages 401

420. Elsevier, 1998.

[113] J.-F. Charles, Y.Y. Zhu, A.-M. Habraken, S. Cescotto, and M. Traversin. A fully

coupled elasto-plastic damage theory for anisotropic materials. In M. Predeleanu and

P. Gilormini, editors, Advanced Methods in Materials Processing Defects, volume 45 of

Studies in Applied Mechanics, pages 33 42. Elsevier, 1997.

[114] J.L. Chaboche. Continuum damage mechanics: Part I - general concepts. J. Appl.

Mech., 55(1):5964, 1988.

[115] J. Lemaitre. How to use damage mechanics. Nucl. Eng. Des., 80(2):233 245, 1984.

[116] N. Bonora, A. Ruggiero, L. Esposito, and D. Gentile. CDM modeling of ductile failure

in ferritic steels: Assessment of the geometry transferability of model parameters. Int.

J. Plast., 22(11):2015 2047, 2006.

[117] J. Lemaitre and J.L. Chaboche. Mechanics of Solid Materials. Cambridge Univ Pr,

1994.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[118] M. Alves, J. Yu, and N. Jones. On the elastic modulus degradation in continuum

damage mechanics. Comput. Struct., 76(6):703 712, 2000.

[119] N. Bonora, D. Gentile, A. Pirondi, and G. Newaz. Ductile damage evolution under

triaxial state of stress: Theory and experiments. Int. J. Plast., 21(5):981 1007, 2005.

[120] A. Weck, D.S. Wilkinson, E. Maire, and H. Toda. Visualization by X-ray tomography

of void growth and coalescence leading to fracture in model materials. Acta Mater.,

56(12):2919 2928, 2008.

[121] C.C. Tasan, J.P.M. Hoefnagels, and M.G.D. Geers. Indentation-based damage quantication revisited. Scr. Mater., 63(3):316 319, 2010.

[122] J.P.M. Hoefnagels, C.C. Tasan, M. Pradelle, and M.G.D. Geers. Brittle fracture-based

experimental methodology for microstructure analysis. Appl. Mech. Mater., 13:133

139, 2008.

[123] R. Chaouadi, P. Meester, and W. Vandermeulen. Damage work as ductile fracture

criterion. Int. J. Fract., 66:155164, 1994.

[124] M.S. Mirza, D.C. Barton, and P. Church. The eect of stress triaxiality and strain-rate

on the fracture characteristics of ductile metals. J. Mater. Sci., 31:453461, 1996.

[125] X. Teng, T. Wierzbicki, and M. Huang. Ballistic resistance of double-layered armor

plates. Int. J. Impact Eng., 35(8):870 884, 2008.

[126] Y. Bai, Y. Bao, and T. Wierzbicki. Fracture of prismatic aluminum tubes under reverse

straining. Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(5):671 701, 2006.

[127] A. Weck, D.S. Wilkinson, H. Toda, and E. Maire. 2D and 3D visualization of ductile

fracture. Adv. Eng. Mater., 8(6):469472, 2006.

[128] A. Weck and D.S. Wilkinson. Experimental investigation of void coalescence in metallic

sheets containing laser drilled holes. Acta Mater., 56(8):1774 1784, 2008.

[129] L. Xue. Damage accumulation and fracture initiation in uncracked ductile solids subject

to triaxial loading. Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(16):5163 5181, 2007.

[130] R. De Borst, L.J. Sluys, H.B. Muhlhaus, and J. Pamin. Fundamental issues in nite

element analyses of localization of deformation. Eng. Computation., 10(2):99121, 1993.

[131] J.O. Hallquist et al. LS-DYNA Keyword Manual 971. Livermore Software Technology

Corpration (LSTC), P. O. Box 712 Livermore, California 94551-0712, rev 5 edition,

May 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

121

[132] International Iron and Steel Institute Committee on Automotive Applications. Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) Applicaiton Guidelines. World Steel association,

Brussels, rev 3 edition, 2006.

[133] A. Pineau and T. Pardoen. Failure of metals. In I. Milne, R. O. Ritchie, , and B. Karihaloo, editors, Comprehensive Structural Integrity, pages 684 797. Pergamon, Oxford,

2007.

[134] J. Besson, D. Steglich, and W. Brocks. Modeling of plane strain ductile rupture. Int.

J. Plast., 19(10):1517 1541, 2003.

[135] F.A. McClintock and Z.M. Zheng. Ductile fracture in sheets under transverse strain

gradients. Int. J. Fract., 64:321337, 1993.

[136] S. Sommer and D.-Z. Sun. Charakterisierung und Modellierung der Tragfahigkeit von

punktgeschweiten Stahblechlverbindungen unter Crashbelastung mit Hilfe von erweiterten Schadigungsmodellen. Technical report, Fraunhofer IWM, 2006.

[137] C.L. Walters. Development of a punching technique for ductile fracture testing over

a wide range of stress states and strain rates. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 2009.

[138] D. Mohr and R. Treitler. Onset of fracture in high pressure die casting aluminum alloys.

Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(1):97 116, 2008.

[139] A. Pirondi and N. Bonora. Modeling ductile damage under fully reversed cycling.

Comp. Mater. Sci., 26:129 141, 2003.

[140] M. Considere. Memoire Sur Lemploi Du Fer et de lacier dans les constructions.

Dunod, 1885.

[141] I. Scheider, W. Brocks, and A. Cornec. Procedure for the determination of true stressstrain curves from tensile tests with rectangular cross-section specimens. J. Eng. Mater.

Technol., 126(1):7076, 2004.

[142] J. Choung and S. Cho. Study on true stress correction from tensile tests. J. Mech. Sci.

Technol., 22:10391051, 2008.

[143] P. Ludwik. Elemente der technischen Mechanik. Julius Springer, Pawtucket, RI, USA,

page 32, 1909.

[144] Y. Bao and T. Wierzbicki. On the cut-o value of negative triaxiality for fracture. Eng.

Fract. Mech., 72(7):1049 1069, 2005.

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[146] D.T. Sandwell. Biharmonic spline interpolation of GEOS-3 and SEASAT altimeter

data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 14(2):139142, 1987.

Curriculum Vitae

Personal Data

Name

Date of Birth

Nationality

Merdan Basaran

January 02, 1981

Turkish

School Education

1987-1991

1991-1992

1992-1996

1996-1999

Ali Rza I

Hanife Sek Celep Primary School, Tekirdag

Mehmet Akif Ersoy Anatolian High School, Tekirdag

Atat

urk Science High School, Istanbul

University Education

2000-2004

2004-2008

2008-2011

Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul

M.Sc. in Simulation Techniques in Mechanical Engineering,

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen

Doctoral Candidate, Institute of General Mechanics(IAM)

RWTH Aachen University, Aachen

DAIMLER AG, Sindelngen

Professional Carrier

11/2005-03/2007

since 06/2011

CAE Enginner, DAIMLER AG, Sindelngen

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.