Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

A one-dimensional implementation of a coupled elasto-plastic model for

ductile damage
Eine eindimensionale Implementierung eines gekoppelten elastisch-plastischen Modells fr
duktile Schdigung
M. Esmaeili 1,a , A. chsner 1,2,b

Department of Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical

University of Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Centre for Mass and Thermal Transport in Engineering Materials, School of Engineering,
The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Abstract: A one-dimensional numerical implementation of the Lemaitre damage model is

presented. The implementation is close to classical finite element schemes but can be realised
by simple codes or by the application of commercial computer algebra systems. Based on the
presented theory and computational algorithm, the elasto-plastic deformation of a onedimensional bar is simulated. The damage evolution is evaluated for different isotropic
hardening behaviour and stated as a function of the plastic strain. The described algorithm
allows a simple investigation of the influence of different parameters on the damage
Schdigungsmodells nach Lemaitre wird vorgestellt. Die Implementierung orientiert sich an
den klassischen Finite-Elemente-Formulierungen und kann durch ein einfaches Programm
oder durch die Anwendung kommerzieller Computeralgebrasysteme realisiert warden.
Basierend auf der vorgestellten Theorie und des numerischen Algorithmus wird die elastischplastische
Schdigungsentwicklung wird fr verschiedene isotrope Verfestigungsverlufe ausgewertet
und als Funktion der plastischen Dehnung angegeben. Der beschriebene Algorithmus erlaubt
eine einfache Untersuchung des Einflusses verschiedener Parameter auf die
Keywords: damage, Lemaitre model, plasticity, numerical mechanics, finite element method
Schlsselworte: Schdigung, Lemaitre-Modell, Plastizitt, Numerische Mechanik, FiniteElemente-Methode

1 Introduction
Ductile damage of metallic materials occurs simultaneously with plastic deformation larger
than a certain threshold. It results from the nucleation of cavities caused either by pre-existing
pores resulting from the production process by inclusions that tend to fracture or form
decohesions from the matrix, respectively depending on the mechanical properties of the
particles concerned and the face boundaries. The described generation of voids is followed by
their growth and coalescence through the phenomenon of plastic instability. As a
consequence, the degree of localisation of ductile damage is comparable to that of plastic
strain [1]. Experimental investigations [2] using scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
confirmed that in engineering wrought aluminium alloys damage to the microstructure is
highly localized near the usually brittle precipitates. These particles ( 1 m in diameter) can
break or separate from the matrix both resulting in the formation of pores. Under tensile
load, these voids join together and grow. This mechanism leads eventually to micro-cracking
and subsequently to the formation of an internal crack which usually results in the failure of
the residual material. The later stages of this process can be described by means of fracture
mechanics [3]. In continuum solid mechanics applied to the considered materials, the
phenomenological description is based in the elastic range normally on Hookes law which is
extended in the plastic range by the concept of a yield condition, a flow rule and a hardening
rule [4]. Without a precise specification of the micro-structural processes, the concept of
internal damage is introduced as a state variable for the loaded body and the theoretical
description is then known as continuum damage mechanics. This theoretical foundation
combined with computational methods yields to the discipline of computational damage
mechanics which aims to finally predict the life or failure of engineering components. There
are two major models which describe the coupling of the constitutive equations of elastoplastic material behaviour with damage. The first one was proposed by Lemaitre [5,6] and
will be described in the next section of this article. The general finite element implementation
of such a constitutive model can be found for example in [7,8]. However, it must be noted
that the theoretical and mathematical requirements are quite high for the general case. The
other model was originally proposed by Gurson [9] and later further developed by Tvergaard
in [10,11] but does not affect the elastic range and only the yield condition is modified by the
damage variable. The scope of this paper is to present a simplified version of the Lemaitre
model for a one-dimensional state which can be easily programmed. Based on the proposed
scheme, the influence of the elasto-plastic material behaviour on the damage evolution can be
easily investigated.

2 Ductile Damage Model

The following section summarises briefly the major ideas of ductile damage based on the
concept given by Lemaitre in [5,6]. Let us consider a uniaxial tensile sample as shown in Fig.
1 where the undamaged or initial tensile specimen is shown on the left and the damaged or
deformed specimen on the right hand side. A pure uniaxial tensile sample is assumed in the
following which means in this context that the specimen deforms only in its longitudinal
direction (i.e. the x-direction as shown in Fig. 1) and does not show any deformation
perpendicular, i.e. contraction, to the loading direction. This corresponds to the assumption
that Poissons ratio is equal to zero.
-- Figure 1 -It should be noted here that the size of the specimen must be in such a way that the
considered volume represents a Representative Volume Element (RVE) for the considered

material. Some estimates for the minimum size of RVEs for different materials are given in
[1]. Let A be the overall cross-sectional area of the specimen (marked in grey in Fig. 1) and
AD be the total area of the micro-cracks and voids in the considered area which is in Fig. 1
marked in black. The effective resisting area is denoted by . Based on these quantities, the
damage variable D can be introduced as


If this definition is based on a RVE, then the same damage variable is obtained based on
the volume of the micro-cracks and voids [12]: D = VD/V. A state D = 0 corresponds to the
undamaged state, D = 1 represents the rupture of the specimen into two parts and 0 < D < 1
characterises the damaged state. In the scope of this paper, an isotropic damage variable is
assumed. This means that the defects are equally distributed in all directions of the specimen.
Thus, a scalar description of the damage is sufficient under the hypothesis of isotropy. If the
resisting area in Eq. (1) is used to calculate the stress in the specimens, the concept of
effective stress is obtained which states that the effective stress in the specimen is given by:


It must be stated here that this definition of the effective stress holds only in the tensile
regime. Under compression, some defects may close again or in the limiting case, all defects
can be closed again so that the effective stress is again equal to the usual stress . However,
this effect in the compressive regime will be not considered within this paper. In the case of
the strain, the hypothesis of strain equivalence is applied which states that the strain
behaviour of a damaged material is represented by the virgin material:


Based on these assumptions and simplifications, Hookes law can be written with the
effective stress and the elastic strain el as:
= el ,


which can be written with the definition of the effective stress given in Eq. (2) as:
= 1 el .


The last equation offers an elegant way to experimentally determine the evolution of the
damage variable D. Measuring during tests with reversed loading stress and strain based on
the usual engineering definitions, = F/A and = L/L, the damage variable can be
indirectly obtained from the variation of the elasticity modulus, i.e. stress over strain (E is the
inititial (undamaged) modulus while is the subsequent modulus of the damaged material):



The classical continuum theory of plasticity is based on three equations, i.e. the yield
condition, the flow rule and the hardening law. The yield surface states the onset of plastic
material behaviour and can be expressed for a one-dimensional stress state as,

= 1 () ,


where ||/(1-D) is the equivalent stress which is compared to the experimental value k, i.e. the
uniaxial yield stress. In the case of isotropic hardening materials, the yield stress is expressed
as a function of an internal variable . If the equivalent plastic strain is chosen as the internal
variable (or in the one-dimensional case the absolute value of the plastic strain, i.e. = |pl|),
the concept is called strain hardening. The evolution of the plastic strains are described by the
flow rule, which is given in its simplest form as
pl =


where is called the plastic multiplier. Combining the flow rule with the yield condition and
considering that the internal variable is equal to the absolute value of the plastic strain, the
evolution equation for the internal variable can be written as:


In the case of damage mechanics, there is in addition the evolution equation for the damage
variable required. Following the notation in [13] and considering a one-dimensional stress
state, the model for the ductile damage evolution can be expressed as


where Y is the so-called damage energy release rate which corresponds to the variation of
internal energy density due to damage growth at constant stress, and r and S are damage
evolution material parameters. For a one-dimensional stress state, Y takes the form:

= 2 (1)2 .


3 Numerical Schemes
The numerical scheme to solve the problem is derived from the general finite element
approach which is based on the predictor-corrector scheme [14]. In the scope of this
approach, an elastic predictor is first calculated and in a corrector step iteratively projected on
the yield surface. Let us have a look on the schematic representation of the predictorcorrector integration algorithm in the stress-strain diagram as shown in Fig. 2.
-- Figure 2 -The trial stress can be expressed as:
= + = + .


Under consideration of the definition of according to Eq. (5), the last equation can be
written as:
= + 1 E .


Looking at the strains indicated in Fig. 2, it can be concluded that the elastic trial strain can
be expressed as


el , trial
= + = +1



or as



el , trial
= +1 +1 + = +1
+ .


The elastic strain in the state (n + 1) is given according to Fig. 2 and Hookes law as



(1 +1 )

and Eq. (15) can be rearranged to obtain the following expression for the stress in the final

el , trial
+1 = 1 +1 +1
1 +1 . .


In the last equation, the elastic trial strain can be calculated according to Eq. (14) and the
plastic strain increment can be replaced by the flow rule for a fully implicit scheme, i.e.

= +1

sgn +1
1 +1

= +1

sgn trial

1 +1


to obtain:
el , trial
+1 = 1 +1 +1
+1 sgn +1


It should be highlighted here that the first expression on the right had side of Eq. (19) is
unequal to the trial stress which is given according to Fig. 2 by:
, trial
1 el
= +1


Only if there is no damage, Eq. (19) reduces to the classical statement for isotropic hardening
without damage given in [14]. Summarising, we can state that in the final state (n+1), the
following four equations must be fulfilled:
el , trial
+1 = 1 +1 +1
+1 sgn +1

+1 = + +1 ,

+1 = 1
(+1 ) ,



+1 = +

1 +1

( +1 , +1 )

Given the set (n, , n, Dn) at time n and the total strain increment , (21) are a set of
nonlinear algebraic equations for (n+1, +1 , n+1, Dn+1).

3.1 Matrix Scheme

The set of equations given in (21) are only fulfilled in the final state (n+1). Out of this final
state, a residuum r is obtained for each of these equations:
el , trial
, , = 1 1 +1
+ sgn 0 ,

, = + + 0 ,

, , = 1 () 0 ,


, , = + +


( ,)


Thus, the final state is the root of a vector function m which is composed of the residuum
functions. Furthermore, it is useful to collect all variables in a single variable vector v:

4 4

, = .


The root is found by a Newton iteration (iteration index: i):

(+1) = ()


(() ) ,





= 0 =


can be used as initial value of the argument. The Jacobian matrix of the residuum functions is
obtained from partial derivatives of Eqs. (22) in general as

, , , =

or in its specific form as:




sgn ()

, , , =







el , trial


2+1 .

1 + (1)2(+1) .


The inversion of the Jacobian matrix which must be evaluated in the converged state of the
above mentioned Newton iteration gives in general







where for example the first component is given by:

2+1 .
(1 )


11 =


(1 )
(1 )2


3.2 Single Equation Solution

It is possible to combine the constitutive relations in a different way to obtain a single
nonlinear equation to solve the problem. This is even for the general case possible as long as
the contribution of kinematic hardening is disregarded. To start this derivation, let us
combine Eq. (17) and (20) to obtain the following statement for the updated stress based on
the trial state:
1 +1


+1 sgn trial
1 +1


This last equation together with the evolution equation of the hardening variable according to
Eq. (21)2 can be introduced into the yield condition at state (n+1) to obtain:
+1 +1 , +1 =


+1 sgn trial

+ +1 = 0 .

1 +1


Combining the damage energy release rate according to Eq. (11) with the expression for the
updated stress according to Eq. (30), one can obtain the following relationship:

+1 , +1 =

sgn trial
+1 +1
1 +1


Furthermore, Eq. (31) can be rearranged to obtain the squared value of the yield stress k
which can be introduced in Eq. (32) to obtain the damage energy release rate only as a
function of a single variable:
+1 =

2 + +1


In the following derivation, it is advantageous to introduce a new variable, the so-called

material integrity

= 1 D,


which is for the undamaged state equal to 1 and in the case of rupture equal to 0.
Furthermore, Eq, (31) can be solved for the damage variable in the form (1-Dn+1) to obtain
together with the new definition the expression:
+1 +1 = 1 +1 = trial

+1 sgn trial

+1 sgn

+1 + +1


Let us write now the evolution equation for the damage variable transformed to the material
integrity, i.e. multiply Eq. (21)4 by -1 and add 1 on both sides to obtain:

+1 = +1 .

( +1 )

1 +1


which can be expressed for arbitrary in the form of a residuum r as:

= +




A Taylor series expansion of first order, i.e.



+ = 0 ,


with = +1 , gives finally the numerical scheme to solve this equation:



This iterative scheme results in the value of n+1 which can be used to update the state
variable , D, k, p and p .

4 Application Example
To demonstrate the algorithm, a one-dimensional tensile test as schematically shown in Fig. 1
is considered in the following. It must be highlighted again that the problem is pure onedimensional, i.e. no effects from contraction or clamping of the specimen are considered. As
a result, all state variables have the same value in the specimen without any spatial variation.
The assigned material behaviour was taken from reference [13] where values for AISI 1010
low carbon steel were given, cf. Tab. 1. In addition to these values, the case of ideal plasticity
with k = 620 MPa was considered to investigate a different hardening behaviour.

-- Table 1 -A reversed load in the form of an end displacement was prescribed as boundary condition to
simulate experiments with cyclic loading and unloading in the tensile regime. Staying in the
regime with 0 definitely justifies that any effects of kinematic hardening are disregarded
for a material. First of all, reference simulations were conducted where all damage effects
were disregarded, i.e. D = 0 holds during the entire simulation. This can be easily introduced
in the presented scheme by assigning in Eqs. (21)4 and (22)4 values such as S = 1 and r .
The results for the hardening material in the form of stress-strain diagrams are presented in
Fig. 3. In the scale of these two diagrams, it is clear that the consideration of the damage
clearly reduces the value of the stress which is obtained for a given strain. However, the
estimation of the variation of the elasticity modulus (cf. Eq. (6)) is difficult in this scale and
must be evaluated separately. The trend of the ideal plastic material, cf. Fig. 4, is the same as
in the case of the hardening material. However, the absolute reduction of the stress, which
results in the case of ideal plastic material behaviour in a negative slope in the stress-strain
diagram (softening), is clearly smaller.
-- Figure 3
-- Figure 4
The applied elongation of the specimen, i.e. displacement boundary condition, is shown in
Fig. 5 for the case of the hardening material with damage. It can be clearly seen that the
unloading requires much smaller displacements since the condition = 0 was chosen for the
end of the unloading to avoid entering the compressive regime. These smaller values for the
unloading displacement are a direct result of the plastic deformation. The simplest way to
stay in the tensile regime ( 0) is to use small displacement increments and to check in each
step if the condition is still fulfilled.
-- Figure 5

The variation of the elasticity modulus and the damage variable are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
Looking at the development of the elasticity modulus, i.e. Fig. 6, it can be seen that the
modulus is decreasing with ongoing deformation. The small horizontal plateaus are related to
the elastic unloading where the modulus is not changing. Comparing the early and late stages
(Figs. 6 a and b) of deformation, it can be seen that the difference between the hardening and
the ideal plastic material is increasing. The trend of the damage variable shown in Fig. 7 is
inverse compared to the elasticity modulus which is of course the result of the relation
between both variables as given in Eq. (6).
-- Figure 6
-- Figure 7
The development of the plastic strain and the internal hardening variable is shown in Fig. 8.
At an early stage of the deformation, both variables are practically the same since the
influence of the damage is not very significant. In this context, it might be good to review the
equations for the update of the internal variable, plastic and equivalent plastic strain under the
influence of damage evolution:

+1 = + +1 ,

+1 = +1 +

+1 = +1 +

1 +1
1 +1

sgn +1 ,



If we compare this approach with the classical description without damage it is important that
the internal hardening variable and the equivalent plastic strain are different if D 0. This
can be clearly seen in a late stage of the deformation (cf. Fig. 8 b) where the plastic strain is
larger than the internal hardening variable. Comparing the hardening material with the ideal
plastic behaviour, it can be concluded that the increase is much higher for the ideal plastic for
the chosen axes.
-- Figure 8
The evolution of the damage variable with increasing plastic strain is shown in Fig. 9 where a
quite different behaviour is obtained for the hardening and the ideal plastic material. The
ideal plastic material shows a practically linear increase of the damage variable whereas the
hardening material tends to exponentially increase which clearly increases the difference for
larger deformations. It should be noted here that the functional dependency is given in terms
of the plastic strain component. Fortunately, this plastic strain component is equal to the
equivalent plastic strain and conclusions can be transferred to the general three dimensional
case at least to a certain extend.
-- Figure 8

5 Conclusion
A one-dimensional implementation of a coupled elasto-plastic ductile damage model was
proposed. The advantage is that no commercial finite element software is required since the
implementation can be easily realised with a classical programming language or a computer
algebra system. The described scheme allows to modify the loading conditions and the elastic
and plastic material behaviour in order to study the influence of the damage evolution. The
algorithm can be easily extended to incorporate for example a damage threshold (p < p,D
D = 0) below which no damage occurs or to consider kinematic hardening by adding the
evolution equation for the internal variable of kinematic hardening. However, it must also be
mentioned that some affects such as the influence of the stress triaxiality (ratio between the
hydrostatic stress and the equivalent von Mises stress) on the damage evolution cannot be
investigated based on the proposed algorithm. For the considered one-dimensional model,
this ratio is equal to 1/3 and does not change during the simulated experiment. For real
specimens, the ratio can increase up to 0.8 (necking of round tensile specimens) [15] or
even up to 5 or 6 in the case of tips of sharp notches [1]. Nevertheless, many basic
dependencies can be easily investigated based on the proposed scheme.

[1] J. Lemaitre, A Course on Damage Mechanics, Springer, Berlin 1996.

[2] A. chsner. W. Winter, G. Kuhn, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2000, 2, 423.

[3] J.F. Knott, Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics, Butterworth, London 1983.
[4] W.F. Chen, D.J. Hahn, Plasticity for Structural Engineers, Springer, New York 1988.
[5] J. Lemaitre, J. Eng. Mater.-T. ASME 1985, 107, 83.
[6] J. Lemaitre, Comput. Method. Appl. M. 1985, 51, 31.
[7] A. Benallal, R. Billardon, I. Doghri, Commun. Appl. Numer. M. 1988, 4, 731.
[8] I. Doghri, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 1995, 38, 3403.
[9] A.L. Gurson, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. 1977, 99, 2.
[10] V. Tvergaard, Int. J. Solids Structs. 1982, 18, 659.
[11] V. Tvergaard, Int. J. Fract. 1982, 18, 237.
[12] E.E. Underwood, Quantitative Stereology, Addison-Wesley, London 1970.
[13] E.A. de Souza Neto, D. Peri, D.R.J. Owen, Computational Methods for Plasticity,
Wiley, Chichester 2008.
[14] J.C. Simo, T.J.R. Hughes, Computational Inelasticity, Springer, New York 1998.
[15] A. chsner, J. Gegner, W. Winter, G. Kuhn, Mat. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. 2001, A318, 328.

List of tables
Table 1. Material parameters used for the simulation [13].
Tabelle 1. Verwendete Materialparameter fr die Simulation [13].

E in MPa


vHardening curve in MPa

Sr in MPa

k() = 620+3300[1-exp(-0.4)]

List of figures
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of an undamaged and damaged tensile specimen.
Abb. 1. Schematische Darstellung einer ungeschdigten und geschdigten Zugprobe.

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the integration algorithm in the stress-strain diagram

under consideration of damage effects.
Abb. 2. Schematische Darstellung des Integrations-Algorithmus im Spannungs-DehnungsDiagramm unter Bercksichtgung von Schdigungseffekten.

Fig. 3. Stress-strain diagram for nonlinear hardening: a) without damage; b) with damage.
Abb. 3. Spannungs-Dehungs-Diagramme fr nichtlineare Verfestigung: a) ohne Schdigung;
b) mit Schdigung.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain diagram for ideal plasticity: a) without damage; b) with damage.
Abb. 4. Spannungs-Dehungs-Diagramme fr ideale Plastizitt: a) ohne Schdigung; b) mit

Fig. 5. Displacement boundary condition as a function of time.

Abb. 5. Verschiebungsrandbedingung als Funktion der Zeit.

Fig. 6. Elastic modulus as a function of time: a) at the beginning of the load cycles; b) at the
end of the load cycles.
Abb. 6. Elastischer Modul als Funktion der Zeit: a) zu Beginn der Belastungszyklen; b)
gegen Ende der Belastungszyklen.

Fig. 7. Damage variable as a function of time: a) at the beginning of the load cycles; b) at the
end of the load cycles.
Abb. 7. Schdigungsvariable als Funktion der Zeit: a) zu Beginn der Belastungszyklen; b)
gegen Ende der Belastungszyklen.

Fig. 8. Plastic strain and internal variable as a function of time: a) at the beginning of the load
cycles; b) at the end of the load cycles.
Abb. 8. Plastische Dehunung und innere Variable als Funktion der Zeit: a) zu Beginn der
Belastungszyklen; b) gegen Ende der Belastungszyklen.

Fig. 9. Damage variable as a function of plastic strain.

Abb. 9. Schdigungsvariable als Funktion der plastischen Dehung.