This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 18 November 2012, At: 21:59

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness

simulation of aluminium extrusions
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell & H Werner
a
BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich,
Germany
b
MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich,
Germany
c
MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich,
Germany
d
BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich,
Germany
Version of record first published: 08 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell & H Werner (2004): A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness
simulation of aluminium extrusions, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 9:5, 449-464

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 A comprehensive failure model for
crashworthiness simulation of aluminium
extrusions
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
1 2 2 1
H Hooputra , H Gese , H Dell and H Werner
1
BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich, Germany
2
MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich, Germany

Abstract: A correct representation of the plastic deformation and failure of individual component
parts is essential to obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. The aim of this paper is to
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

present a comprehensive approach for predicting failure in a component based on macroscopic

strains and stresses. This approach requires the use of a number of different failure mechanism
representations, such as necking (due to local instabilities), as well as ductile and shear fracture. All
failure criteria have been developed in a way to include the influence of non-linear strain paths. The
effectiveness of this approach in predicting failure is then discussed by comparing numerical results
with test data by three point bending and axial compression tests of double chamber extrusion
components. All studies presented in this paper were carried out on extrusions made from aluminium
alloy EN AW-7108 T6.
Key words: Crashworthiness simulation, metal failure, failure prediction, plastic instability, ductile
fracture, shear fracture.

NOTATION r0, r45, r90 Lankford coefficients describing plastic

orthotropy
a, a1 Constants in analytical approximation of t Time
stress-strain curve x Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet
c Directionally dependent material parameter (x = rolling direction)
in ductile fracture curve y Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet
ch Heat treatment effectivity parameter (y = normal to rolling direction)
d Inhomogeneity parameter x′ Axis in local coordinate system of necked
d 0, d 1 Material parameters in ductile fracture curve sheet (x′ = normal to neck)
f Material parameter in shear fracture curve y′ Axis in local coordinate system of necked
k 0, k 1, k 2 Material parameters in ductile fracture curve sheet (y′ = parallel to neck)
h0, h˜0 Initial sheet thickness outside of localised neck α Ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major
and in the localised neck principal strain (rate)
h, h˜ Actual sheet thickness outside of localised γ Orientation angle of initial neck relative to
neck and in the localised neck rolling direction
ks Material parameter in shear fracture curve δ Small number for initial sheet imperfection
m Strain rate sensitivity parameter in Marciniak model
n Strain hardening exponent ε0 Constant in analytical approximation of stress-
strain curve
ε 1, ε 2 Principal in plane components of plastic
Corresponding Author: strain, ε1 > ε2
H Hooputra,
BMW Group
εeq Equivalent plastic strain
Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, ε̇ eq Equivalent plastic strain rate
D-80788 Munich, Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 89 382 494 17 Fax: +49 (0) 89 382 428 20
( ε̇ eq ) ref Reference equivalent plastic strain rate
Email: hariaokto.hooputra@bmw.de (typically 1 s–1)

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd 0289 449 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 pp. 449–463
 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
ε eq
*
Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability
γ
ε eq Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability
for one orientation angle γ of the initial neck
relative to rolling direction
ε eq
**
Equivalent plastic strain at onset of fracture
ε S+ , ε S– Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial
tension/compression at shear fracture
ε T+ , ε T– Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial
tension/compression at ductile fracture
η Stress triaxiality
η+, η– Stress triaxiality in equibiaxial tension/
compression at ductile fracture
θ Shear stress parameter
θ+, θ– Shear stress parameter for equibiaxial
tension/compression. θ+ = 2 – 4kS, θ– = 2 +
4kS
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
ν Angle between extrusion direction and major
principal strain rate
σ 1, σ 2, σ 3 Principal components of stress tensor
σeq Equiv. stress
σm σm = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3
σ x, σ y Stress components in extrusion direction and
transverse direction
τxy In plane shear stress component
φ Ratio of maximum shear stress to equivalent
stress
INTRODUCTION
Most of today’s crashworthiness simulation codes offer
an incomplete selection of failure models. Often this
selection is limited to simple fracture models based on
the maximum strain criterion (i.e. the true fracture strain
is constant for all stress states). The problem with these
models is that they do not take the dependence of the
fracture strain on the complete state of stress in a
component into account. The result being, that these
simplified approaches have resulted in inaccurate fracture
predictions [1]. On a more advanced level, there exist
some theoretical models based on mesoscopic effects. One
example is the Gurson model, which accounts for the
evolution of material porosity using a special yield criterion.
Ductile fracture Shear fracture
Figure 1 Visualisation of ductile fracture, shear fracture and sheet instability (localised necking).
1
CrachFEM is a trademark of MATFEM (GER)
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 450
However, this kind of model is limited to representing
ductile fracture and as such ignores the fracture mechanism
based on shear [1, 2]. In FEM analysis, failure prediction
using the Gurson model is highly dependent on mesh
refinement as this model causes strain softening prior to
fracture. Considering these shortcomings prevalent in
today’s numerical codes, there emerges a strong need for
the development of a comprehensive approach for failure
prediction coupled with a numerically robust implementa-
tion. This approach must be flexible enough to make use
of the available discretisation used in today’s automotive
crash simulations (i.e. the use of shell elements with typical
edge length between 5 and 15 mm). As localised necking
of thin sheets or profiles (necking in the direction of sheet
thickness) cannot be modelled with this discretisation, a
criterion for instability must be introduced in addition to
the fracture models.
Sheets and thin-walled extrusions made from aluminium
alloys generally fail due to one or a combination of the
following mechanisms (Figure 1):
• ductile fracture (based on initiation, growth and
coalescence of voids),
• shear fracture (based on shear band localisation).
• instability with localised necking (followed by ductile
or shear fracture inside the neck area),
Instability is necessary as a third failure criterion if the
structure is discretised with shell elements. A more in-
depth explanation will be given in the section “Numerical
Model for Instability”.
The failure strains of the different mechanisms depend
primarily on strain rate, temperature, anisotropy, state of
stress and strain path.
This paper describes the derivation of three failure
criteria for Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS
failure criteria). The failure criteria are based on
macroscopic stresses and strains. The criteria include the
effect of anisotropy, state of stress and strain path. One
set of parameters is valid for one temperature and one
strain rate regime (quasi-static or dynamic).
The IDS failure criteria have been integrated into the
software code CrachFEM1. CrachFEM is an add-on
module to FEM codes which use an explicit-dynamic time
integration scheme. CrachFEM transiently predicts failure
Sheet instability
Localised neck
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

of elements during deformation. Critical elements can be 600

eliminated from the finite element model. 500

Three point bending and compression tests have been

True stress [MPa]

used to validate the IDS failure criteria. The simulations 400
were conducted using a coupling of the crash simulation 300
code PAM-CRASH2 with CrachFEM.
0.002 1/s
The instability, ductile, and shear fracture curves were 200
25 1/s
determined for aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 subjected 100 1/s
100
to various stress states. This material was selected in order
to illustrate the occurrence of the various failure modes. 0
The coefficients for the IDS failure criteria were derived 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
True strain [–]
for room temperature and two strain rates (quasi-static
and 250 1/s). Figure 2 Adiabatic flow stress vs. strain for different
A correct representation of the material plasticity is a strain rates for EN AW-7108 T6 specimens cut in
prerequisite of a correct failure prediction because the extrusion direction.
failure criteria are based on local stresses and strains.
Therefore, the plasticity of the aluminium extrusion EN the material displays a positive strain rate sensitivity for
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

AW-7108 T6 was examined in detail first (strain hardening,
yield locus).
CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL PLASTICITY
Short tensile specimens have been cut out of the outer
walls of a double chamber extrusion, at 0°, 45° and 90° to
the extrusion direction. The plastic anisotropy r (necessary
for the IDS failure criteria calculation) and the strain
hardening parameters were derived experimentally using
these samples. Test results are summarised in Table 1.
The results show that the plastic orthotropy is very
pronounced, r-values change from 0.327 in extrusion
direction to 1.378 in diagonal direction.
Static and dynamic, tensile and compression tests of
prismatic specimens cut in the extrusion direction have
been performed to quantify the strain rate sensitivity of
the material and adiabatic flow stress curves. These are
required as input for commercial FEM crash codes with
an explicit-dynamic time integration scheme. A fully
coupled thermo-mechanical solution procedure is not
supported by these codes. The method used to obtain
adiabatic flow stress curves from these experiments is
described in [1]. The adiabatic flow stress curves for
aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 are shown in Figure 2.
There is no significant strain rate sensitivity for strain
rates between quasi-static and 1 s–1. At higher strain rates,
strains below about 20%, while above this value, the
material shows a negative strain rate sensitivity due to the
adiabatic heating of the material.
Tube-shaped specimens extruded from the same batch
under similar process parameters were used to determine
the initial yield locus of EN AW-7108 T6. Testing was
performed on a multifunctional testing machine with
hydraulic gear for the following load cases
1. Axial tension
2. Axial compression
3. Torsion
4. Axial tension (compression) with internal pressure
5. Torsion with internal pressure
6. Torsion with axial tension (compression) and internal
pressure.
Additionally, ring specimens for uniaxial compression
tests were cut from tubes. The yield locus was measured
for an equivalent plastic strain of 2%, see Figure 3. The
symmetric yield locus of Barlat et al. [3] in connection
with an associated flow rule has been used to describe
plastic deformation. It gives a good approximation in the
tension-tension regime. However, it can be seen from
Figure 3 that the case of pure shear (σx = –σy) is not well
represented. The experimental results display a slightly
concave shape in this area. Strain hardening and strain
rate effects have been taken into consideration by an affine

Table 1 Quasi-static material parameters of extrusion EN AW-7108 T6

Orientation Anisotropy Flow stress: σeq = a(ε0 + εeq)n

parameter r
a [MPa] ε0[−
−] −]
n[−

L (0°) 0.327 596.1 0.020 0.1427

D (45°) 1.378 511.5 0.012 0.1148
LT (90°) 0.965 642.5 0.042 0.1726

2
PAM-CRASH is a trademark of ESI Group (F)

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 451 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

0.5 of the instability mechanism (CRACH algorithm) was used

for this study. This algorithm, based on the basic ideas of
0.4
the Marciniak approach [4], uses an initial imperfection
0.3 to trigger the instability. The calibration and validation of
this approach was achieved using a set of multistage
0.2 experiments at static and dynamic strain rates using mild
steel specimens [5].
0.1 The failure mechanisms at work in the sheet metal
Sig–y

forming process are summarised in Figure 1. All forming

0.0
operations are stable up to the instability strain limit ε eq*
,
–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
–0.1
after which the instability causes the formation of a localised
thinning of the cross section – a ‘neck’, see Figure 4.
–0.2 The state of stress in the neck area changes for all
strain paths to plane strain. As the plastic deformation of
–0.3 the sheet becomes concentrated in the necked region, the
fracture strain is reached at once. Because the localised
0.4
neck has a width in the order of the dimension of the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

–0.5
sheet thickness, the necking process and subsequent
Sig–x fracture cannot be modelled directly in industrial crash
simulation (shell elements have a typical edge length of 3
Approximation–2% experiment–2% to 10 times the sheet thickness). The instability strain ε eq *

has to be used as a fracture criterion instead of the local

Figure 3 Experimental yield data from tube specimens fracture strain ε eq**
inside the neck. From a numerical
extruded from EN AW-7108 T6 and cross section of fitted point of view, a failure criterion based on the strain at
yield surface (Barlat et al. 1991) for τxy = 0 at an onset of instability, ε eq
*
, has the additional advantage that
equivalent plastic strain of 2% (x = extrusion direction, the strain distribution is physically as well as numerically
y = transverse direction). Units of stress: [GPa]. homogeneous.
Several attempts have been made in the literature to
expansion or contraction (in case of strain softening) of calculate the limit curve for instability from the plastic
the initial yield locus. properties of the sheet. Hill [6] published a model, which
is acceptable to describe the left part of the initial FLC
(ε2 < 0). Basic research was performed by Marciniak et
NUMERICAL MODEL FOR INSTABILITY (LOCALISED
al. [4]. They described the plastic deformation of a sheet
NECKING)
with an initial thickness imperfection up to the point of
Localised necking is the main mechanism leading to instability and showed promising results for the FLC of
fracture in ductile sheet metals. The classical forming isotropic material with strain rate sensitivities for ε2 < 0.
limit curve (FLC) generally used to predict localised However, the orthotropic material model used is not
instabilities is not useful in this instance because of its consistent. Because the Marciniak model uses an isotropic
assumption of linear strain paths in the material. In order hardening model, it is also limited to linear strain paths.
to take the effects of nonlinear strain paths into account, Cayssials [7] used a mesoscopic damage model to simulate
which can develop during a crash event, a theoretical model the instability strain in plane strain situation for different

σy σy + ∆σy
Onset of
N3 fracture
N4 Lo
N2 ca
ls
Local strain

tra
N1 in Onset of
σx
instability
Glo
bal 45°
stra σ x + ∆σ x ε eq
*
in
Global strain
(a) Onset of instability (b) Onset of fracture (c) Local and global strain

Figure 4 (a) The stress distribution in a sheet may just induce the onset of instability; the strain distribution is still
homogeneous. (b) Slightly increasing the stresses leads to a local neck, immediately followed by fracture. The strain distribution
is inhomogeneous, showing a peak within the neck (local strain). In a numerical model, discretised with shell elements, only
the global strain can be evaluated from nodal displacements N1 to N4. Since the global strain does not change significantly
from onset of instability to onset of fracture, the former may be used as a slightly conservative fracture criterion. For the shell
elements, a length to thickness ratio greater than 5 should hold.

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 452 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
steel grades. However, the model does not cover the whole
FLC and is limited to isotropic materials. Hora et al. [8]
have applied a modified force criterion to non-linear strain
paths. The model does not include kinematic hardening
and will therefore be limited in the quantitative prediction
of necking in non-linear cases. This review shows that a
need for a complete description of sheet instability for all
strain paths still exists.
The newly developed algorithm CRACH has been used
in this study which includes a refined description of
material behaviour on a macroscopic level, in conjunction
with the effects of the material microstructure. The
mechanical problem is given in Figure 5. The basic concept
is derived from the Marciniak model [4]. In this model
the localised neck is triggered by an initial imperfection
of the sheet. The sheet has an initial thickness of h0. The
thickness inside the infinitely small imperfection is given
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
in equation (1).
h˜0 = h0 (1 – δ)
δ is a very small number. Here and in the following chapters,
all values inside the localised neck are indicated with a
tilde (~). As the neck is infinitely small, the increase in
strain parallel to the neck (defined as local y′-direction in
Figure 5) is identical inside and outside the neck according
to equation (2).
dε˜ ′y = dε ′y
This model is practicable for linear strain paths in the
region of ε2 < 0 (ε1 and ε2 are the principal strains in the
plane of the sheet with ε2 ≤ ε1), where the neck width is
very small. In the region ε2 > 0 the neck can have a
significant width. Therefore, the CRACH algorithm uses
an approximation of the neck cross section according to
equation (3).
y σ˜ x ′y ′ h˜ = σ x ′y ′ h
σy
y′ σxy
x′
γ
σx
x optimisation according to equation (6).
l ε eq
X
h h̃
d = (h – h˜ )/h
Figure 5 Schematic representation of the imperfection
triggering a localised neck in the CRACH algorithm.
© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
  π x′ 
h˜0 = h0 1 – d cos   [3]
  l 
x′ indicates the local direction normal to the necking line
according to Figure 5. The initial thickness h0 has no
influence on the numerical problem and is fixed to 1. The
ratio x′/l changes from 0 (neck center) to 1/2 (region of
the sheet with homogeneous deformation). d is the
inhomogeneity parameter and its initial value is calibrated
from the limit strain out of one experiment with the
individual sheet. The parameter d increases with
deformation in the CRACH algorithm in order to account
for the roughening of the sheet during plastic deformation.
The strain outside the neck can be increased
incrementally according to the strain history of a finite
element. The strain inside the neck is calculated by CRACH
using equation (3) and a strain rate dependent plasticity
model with isotropic-kinematic hardening.
[1] The equivalent flow stress of the material is defined by
 ε˙eq 
σ eq = a1 ( ε 0 + ε eq ) n   [4]
 ( ε˙eq ) ref 
with strain hardening exponent n and strain rate sensitivity
parameter m, where n and m can differ between the
quasistatic and dynamic loading regimes. The plastic
orthotropy is defined by the Lankford coefficients r0, r45,
[2] and r90. An anisotropic yield locus according to Hill-1948
is combined with a model for anisotropic strain hardening
according to Backhaus [9] to account for the Bauschinger
effect in the CRACH algorithm.
The global strain around the neck is increased
incrementally as long as the force equilibrium is fulfilled
according to equations (5a) and (5b).
σ˜ h˜ = σ h
x′ x′ [5a]
[5b]
The first increment without equilibrium indicates the
instability with the start of the localised necking. This
mechanical problem has to be solved for different
orientation angles γ according to Figure 5 of the initial
neck relative to the rolling direction of the sheet. The
limit strain ε eq
*
for one deformation path is derived through
γ
*
= min {ε eq (γ )} [6]
γ
For some angles γ, the equivalent limit strain ε eq
can be
γ
high or even infinite. Therefore, an upper limit of ε eq =
1.2 has been defined. In summary, the CRACH algorithm
solves the plastic flow problem inside and outside the
initial neck area. Instability occurs if there is no common
solution for the flow problem inside and outside of the
neck.
Additional features of the CRACH algorithm are:
• introduction of a heat treatment effectivity parameter
ch(0 < ch < 1) to represent interstage annealing; ch > 0
453 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
reduces the effect of strain hardening and resets all
micro stresses to zero according to [10];
• inclusion of the possibility to introduce new flow curves
between stages due to heat treatment (i.e. solution heat
treatment and age hardening) or significant changes in
strain rate (i.e. for history deep drawing and crash).
PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR DUCTILE AND
SHEAR FRACTURE
Two main mechanisms can cause the fracture of a ductile
metal:
• void nucleation, void growth and void coalescence;
• shear fracture due to shear band localisation.
Most of the phenomenological fracture models are based
on a fracture diagram which gives the equivalent plastic
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
strain at fracture ε eq
**
as a function of the stress state (i.e.
stress triaxiality η according to equation (8)). The function
ε eq
**
(η) can be used directly as a fracture criterion in the
case of a linear strain path. For the more general case of
a nonlinear strain path, an integral fracture criterion is
necessary. Kolmogorov [11] has presented an integral
criterion according to equation (7).
ε ** dε eq
∫
eq
=1
0 ε eq
**
(η )
Integral criteria can account for nonlinear strain paths.
However, in more severe cases of load path changes (i.e.
compression-tension reversal) even the integral criteria
are no longer valid. CrachFEM offers a tensorial criterion
as an option for these cases. The tensorial fracture criterion
is not discussed here.
The fracture criterion is calculated separately for the
risk of ductile fracture and shear fracture in CrachFEM.
It is assumed that there is no interaction between both
fracture mechanisms.
Ductile fracture
For ductile fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent
fracture strain ε eq
**
is a function of the stress triaxiality η,
defined in equation (8) by components in principal stress
space.
3σ m σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3
η= = approximate the ductile fracture curve in this study.
σ eq α 12 + α 22 + α 32 – σ 1σ 2 – σ 2 σ 3 – σ 3 σ 1
[8]
Typically, the dependence of the equivalent fracture
strain on the stress triaxiality is expressed in the form of
equation (9).
ε eq
**
= d0 exp(–cη)
Equation (9) assumes a monotonic decrease of the fracture
strain with increasing stress triaxiality. However,
experimental results from aluminium extrusions used in
this study show that the equivalent plastic strain at fracture
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
for equibiaxial stress (η ≅ 2) can be higher than the
equivalent plastic strain at fracture in plane strain loading
(η ≅ 3 ). Equation (10) represents a more general
formulation and includes a non-monotonic decrease of
the fracture strain with increasing stress triaxiality.
ε eq
**
= d0 exp (–cη) + d1 exp (cη) [10]
where d1 is an additional material parameter. Of course,
equation (10) includes the special case of equation (9) for
a monotonic decrease in fracture strain vs. stress triaxiality.
However, equations (9) and (10) remain limited to
describing isotropic materials.
A more general formulation of equation (10), which
includes the orthotropy of fracture, must also include the
boundary conditions of the equivalent fracture strain ε T+
for the equibiaxial tension condition which must not be
orientation dependent. Theoretically, the fracture strain
at equibiaxial compression ε T– must not be orientation
dependent as well. However, its value is usually very high.
If η+ is the stress triaxiality for equibiaxial tension and
η indicates the stress triaxiality in equibiaxial compression
–
(a material with isotropic plasticity yields η+ = 2 and η–
= –2), the following boundary conditions may be defined.
ε T+ = ε eq
**
for η = η+ [11a]
[7] ε T– = ε eq
**
for η = η– [11b]
The parameters d 0 and d 1 of equation (10) can be
substituted using the boundary conditions from equations
(11a) and (11b). The result is given in equation (12) below.
ε T+ sinh[ c (η – – η )] + ε T– sinh [ c (η – η + )]
ε eq
**
= [12]
sinh [ c (η – – η + )]
An orientation dependent parameter c has been introduced
in equation (12) for the orthotropic case. Therefore equation
(12) has two constant parameters, ε T+ , ε T– and one
orientation dependent parameter c. The dependence of
the parameter c on the angle ν between the extrusion
direction and the direction of the first principal strain
rate ε̇ 1 is expressed in equation (13).
c = k0 + k1 cos (2ν) + k2 cos (4ν) [13]
Equations (13) and (14) fulfil the necessary symmetry
boundary conditions. Equations (12) and (13) are used to
The parameter ε T+ can be directly obtained from an
equibiaxial tension test (i.e. Erichsen test). The parameters
ε T– and c for one direction (extrusion direction) can be
derived from two additional experiments with different
stress triaxiality. In this project, three point bending (plane
strain tension) and notched tensile specimens (uniaxial
[9]
tension at notch root) have been used. For two different
orientations (45° and 90°) the value of c is derived from
three point bending tests. If c is known for three orientations
(i.e. c0, c45 and c90), the coefficients k0, k1 and k2 of equation
(13) can be calculated using equations (14a−c).
454 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
k0 = (c0 + 2c45 + c90)/4
k1 = (c0 – c90)/2
k2 = (c0 – 2c45 + c90)/4
Shear fracture
For shear fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent strain
at fracture ε eq
**
is a function of the variable θ given in
equation (15).
1 – ks η
θ= [15]
φ
where ks is a material parameter and φ is the ratio of the
maximum shear stress and the equivalent stress (von Mises)
according to equation (16).
τ with CRACH for the quasistatic and dynamic cases
φ = max
σ eq
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
Analogous to equation (12), the equivalent plastic strain
for shear fracture with respect to θ is given in equation
(17).
ε S+ sinh[ f (θ – θ – )] + ε S– sinh [ f (θ + – θ)]
ε eq
**
= [17]
sinh [ f (θ + – θ – )]
where θ+ and θ– are the values of the parameter θ for
equibiaxial tension und compression. Equation (17) has
two constant parameters ε S+ , ε S– and one orientation
dependent parameter f. No significant orthotropy of the
shear fracture curve has been found up to now for different
sheets and extrusions. Therefore, it is assumed that f is a
constant, independent of the orientation to extrusion
direction.
DERIVATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS
Instability
The limit strain ε 1* of the initial FLC in uniaxial tension
specimens is derived from the specimen thickness and
width measured at a distance of twice the sheet thickness
from the fracture line (outside the localised neck), assuming
volume constancy during the plastic deformation. The
mean value of three quasi-static experiments in extrusion
direction resulted in a strain limit of 0.125 . The algorithm
CRACH (input: r-values r0 = 0.327, r45 = 1.378, r90 =
0.965 and strain hardening coefficients astatic = 596 MPa,
ε0,static = 0.02, nstatic = 0.143 in extrusion direction; quasi-
static strain rate sensitivity of mstatic = 0) was used to
derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for this limit strain
(d = 0.0028). The quasi-static FLC predicted by CRACH
is shown in Figure 6.
An approximation of the flow stress curves from tensile
tests at 250 s–1 was used to derive the parameters of the
Swift equation for CRACH in the dynamic regime (adynamic
= 572.9 MPa, ε0,dynamic = 0.032, ndynamic = 0.122)3. A
3
This approximation is only used for the prediction of instability with algorithm CRACH. The Swift parameters must not be used for the
extrapolation up to higher strains since this function type cannot account for softening effects due to adiabatic heating.
© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
[14a] 0.35
[14b] 0.3
[14c]
0.25
0.2
eps–1
0.15
Quasistatic
0.1
Dynamic
0.05
0
–0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
esp–2
Figure 6 Initial forming limit curves (FLC) predicted
[16]
(approx. 250 s–1) for specimens cut in the extrusion
direction.
correlation of the flow stress curves at a strain rate of
1 s–1 and 100 s–1 yields the strain rate sensitivity of mdynamic
= 0.006 for the dynamic regime.
The CRACH algorithm (input: r-values and dynamic
strain hardening parameters as cited above) was used to
derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for the limit strains
of the dynamic tensile tests in the different orientations.
A mean value of d = 0.0025 for the three orientations was
used to calculate the dynamic FLC (see Figure 6). It may
be observed from the results that the static and mean
dynamic inhomogeneity parameters are very similar, and
that the dynamic FLC is somewhat lower than the quasi-
static one.
Ductile fracture limit
Different specimen geometries are used to define different
deformation states (i.e. plane strain, equibiaxial strain etc.).
For the derivation of the fracture parameters, the stress
state parameters η (defined in equation (8)) and φ for the
shear fracture curve (defined in equation (16)) must be
known, and thus a material model must be introduced for
this purpose. For this analysis, an isotropic von Mises
yield locus was used. This yield locus does not exactly fit
the materials plasticity results, but it does make the fracture
model more robust and more general. This does not cause
an incompatibility during the calculation because the
material plasticity in the FEM module and the fracture
models are uncoupled.
Erichsen test (equibiaxial stress with η = 2), three point
bending of sheet coupons (width/thickness > 4 with plane
strain tension and η = 3 ; tests under 0°, 45° and 90° to
extrusion direction) and waisted tensile specimens with
fracture at the notch root (uniaxial tension with η = 1)
have been used to obtain the ductile fracture limit. The
local fracture strains have been derived from a grid on the
surface of the specimens (Erichsen test and three point
455 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

bending) or from the sheet thickness in the fracture plane 1

(waisted tensile specimens). The Erichsen tests resulted
in both ductile and shear fractures for different specimens 0.8

Equivalent plastic strain

at the pole location. Therefore, these data have been used
to determine both the ductile and shear fracture limits. 0.6
In comparing the equivalent fracture strain between
the quasistatic and dynamic experiments, it has been 0.4
observed that for the three point bending and notched
tensile tests (wide specimens) the quasistatic equivalent 0.2 Shear limit–0
Experiment–0
strain is lower than in the dynamic case. In all other
experiments, the equivalent fracture strains are higher in 0
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
the dynamic case. Whereas, in quasistatic tests the fracture Teta
strain shows a pronounced minimum in the LT direction eq (θ) and
Figure 8 Quasi-static shear fracture limit curve ε **
(normal to extrusion direction), the fracture strains in experimental data from specimens cut in the extrusion
the dynamic case seem to be more isotropic. direction.
The limit diagram for ductile fracture was approximated
quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

using equations (12) and (13). Material parameters shown

in Table 2 were derived from experiments. The The derivation of α from the stress triaxiality η is given
approximation of the ductile fracture curves for three in Appendix A.
orientations to extrusion direction versus stress triaxiality Shear fracture limit
η is given for the quasi-static case in Figure 7 together
Tensile specimen with a groove (rectangular cross section,
with the experimental input.
groove depth = half sheet thickness) under 45° to loading
direction (θ = 1.469), specially shaped tensile specimens
Table 2 Material parameters in equation (12) for the
with a groove parallel to the loading direction (pure shear
ductile fracture limit in the quasistatic and dynamic
case (EN AW-7108 T6)
with θ = 1.732) and Erichsen tests (biaxial tension with θ
= 1.6), have been used to determine the shear fracture
Quasi-static Dynamic limit. Results from Erichsen tests were added to this curve
in case the specimens had failed in shear fracture. The
ε T+ = 0.26 ε T+ = 0.44 dynamic fracture limits are slightly lower than the
ε T– = 193.0 ε T– = 1494.0 quasistatic ones.
k0 = 1.759 k0 = 2.8768 The quasistatic and dynamic shear fracture limit curves
k1 = –0.125 k1 = 0.0465 were approximated using equation (17). The parameter
k2 = 0.048 k2 = –0.1233 kS in equation (15) was set to 0.1 based on a number of
tests with different aluminium alloys. The shear fracture
2
Ductile–limit–0 was assumed to be isotropic. Material parameters according
Ductile–limit–45 to Table 3 were derived from the experimental results.
Ductile–limit–90 The shear fracture limit curve for the quasi-static case is
Equivalent plastic strain

1.5
Experiment–0 shown in Figure 8 together with the experimental data.
Experiment–45
1 Experiment–90 Table 3 Material parameters in equation (17) for the shear
fracture limit in quasistatic and dynamic case (EN AW-
7108 T6)
0.5

Quasi-static Dynamic
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ε S+= 0.26 ε S+ = 0.35
Stress triaxiality eta
ε S–= 4.16 ε S– = 1.2
f = 4.04 f = 2.05
Figure 7 Ductile fracture limit curves ε **
eq ( η ) together
with experimental data for quasi-static case in orientation The shear fracture limit curves are plotted in Figure 9 for
of 0°, 45° and 90° to extrusion direction. the quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case
together with the instability limit and the ductile fracture
For the characterization of the loading path for all three limit. For the characterization of the loading path for all
types of limit curves, α = ε˙2 /ε˙1 (α = ε2/ε1 for linear three types of limit curves, α = ε˙2 /ε˙1 (α = ε2/ε1 for
strain paths) is used as a common measure. For purposes linear strain paths) is used as a common measure. The
of comparing these results with the other fracture limits, derivation of α from the stress triaxiality η and the
the ductile fracture curves are shown in Figure 9 for the parameter θ is given in Appendix A.

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 456 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

1.5

Instability
Ductile fracture 0

Equivalent plastic strain

Ductile fracture 45
1 Ductile fracture 90
Shear fracture

0.5

0
–2 –1 0 1
alpha = phi–2/phi–1

Figure 9 Quasistatic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6. Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths
and membrane loading.

and dynamic compression tests in axial direction of the

Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

IDS “failure map” for EN AW-7108 T6

For the characterization of the loading path for all three double chamber extrusions have been used to validate the
types of limit curves, α = ε˙2 /ε˙1 (α = ε2/ε1 for linear IDS failure criteria. The three point bending test
strain paths) is used as a common measure. For the purpose configuration consists of two support pins (radius 25 mm)
of comparison, all failure limits are combined into a “failure and a central punch (radius 50 mm). The distance between
map” in Figure 9 for the quasistatic case and in Figure 10 the pins is 350 mm. Double plastic foils, lubricated on
for the dynamic case. The limit curves are plotted for the both sides, are placed between the extrusions and the
special case of linear strain paths and membrane pins, as well as the punch, to minimise friction. The
deformation. A linear strain path is defined by α = constant. dynamic compression tests are conducted using impact
In practice, the strain paths are often nonlinear. In this velocities of 10 m/s and an impacting mass of 500 kg.
case, the limit curves used in the numerical solution process A coupling of the crash simulation code PAM-CRASH
are updated during the deformation based on the theoretical and CrachFEM has been used for performing the analyses.
models described above (algorithm CRACH for instability; Finite elements whose strains exceed any one of the failure
nonlinear damage accumulation with a tensorial damage criteria are eliminated from the FE mesh.
model for ductile and shear fracture). In the case of The coupling between the codes is organised in the
combined loading (membrane and bending), the limit following manner:
curves for instability and shear fracture are checked against 1. The strain and stress tensors of each shell element
the membrane strains (both effects cover the whole sheet are transferred from the FEM code to the CrachFEM
thickness), whereas the upper and lower surface strains module every 10th time step,
are used to predict ductile fracture (ductile cracks initiated 2. CrachFEM then calculates factors of safety for
at the surface). Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS failure
criteria)
VALIDATION
CrachFEM tracks the influence of strain path, stress state,
Quasi-static three point bending, as well as quasi-static strain rate, and orthotropy on the failure strain. During

1.5
Ductile fracture 0
Ductile fracture 45
Equivalent plastic strain

Ductile fracture 90
1 Shear fracture
Instability

0.5

0
–2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1
Alpha = Phi–2/phi–1

Figure 10 Dynamic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6: Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths
and membrane loading.

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 457 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

deformation, there is a competition between the 3 60000

Experiments
mechanisms of failure (factor of safety is calculated for all FEM–no–fracture
50000
of the 3 failure modes). The criterion which is found to FEM–with IDS criteria
become critical first (safety factor below 1) initiates the
40000

Punch force [N]

element elimination. The result being that CrachFEM
can predict the time and mode of failure for each element. 30000
The yield locus of Barlat-1991 (see Figure 3) and a
strain hardening according to Figure 2 has been used to 20000
describe the plastic behaviour of the extrusions. Although
a strain softening has been found at high strain rates, this 10000
behaviour may be problematic in the numerical application.
A strain softening or a negative strain rate sensitivity can 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
cause local element instabilities. Therefore, the strain Punch displacement [mm]
hardening curves above 25 s–1 according to Figure 2 have
Figure 11 Three point bending test of double chamber
been forced to have a positive strain hardening similar to
extrusions. Force-displacement curves from tests and
the curve for 25 s–1.
simulations with and without IDS failure criteria.
The double chamber extrusion is modelled using shell
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

elements. The extrusion has a uniform thickness of

2.5 mm. In order to obtain an accurate prediction in the
simulation, a fine mesh (about 5 mm edge length) has
been used to produce the results shown in Figures 11 to
14. This is approximately the minimum edge length of
today’s whole car crashworthiness simulation models for
critical structural parts.
Three point bending
The punch and the pins for three point bending test as
well as the impactor for the compression test are modelled
as rigid bodies. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient
of 0.05 is defined for the contact between the punch and
the component (steel-aluminium with lubricated polymer
foil in between). The aluminium-aluminium self contact
friction coefficient was found to be 0.15.
The force-displacement curves obtained from the three
point bending test are shown in Figure 11.
The numerical solution predicted without the use of
failure models shows considerable discrepancies from the
test results. Introducing the IDS failure criteria into the
numerical solution, not only improved the correlation,
but also approximates more accurately the total energy
absorption of the component. The initiation of fracture
in the simulation, using IDS failure criteria, correlates
well with that found in the test (Figures 12(a) and (b).
Fracture was found to initiate mainly in the T-section of
the middle wall and in the external area of the buckling
zone.
Axial compression test
The impactor for the compression test is modelled as a
rigid body too. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient
of 0.20 is defined for the contact between the dropped
mass (steel) and the extrusion. The aluminium-aluminium
self contact friction coefficient is again 0.15.
The simulation without any failure model does not
match the results from the quasi-static and dynamic
compression tests (Figure 13 – center). Figure 13 – left
shows a regular folding pattern in the quasi-static and
dynamic simulation. The simulations using the IDS failure
criteria accurately predict the real fracture pattern in the
extrusion for both loading velocities (Figure 13 – right).
In the quasi-static case there is still folding with significant
fracture. Figure 14 shows fringe plots of the failure risk
parameter for the three failure modes. It is evident that
instability is not responsible for fracture. Ductile fracture
starts in the folds bent inward since they have a smaller
radius of curvature compared to the folds bent outward.

(a) Quasistatic three point bending test (b) Simulation of three point bending with IDS
failure criteria. (5 mm edge length of
shell elements)

Figure 12 Three point bending test - Fracture pattern from tests and simulation.

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 458 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

Quasi-static simulation Quasi-static compression test Quasi-static simulation

without any failure criteria with IDS failure criteria

Dynamic simulation Dynamic compression test Dynamic simulation with IDS

without any failure criteria failure criteria

Figure 13 Static and dynamic compression tests of double chamber extrusions (center) compared to simulations with and
without IDS failure criteria (left and right, respectively). Shell elements with 5 mm edge length were used.

Shear fracture is initiated at the T-joint in the plane of
symmetry of the profile. In the dynamic case, see Figure
13 bottom, nearly no folding occurs. The wall segments
are separated completely in the corners and at the T-joint
between the middle wall and the outer walls, which is in
good agreement with the experiment.
The predominating fracture mode occurring in the
quasi-static and dynamic compression tests is shear and
ductile fracture. It seems likely that aluminium alloys
generally tend to be highly sensitive for shear loading in
the dynamic case (Figure 13 – dynamic compression test).
CONCLUSIONS
A correct representation of the plastic deformation and
failure of individual component parts is essential to
obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. A
comprehensive approach for predicting failure in structural
components based on macroscopic strains and stresses
using the CrachFEM code has been presented. This
approach fits to the state-of-the-art in discretisation of
automotive crash simulation models (shell elements with
edge lengths of 5 to 15 mm). An edge length of 5 mm is
recommended in areas of high strain gradients. Due to
the absence of adaptive meshing procedures, these critical
areas have to be identified in advance. CrachFEM includes
all relevant failure mechanisms, such as Instability (localised
necking), Ductile and Shear fracture (IDS failure criteria).
All failure criteria are implemented in a way to include
the influence of non-linear strain paths.

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 459 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
Quasi-static compression Instability
Figure 14 Quasi-static compression of EN AW-7108 T6 double chamber extrusions. Left: arrows point to ductile fracture
sites of inward bent folds in the experiment. The fringe plots display the failure risk parameter for the three modes.
Failure is to be expected if the failure risk parameter is greater or equal to 1. The failure modes and their respective crack
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
location are in good agreement with the experiment. NOTE: element elimination is suppressed in the simulation; all
displacements are scaled by a factor of 0.25 to “unfold” the profile.
All studies presented in this paper were carried out on
extrusions made from aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6.
The plasticity of these extrusions has been examined
experimentally. A Barlat yield criterion has been used to
model the plastic orthotropy. The IDS failure curves of
EN AW-7108 T6 are strongly dependent on the stress
state and strain rate of the material. The ductile fracture
limit curves and the instability curves show a strong
orthotropic behaviour, whereas the shear fracture limit
curves show no significant dependence on the extrusion
orientation direction. To obtain an accurate failure
prediction, this anisotropic behaviour has to be taken into
account in the simulation.
The comparison of numerical results to test data for
the three point bending and axial compression tests of
double chamber extrusions demonstrates a comprehensive
approach to accurately predict component failure, both
in terms of the mode and the location of cracks. Due to
the loading conditions in all of the examples, instability
did not show up as a dominating failure mode. However,
in loading situations where membrane tensile strains
prevail, instability will be of great importance. An example
for such a case is shown in the publication from Pickett et
al. [12].
The presented failure approach, however, can only
predict the crack initiation. The element elimination used
in the simulation, after the onset of fracture, represents
only a preliminary approach for simulating crack
propagation. A suitable criterion for crack propagation in
combination with a numerical implementation which is
mesh independent to the greatest possible extent remains
a challenge for future development work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. V. Yelisseyev and his
co-workers at company TEST in Voronezh (RUS) for the
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
Ductile fracture Shear fracture
Failure risk
parameter
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
excellent experimental work on the measurement of the
yield locus and Dr. Andrew Heath for programming the
interface in PAM-CRASH to CrachFEM.
REFERENCES
1. EL-MAGD, E, GESE, H, THAM, R, HOOPUTRA, H and
WERNER, H. ‘Fracture Criteria for Automobile
Crashworthiness Simulation of wrought Aluminium Alloy
Components’, Mat.-wiss u Werkstofftech, 2001 32 712–724.
2. SCHMITT, W, SUN, D Z, BLAUEL, J G and CHRISTLEIN, J.
‘Improved Description of the Material Behaviour of
Aluminium Automobile Components by the Gurson
Model’, Proceeding of the 31st International Symposium on
Automotive Technology and Automation, Düsseldorf, 1998.
3. BARLAT, F, LEGE, D J and BREM, J C. ‘A six-component
yield function for anisotropic materials’, Int J Plasticity,
1991 7 693.
4. MARCINIAK, Z, KUCZYNSKI′ , K and POKORA, T. ‘Influence of
the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit
diagram for sheet metal in tension’, Int. J. of Mechanical
Sciences, 1973 15 789–805.
5. DELL, H, GESE, H, KEßLER, L, WERNER, H and HOOPUTRA,
H ‘Continuous Failure Prediction Model for Nonlinear
Load Paths in Successive Stamping and Crash Processes’,
New Sheet Steel Products and Sheet Metal Stamping (SP-
1614), SAE 2001 World Congress, Michigan, SAE-Paper
2001-01-1131, 2001.
6. HILL, R. ‘On discontinuous plastic states with special
reference to localised necking in thin sheets’, J Mech Phys
Solids, 1952 1 19–30.
7. CAYSSIALS, F. ‘A new method for predicting FLC’, IDDRG
Conference, Geneva, 1998 443–454.
8. Hora, P, Tong, L, Reissner, J. ‘A Failure Criterion for Prediction
of Strain Path Dependent Failures for Quadratic and Non-
Quadratic Yield Loci’, Proceedings of Numisheet, 1996.
9. BACKHAUS, G. ‘Plastic deformation in form of strain
trajectories of constant curvature – Theory and comparison
with experimental results’, Acta Mechanica, 1979 34 193–
204.
460 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

10. DELL H and ELISEEV‚ W W. ‘Materialmodell für
mehrstufige Umformung mit Wärmebehandlung zwischen
den Stufen’, Iswestija AN SSSR Metalli 1991 4 171–174.
11. KOLMOGOROV, W L. ‘Spannungen Deformationen Bruch’,
Metallurgija, 1970 230.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012
12. PICKETT, A, PYTTEL, T, PAYEN, F, LAURO, F, PETRINIC, N,
WERNER, H and CHRISTLEIN, J. ‘Failure prediction for
advanced crashworthiness of transportation vehicles’,
Int. J. of Impact Engineering, 2004 Vol. 30 Issue 7
853–872.

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 461 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

 H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

APPENDIX A Equations for shear fracture

The fracture strain for ductile fracture is a function of 1 – kS η

φ=
the stress triaxiality η. The fracture strain for shear fracture θ
is a function of the stress triaxiality η and the shear stress
parameter θ. The limit strain for instability is a function – 1 – 6φ 2 – 6φ 1 – 3 φ 2
α= for –2 ≤ η ≤ 0
of the ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major principal 12φ 2 – 1
strain (rate) α. For the special case of plane stress
conditions, all three failure curves can be expressed as a – 1 – 6φ 2 + 6φ 1 – 3 φ 2
function of α by using the Lévy – von Mises equations. α= for 0<η≤1
This allows to compare all failure curves in one diagram 12φ 2 – 1
for the special case of linear strain paths and membrane
loading (see Figure 9 and 10). This appendix provides the 2 – 6φ 2 – 6φ 1 – 3 φ 2
α= for 1<η≤ 3
necessary equations to express all failure curves as a function 12φ 2 – 1
of α.
2 – 6φ 2 + 6φ 1 – 3 φ 2
α= for 3 <η≤2
Equations for ductile fracture 12φ 2 – 1
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

The plane stress condition yields –2 ≤ η ≤ + 2. Figure A1 illustrates the dependencies of the parameters
α, η and θ for an arbitrary state of plane stress. For a given
η 2 – 6 + η 12 – 3η 2 state of plane stress, σ1, σ2, σ3 = 0, the corresponding value
α= with the special cases of of the parameter is displayed normal to the σ1 – σ2 plane
2 (3 – η 2 )
of the von Mises yield locus. It is evident from the left side
of Figure A1 that all parameters show a plane of symmetry
α=0 for η= 3 which is normal to the line σ1 = – σ2. Therefore, the right
hand side of Figure A1 shows a side view along the line σ1
α ⇒ –∞ for η= – 3 = – σ2 in the plane of the von Mises yield locus.

(a) Parameter α α α
σ2
1
1
0.5

σ1
von Mises
yield locus –0.5
von Mises –1
yield locus –1

(b) Parameter η η η

σ2
2
2

1
1

σ1

von Mises von Mises

–1
yield locus –1 yield locus

2
–2

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 462 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

 A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

(c) Parameter θ θ θ

σ2

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

2 2

0.5 0.5

σ1
von Mises
yield locus

von Mises
yield locus

Figure A1 Parameters α, η and θ displayed as a function of principal stresses σ1 and σ2. As explained in the text,
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 21:59 18 November 2012

each parameter is plotted normal to the von Mises yield locus. The parameter α is only shown in the relevant area for
instability. The dark shaded areas of parameter θ indicate that the in-plane shear stresses are most critical. The light
shaded areas indicate that the out-of-plane shear stresses are most critical. A value kS = 0.1 is used to construct the
θ-dependency.

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 463 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5