Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 . Introduction: .............................................................................................. 1
2 . Ductile damage mechanisms: .................................................................... 1
2. 1. Mechanisms dominating at positive stress triaxiality: ............................................. 2
2. 1. 1. Void nucleation: ............................................................................................... 2
2. 1. 2. Void growth: ..................................................................................................... 2
2. 1. 3. Void coalescence: ............................................................................................. 2
2. 2. Mechanisms dominating at negative and low stress triaxiality: .............................. 3
3 . Damage modelling approaches: ................................................................ 3
3. 1. Overview of existing approaches: ............................................................................ 4
3. 1. 1. Phenomenological criteria ................................................................................ 4
3. 1. 2. Continuum damage mechanics CDM: .............................................................. 4
3. 1. 3. Microscopic Models: ........................................................................................ 4
3. 2. Damage Models: ...................................................................................................... 5
3. 2. 1. Xue and Widerzbicki: ....................................................................................... 5
3. 2. 2. Mae and Widerzbicki:....................................................................................... 6
3. 2. 3. Bai and widerzbicki: ......................................................................................... 6
3. 2. 4. Johnson-Cook model: ....................................................................................... 8
3. 2. 5. Lode dependent enhanced Lemaitre (LEL) model: .......................................... 8
3. 2. 6. GTN model: ...................................................................................................... 9
4 . Pressure sensitivity and lode parameter dependence: ............................. 9
5 . Experiments and models calibration: ..................................................... 12
5. 1. Tests for negative stress triaxialities: [-1/3, 0] ....................................................... 13
5. 1. 1. Upsetting test: ................................................................................................. 13
5. 1. 2. New compression test: .................................................................................... 13
5. 2. Tests for low positive stress triaxialities : ................................................ 14
5. 2. 1. Pure shear test: ................................................................................................ 14
5. 2. 2. Combined shear and tension loading: ............................................................. 15
5. 2. 1. Tensile test: ..................................................................................................... 15
5. 3. Tests for high stress triaxialities: ........................................................................... 16
5. 3. 1. Smooth and notched round bars tensile tests: ................................................. 16
5. 3. 2. Flat grooves plate tensile tests: ....................................................................... 17
5. 4. Calibration of fracture models: .............................................................................. 17
5. 5. The fracture locus 2D:............................................................................................ 18
5. 6. The fracture locus 3D:............................................................................................ 20
6 . Numerical simulation and models calibration: ...................................... 20
6. 1. Coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models: ............................................. 21
6. 2. Micromechanics based models: ............................................................................. 21
7 . Application: Fracture prediction in forming process: ........................... 22
8 . Conclusions: ............................................................................................. 22
List of Figures
Figure 1: The processes of voids: a) void nucleation ; b) void growth and c) void
coalescence[4] ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Ductile damage steps following tensile and shear tests[7] ........................................ 3
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the Bao, Mae and Wierzbicki fracture locus[15] ......... 7
Figure 4 : Conceptual representation of initial stress states on the plane of : a) Equivalent
strain to fracture- stress triaxialities and b) stress triaxialities- lode angle parameter[16]....... 12
Figure 5 :A shematic sketch of upsetting tests: a) test setup ; b) plastic deformation shows the
barrelling effect and c) cracks occur on peripheral surface[19] ............................................... 13
Figure 6: a) Deformed specimens with different rations showing shear fracture and b)
Evolution stress triaxiality-displacement curves[2] ................................................................. 13
Figure 7: a) deformed specimens showing shear fracture and b) Evolution Stress triaxiality-
Displacement curves[2] [8] ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: A butterfly specimen of pure shear test: a) undeformed specimen and b) fractured
specimen[2] .............................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 9: A butterfly specimen of combined shear and tension test: a) undeformed specimen
and b) fractured specimen[8] [2] .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 10:Initial and final deformed specimen[8] ................................................................... 16
Figure 11 : Fractured tensile specimens : a) smooth ; b) R= 12 mm and c) R=4 mm[2] ........ 16
Figure 12: Flat grooves plate[16,14] ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Fracture locus 2D[3] .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 14 : Comparison of the present and Johnson-Cook fracture locus [3]......................... 19
Figure 15 : Fracture locus 3D [16] .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Damage at steady state of second drawing pass for six damage models: a ) Bai &
Wierzbicki ,b) Xue , c)Lemaitre, d )LEL , e) GTN and f ) modified GTN by Xue [12] ......... 22
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Abstract:
Ductile damage and fracture prediction represent an important challenge in many engineering
applications, especially in forming processes. So, the objective of the present paper is to
present some fracture criteria that are included in libraries of material models, ductile damage
mechanisms dominating at wide range of the stress triaxiality and a detailed calibration
procedure of each models.
1 . Introduction:
Various studies have shown that stress triaxiality is the most important factor that controls
initiation of ductile fracture. In fact, the fracture of ductile metals occurs after micro voids or
shear bands develop in the metal matrix, around inclusions or other discontinuities. In this
study, a series of tests including tensile tests, upsetting tests and shear tests was carried out at
both low and high stress triaxiality to predict the ductile fracture. Recently, many authors such
as Mc Clintock and Rice-Tracey [1], Bao and Wierzbicki[2] have studied the damage
mechanisms, the relation between the equivalent strain fracture versus the stress triaxiality in
the three distinct branches ; For negative triaxiality stress, fracture is governed by shear mode.
For large triaxiality stress, damage is governed by void nucleation, growth and coalescence
mechanisms. And for low triaxiality stress (between the two previous regimes), fracture is
governed by shear and void growth modes relying on combined experimental-numerical and
different approaches namely: uncoupled phenomenological model, coupled phenomenological
model and micromechanics-based models.
Physical mechanisms of the onset damage and fracture must be captured, models have to be
suitable for numerical implementation and models parameters should be convenient for
identification for massive applications are the three simple folds in industrial application to
develop robust damage models.
Our study is organized as follows;
Section 1:“Ductile damage mechanisms” summarizes the mechanisms of ductile
damage
Section 2: “Damage models”
Section 3: “Models calibration”
Page | 1
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
a) b) c)
Figure 1: The processes of voids: a) void nucleation ; b) void growth and c) void coalescence[4]
2. 1. 1. Void nucleation:
The process of void nucleation is strongly dependent on the particle size, shape and strength.
Generally, voids nucleated either by matrix- particle decohesion or by particle cracking. In
this studies, Gurland and Plateau [5] ([2]) proposed an energetic criterion which was
composed by elastic strain energy and crack energy to study and analysis the void nucleation
caused by the cracking particle. Others criterion are based on critical stress, such as, Berg,
Budiansky and others [5] who proposed a phenomenological criterion based on a continuum
plasticity approach. So, the void nucleation process depends on materials microstructure.
2. 1. 2. Void growth:
After void nucleation, the cavity and voids will grow gradually by hydrostatic stress and
plastic deformation. This step of process is dependent on loading conditions and materials
microstructure (cavity size and shape). In fact, Thomason and others [5] have shown, under
high stress triaxiality, that ductile fracture is due to the nucleation and large range of plastic
strain.
2. 1. 3. Void coalescence:
Void coalescence is the final stage of damage and ductile fracture. In this stage, three modes
of damage were observed:
Page | 2
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Page | 3
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Page | 4
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
applied to improve the influence of the stress triaxiality on the nucleation process and
the prediction accuracy by accounting for interaction and final coalescence of voids.
Nonlinear homogenization based approach (this approach is based on
microstructure considerations or micromechanical tests to calibrate models and to
predict fracture ductile.
3. 2. Damage Models:
A number of damage models have been proposed to describe the ductile fracture materials
and to calibrate fracture locus at wide range of the stress triaxiality:
3. 2. 1. Xue and Widerzbicki:[9][13]
Xue and Widerzbicki proposed a fracture model to determine the influence of pressure and
the third deviatoric stress invariant (or the Lode angle parameter) on metal plasticity and
fracture locus. They carried out a series of mechanical tests at different mean stresses and lode
angle, have shown that fracture is postulated to occur when the equivalent plastic strain, the
stress triaxiality and the deviatoric parameter reaches a critical value.
Xue and widerzbicki[13] showed that the fracture strain is always bounded by two lines
corresponding to the axisymmetric stress state and the plane strain state:
- Axisymmetric stress state: (where the superscript ‘‘axi’’ means axisymmetric)[14]
= (1)
= (2)
With: et
:Stress triaxiality,
deviatoric state variable
third invariant of the stress deviator
equivalent stress
effective plastic strain to fracture
hydrostatic stress
are the principal stresses
Wierzbicki and Xue[13], assumed that the drop of material ductility due to the deviatoric
state parameter can be described by a family of elliptic functions[8]:
(3)
In which m is the even integer closest to 1=n where n is the hardening exponent and
Page | 5
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
F( = (4)
Two axisymmetric tests: Notched round bars tensile tests ( small and
large notch)
Pure shear and Transverse plane strain ( Flat dog-bone tests and Flat
goovred tests)
3. 2. 2. Mae and Widerzbicki:[15]
Using a combined experimental-numerical approach, Mae and widerzbicki have shown that
fracture occurs due to two failure mechanisms: At high positive stress triaxiality, the internal
neking of matrix (there exist micro cavity, nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids) and
at negative stress triaxiality, void sheeting due to shear. They indicated that the difference in
the material microstructure leads to various plastic deformation and failure response (they
studied the compression of ductile fracture proprieties of aluminium castings: sand mold vs.
metal mold).
Mae and Widerzbicki applied a total 12 tests, to calibrate and identify the damage
paramaters,including:
6 tensile tests on notched and unotched round bars
6 biaxial loading tests on the flat butterfly specimens, they used the butterfly
specimens with many orientation mounted in the Universal Biaxial Testing
Device( UBTD)
Bao, Mae and Widerzbcki suggested that a fracture locus consist of three branches in the
whole range of the stress triaxiality rather than a monotonic curve, were proposed three
different function of equivalent strain to fracture as:
- In the range dominated by compression, Wierzbicki et al. proposed that the fracture
strain can be expressed by a hyperbolic function of the negative stress triaxiality[15]:
(5)
-In the range of high positive stress triaxialities, an exponential function is widely used
to describe the effective plastic strain to fracture[15]:
F( = (6)
- In the intermediate range, a linear relationship between the effective fracture strain and
the stress triaxiality is simply defined[15]:
, (7)
Page | 6
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
With:
the effective fracture strain under uniaxial tension;
the effective fracture strains under pure shear;
For the Bao–Wierzbicki[8] fracture locus, the round bar tensile tests
were used to calibrate the three coefficients of the first branch , (this three
parameters cannot be obtained at the same time, since only one type of tensile tests
was performed); the combined compression and shear tests and the pure shear tests
were applied to determine the value of
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the Bao, Mae and Wierzbicki fracture locus[15]
(8)
There are three limiting cases in the fracture locus: (corresponding to axial symmetry in
deviatoric compression, 1), (corresponding to plastic plane strain or generalized
shear, 0), and (corresponding to axial symmetry in deviatoric tension, ).
With:
Page | 7
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
, it was shown by Wiederzbicki and Xue [9] (with stress plane condition
, relates the parameters , will be called the lode angle parameter
hereinafter.
After that, Bai and widerzbicki[15] studied the dependence of the stress triaxialities and the
lode angle parameter, the equivalent strain to fracture will be:
The term gives the limit of the fracture locus, , gives the limit
of the fracture locus, and gives the limit of the fracture locus[14];
, ,
(9)
need to be calibrated.
To determinate those parameters, Bai and widerzbicki[16] used two methods of calibration:
(10)
were determined from tensile tests on the smooth or notched round bars.
The is an asymptotic value of the equivalent fracture strain as the stress triaxialities goes to
infinity. So, to directly identify the three parameters a new optimization procedure is
proposed, it is based on an error minimization technique (the MAT-LAB optimization was
used);
Page | 8
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
(11)
where the function of fi is numerically integrated using the trapezoidal method. A short
MATLAB code was programmed and gives the optimized set of the fracture constants.
3. 2. 5. Lode dependent enhanced Lemaitre (LEL) model:
This model is used more in shear dominated, complex forming processes, LEL model [10]
improved the influence of the third stress invariant represented by the lode parameter at low
positive stress triaxiality, under shear dominated loading. It is based on phenomenological
approach, might be used to inaccurate damage localisation prediction at high and low stress
triaxialities.
3. 2. 6. GTN model:
According to Gurson, Tvergaard and Needleman[7], the damage ductile occurs due to
nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids inside the material and the interaction between
voids, which were developed progressively leads to the failure.
The GTN damage potential[7] is:
-1 (12)
The inequality Φ ≤ 0 defines all the admissible stress states of the sheet metal. More precisely;
- Φ<0 : in elastic states
- Φ=0: in elastoplastic states
Page | 9
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
(13)
: the critical void volume fraction at which void coalescence first occurs
: the void volume fraction at final failure
The change of the void volume fraction is caused by ; the growth of the initial void volume
fraction and the nucleation of new voids at the limits of the second phase particles and
inclusion[7]:
(14)
Where:
(15)
(16)
: the total evolution rate of void volume fraction is contributed by both the growth of
existing voids and the nucleation of new voids
: the nucleation rate of void volume fraction
: denotes the volume fraction of void nucleating particles
: is the mean plastic strain value at void nucleation
: is the corresponding standard deviation
Page | 10
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
(y) (17)
(18)
The polynomial of second order for four variable has 15 coefficients, so 15 equations needed
to be solved to obtain the coefficients and 15 numerical simulations of tensile test using GTN
damage model[19].
And we have: ; ; ; ;
Page | 11
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
smallest for biaxial tension with axisymmetric compression L= -1. In addition, the model
predicts a sharp transition from the low-triaxiality regime, with increasing ductility, to the
high-triaxiality regime, with decreasing ductility, as the failure mechanism switches from void
collapse to void growth, and is in qualitative agreement with recent experimental work. (Fig
4)
a) b)
a)
Figure 4 : Conceptual representation of initial stress states on the plane of : a) Equivalent strain to
fracture- stress triaxialities and b) stress triaxialities- lode angle parameter[16]
Page | 12
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Figure 5 :A shematic sketch of upsetting tests: a) test setup ; b) plastic deformation shows the
barrelling effect and c) cracks occur on peripheral surface[20]
Bai and wierzbicki [16] carried out a group compressive tests on different specimens, the
diameters of the cylindrical specimens were fixed with ratios of initial diameter to initial
height D/H : 0.5; 0.8; 1 and 1.5. the final deformed specimens are illustrated in Fig 6, agree
with the experimental results.
a) b)
Figure 6: a) Deformed specimens with different rations showing shear fracture and b) Evolution
stress triaxiality-displacement curves[2]
Fig 5. Shows that the fracture initiation was observed in the equatorial area for all tests,
Comparaisons of the stress triaxiality-displacement curves, it is found that, the evolution
stress triaxiality depends on the height of the specimen.
5. 1. 2. New compression test:
The friction coefficient between specimens and the platform of the testing machine is
responsible for the fracture and the barrel effect in conventional upsetting tests, so, for
removing the undesirable effect of friction, a new configuration specimen was designed,
performed to predict the ductile fracture and shown in Fig 7.
Page | 13
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Fig. 7 (Deformed specimens showing shear fracture) shows that, the deformation fracture is
localized in the gauge section and fracture initiation occurred at the equatorial area, in
addition, friction does not play a role in the test.
a) b)
Figure 7: a) deformed specimens showing shear fracture and b) Evolution Stress triaxiality-
Displacement curves[2] [8]
Page | 14
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Deformed specimens, for the pure shear test, is shown in Fig 8.b The fracture is localized in
the gauge section. However, it was observed that crack grows very rapidly during the test due
to combination of shear and void growth modes.
a) b)
Figure 8: A butterfly specimen of pure shear test: a) undeformed specimen and b) fractured
specimen[2]
a) b)
Figure 9: A butterfly specimen of combined shear and tension test: a) undeformed specimen and b)
fractured specimen[8] [2]
5. 2. 1. Tensile test:
There are also other experimental tests, that are used to calibrate parameter model. In this
study, Y.Bao, T.Wierzbicki[2] are suggested to choose the tensile test carried out on plates or
flat rectangular bars with a circular hole (shown in Fig 10.). In fact, Wierzbicki and others
authors found that fracture, shown in Fig 10. initiated at the middle of circumferential surface
of the cut-out perpendicular to the load.
Page | 15
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
a) b) c)
Fig 10. Shows that the evolution stress triaxiality and displacement depend on notched radius.
In the cup-cone fracture mode, a crack initiated at the center of specimen due to the void
growth.
Page | 16
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Page | 17
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Table 2: Expression for the stress triaxiality and the lode parameter[16]
The value of the stress triaxialities and the lode parameter were calculated from the theoretical
equations proposed by Bai and Al. 2009
5. 5. The fracture locus 2D:
By combining the fracture tests at wide range of stress triaxialities, Bao and wiezbicki
indicated that a fracture locus consisted of three branches, formulated in the space of the
plastic strain to fracture and the stress triaxiality. Bao and Wierzbicki obtained that material
ductility decreases with the increasing stress triaxialities, the evolution of plastic strain to
fracture is not monotonic function.(Fig 13.)
The results show that the effect of stress triaxiality on ductile fracture initiation and on
fracture strain, in fact, three states were observed:
Page | 18
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
In the range of negative stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture decreases
with the stress triaxialitiy and shear fracture dominates in the upsetting tests.
In the range of low stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture increases with the
stress triaxiality and fracture occurs due to a combination of shear and void growth
modes.
In the range of high stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture decreases with
the stress triaxiality and fracture occurs due to void growth mode and coalescence
mechanism.
According to Johnson and cook[8]; Halton and Al[8], in the three range of stress triaxility, the
equivalent strain to fracture decreases. Jahnson and cook carried out tensile tests on notched
and smooth specimens in the range of high stress triaxiality, torsion tests in the range of low
and negative stress triaxiality for seven different materials to compare the equivalent strain to
fracture and to determinate the fracture locus.
Compared to Johnson-cook and Bao-Wierzbicki[2] fracture locus, the results obtained shown
in Fig 14. Indicate that:
In both negative and high stress triaxiality for the both model, the authors observed the
same strain-stress curves, the strain to fracture decreased with the increase of the stress
triaxility.
In the intermediate stress range, Johnson and Halton obtained, with the same material,
a different fracture locus which shows a monotonic decrease of the strain to fracture
by using the torsion and tensile tests.
More recently, the difference between the two models can be explain by the difference
between the tests which were carried out. To remove this error, authors indicate:
No stress concentration
No geometric constraints
The deformation must be accuracy measured in the three regimes
Page | 19
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Page | 20
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
-The uncoupled models employ an indicator -The damage is described by the growth rate of
variable to predict material failure when its the cavities.
critical value is reached.
-Serval recent studies demonstrated the importance of the stress triaxiality, the lode parameter and
in damage prediction.
-The identification of uncoupled models is carried out through the experimental fracture strains for
different loading path; Compression and tensile tests, ….
In this studies, Authors compared the Lemaitre coupled damage model and uncoupled model
proposed by wierzbicki (2008 or 2010) [13]. To identify the damage model parameters, an
experimental- numerical analysis was carried out, based on the compression, torsion and
tensile tests on smooth round bars specimens. In fact, the results show: The both of models
give a good result to identify the damage parameters, but, the Lemaitre model gives in tensile
and compression tests the most accurate results in the range of high stress triaxiality but it
fails to predict fracture in torsion test, in addition, for the uncoupled models proposed by Bao
and wierzbicki[2, 3], the compression test is not suitable for the identification parameters.
6. 2. Micromechanics based models:
In addition to coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models, micromechanics based
models are used to predict ductile fracture and to obtain realistic parameter. Due to its
complexity, this type of models is not employed in the simulation of industrial forming
processes.
Gurson model[7,11]:
This approach is generally used in fracture prediction at low stress triaxiality, in forming
processes and shear dominated loadings. In this micromechanics based model, a variable
damage, is introduced to describe the material degradation due to the presence of void.
GTN model: (Gurson- Tvegaard –Needlman)[7,11]
Tvegaard and Needlman are modified the Gurson model, they indicated that fracture occurs
due to growth and coelesence of voids.
Page | 21
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem
Figure 16: Damage at steady state of second drawing pass for six damage models: a ) Bai &
Wierzbicki ,b) Xue , c)Lemaitre, d )LEL , e) GTN and f ) modified GTN by Xue [12]
Except to GTN model modified by Xue, the others five models give a correct result,
the damage localisation was observed at the wire center, the phenomenological models
used in wire drawing and wire flat rolling processes by Lemaitre, Bai and wierzbicki,
Xue and wierzbicki and LEL provided a good prediction of maximum damage
location and failed to predict the instant of fracture. On the other hand, the GTN model
provided the correct instant of fracture, but, gave not a truth prediction of maximum
damage location. It was due to the fact that the original GTN model does not account
for the “shear” influence.
8 . Conclusions:
A coupled with the numerical simulations and experiments have shown that the fracture
ductility was strongly dependant on the stress triaxiality, the third deviatoric stress invariant
(lode angle parameter) and the equivalent strain to fracture. It was observed; in the range of
negative stress triaxialities, the shear fracture dominates in the upsetting tests, in the range of
high stress triaxialities, the fracture occurs due to the growth of voids in the tensile tests on
smooth and notched round specimens and a combination of shear mode and void growth
mechanism were observed in the range of low stress triaxialities. In addition, the fracture
models used three approaches to predict crack initiation and propagation; Uncoupled
phenomenological models (separate plastic response and ductile damage and failure), Coupled
phenomenological models (dependence plastic response on damage evolution) and CDM
models (damage in continuum mechanics).
Page | 22
References
References
[1] McClintock, F. A., 1968, ‘‘A Criterion of Ductile Fracture By the Growth of Holes,’’
ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35, pp. 363–371.
[2] Bao, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2004. On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress
triaxiality space. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 46 (1), 81–98
[3] Bao, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2004. A comparative study on various ductile crack formation
criteria. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 126 (3), 314–324
[4] Benoit Tanguy1, Jacques Besson, Endommagement Ductile Des Aciers :Identification Des
Modeles A Partir De L’experimentation, Service d’Etudes des Matériaux Irradiés,CEASaclay,
Centre des Matériaux, Mines ParisTech, UMR CNRS7633, Journée MECAMAT « Rupture
Ductile »,2012
[5] M. Zhou* And R. J. Cliftont, Dynamic Ductile Rupture Under Conditions Of Plane Strain,
Int. J. Impact Engng Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 189 206, 1997
[6] T. Pardoen, F. Scheyvaerts, A. Simar, K.L. Nielsen, V. Tvergaard, Void growth and
coalescence in ductile solids with physics based hardening laws, CANMET-Materials, May
10-11, 2011 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
[7] Mohamed ACHOURI, Caractérisation expérimentale et contribution à la modélisation
numérique de l'endommagement en cisaillement des aciers HLE. Applications au procédé de
poinçonnage, le 06 décembre 2012, l’École Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers
[8] Wierzbicki, T., Bao, Y., Lee, Y.-W., Bai, Y., 2005. Calibration and evaluation of seven
fracture models. International Journal ofMechanical Sciences 47 (4–5), 719–743
[9] Liang Xue , Tomasz Wierzbicki, Ductile fracture initiation and propagation modeling
using damage plasticity theory, 2007, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 3276–3293
[10] Junhe Lian*, Yuan Feng, Sebastian Münstermann, A modified Lemaitre damage model
phenomenologically accounting for the Lode angle effect on ductile fracture,2014, Procedia
Materials Science 3 ( 2014 ) 1841 – 1847
[11] Ridha Hambli, Comparison between Lemaitre and Gurson damage models in crack
growth simulation during blanking process, September 2000; International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences
[12] Trong Son Cao, Models for ductile damage and fracture prediction in cold bulk metal
forming processes: a review, 13 August 2015, Int J Mater Form DOI 10.1007/s12289-015-
1262-7
[13] Liang Xue *, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Numerical simulation of fracture mode transition in
ductile plates, 2008, International Journal of Solids and Structures 46 (2009) 1423–1435
[14] Matthew Weyer, An Experimental and Theoretical Study on the Effect of Strain Rate on
Ductile Damage, University of Cape Town, Blast Impact and Survivability Research Unit
Department of Mechanical Engineering, May 2016
References
[15] Mae, H., Teng, X., Bai, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2007. Calibration of ductile fracture
properties of a cast aluminum alloy. Materials Science and Engineering A 459 (1–2), 156–166
[16] Yuanli Bai *, Tomasz Wierzbicki, A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with
pressure and Lode dependence, 2007, International Journal of Plasticity 24 (2008) 1071–1096
[17] Keyan Wang, B. Eng, Calibration Of The Johnson-Cook Failure Parameters As The Chip
Separation Criterion In The Modelling Of The Orthogonal Metal Cutting Process, McMaster
University, March 2016
[18] Abdolvahed KAMI, Bijan Mollaei Dariani, Application Of A Gtn Damage Model To
Predict The Fracture Of Metallic Sheets Subjected To Deep-Drawing, The Publishing House
Proceedings Of The Romanian Academy, Series A, Of The Romanian Academy, Volume 15,
Number 3/2014, Pp. 300–309
[19] Foad Rahimidehgolan, Gholamhossien Majzoobi, Determination of the Constants of
GTN Damage Model Using Experiment, Polynomial Regression and Kriging Methods,
Applied Sciences, MDPI, 2017
[20] Xue Liang, Ductile fracture modeling: theory, experimental investigation and numerical
verification, January 2009, Massachusetts Institue of technology
[21] T.-S. Cao , J.-M. Gachet, P. Montmitonnet, P.-O. Bouchard, A Lode-dependent enhanced
Lemaitre model for ductile fracture prediction at low stress triaxiality, 2014, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics