See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227158702

Comparison between Gurson and Lemaitre damage models in wiping die

bending processes

Article  in  International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · January 2004

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-003-1701-3

CITATIONS READS

16 647

3 authors, including:

Ridha Hambli Alain Potiron

Université d'Orléans Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers
160 PUBLICATIONS   1,768 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   299 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

anisotropic multi-scale modeling of the dynamic human bone fracture View project

material parameters identification using new coupled methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ridha Hambli on 03 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2004) 23: 451–461
DOI 10.1007/s00170-003-1701-3
O R I GI N A L A R T IC L E
Ali Mkaddem Æ Ridha Hambli Æ Alain Potiron
Comparison between Gurson and Lemaitre damage models
in wiping die bending processes
Received: 15 November 2002 / Accepted: 13 March 2003 / Published online: 19 December 2003
Ó Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003
Abstract This paper is devoted to a finite element pre-
diction of material damage distribution within the
workpiece during wiping die bending processes. The
damage mechanics approach has been used in this
investigation in order to describe the progressive damage
evolution within the sheet. A comparative study between
the results obtained by the simulations using the
Lemaitre and Gurson damage models is presented and
discussed. The elastoplastic constitutive laws are inte-
grated by means of an incremental formulation which
has been implemented in the finite element code
ABAQUS. The punch load, influenced by the friction
coefficient, is investigated for different cases of die ra-
dius. The springback angle, which depends on the elastic
properties of the material, is computed for all cases.
Both models give similar results in the modelling of
bending operations. The Gurson one is shown to have
more flexibility for applications.
Keywords Damage Æ Bending Æ Springback Æ Gurson Æ
Lemaitre
1 Introduction
Sheet metal wiping die bending processes are widely
used for mass production. The design of bending pro-
cesses is connected with time-consuming and costly
experiments. Therefore, the finite element simulation of
the process could be a helpful tool for the designer and
for the quality assurance of the products.
A. Mkaddem (&) Æ A. Potiron
Ensam/CER, Angers-LPMI-ERT,
2 Boulevard du Ronceray, BP3525–49035 Angers, France
E-mail: ali.mkaddem@angers.ensam.fr
R. Hambli
Istia-Lasquo, 62 Avenue Notre Dame du Lac,
49000 Angers, France
Numerical simulations are widely used in industries
to optimise sheet metal forming processes such as
stamping, bending, and hydro-forming. However, in
order to have confidence in the results of such simula-
tions, an accurate material model is required. The
accuracy of a material model is affected by the constit-
utive equations and the values of the material parame-
ters.
To describe the sheet behaviour in a realistic way as
the operation is carried out, various parameters must be
used, such as the material state of hardening and dam-
age, the metallurgical morphology (which concerns the
shape and size of the grains), the crystallographic tex-
ture, and the intergranular structures as they evolve
during the operation.
All the aforementioned physical parameters affect the
geometrical quality and the mechanical state of the
workpiece. Especially, the states of hardening and
damage conditions of the components have a measur-
able effect upon the fatigue life of its future use.
The plastic deformations are localized in the fold and,
generally, more important at surfaces, which leads to
strengthening the part in this zone and may be the cause
of initiation and propagation of cracks as illustrated by
Fig. 1.
In order to accurately simulate sheet metal bending
processes, the numerical prediction of the damage evo-
lution, crack initiation, and propagation can be de-
scribed by means of a continuum damage approach such
as those described by the Lemaitre and Gurson damage
models.
In general, the deformation localization and ductile
fracture in metals involve a considerable amount of
texture evolution [1]. The distribution of the crystallo-
graphic texture of a sheet is not homogeneous and the
plastic deformation and mechanical properties of the
material depend on the evolution of the preferred grain
orientation.
Spherical (Fig. 2a) or elliptical (Fig. 2b) holes, having
an arbitrary orientational distribution as observed by
Tsukrov et al. [2], are one of the main factors governing
452
Fig. 1 Cracking phenomenon
close to outer fold edges
Fig. 2 Micro-defects shape observed in a Longitudinal and b
transversal sections of 0.09% sheet metal carbon steel
the formability of the roll sheets and their behaviour. As
suggested by Gurson [3], void nucleation and growth are
commonly observed as processes which are character-
ized by a large local plastic flow such as ductile fracture.
As mentioned by Sevostianov et al. [4], porosity
enhances plasticity in elastic plastic materials; this phe-
nomenon is observed in aspects of the growth and
coalescence of ductile materials and the resulting chan-
ges in the overall porosity. Examining the fractured
edge, Kalpakjian [5] shows that failure depends on the
micro-defects density, the micro-defects shape, and the
strain hardening ratio. As originally suggested by Kra-
jcinovic [6], the area density of voids and other material
decohesions in a given cross-section provides an intuitive
characterization of the material damaging. Accurate
knowledge of the failure processes is required for the
choice of suitable damage parameters.
In the field of continuum damage mechanics, many
models have been developed by Wang [7, 8],
Chandrakanth et al. [9], and Bonora [10, 11, 12]. These
models have been derived from the concept proposed by
Lemaitre [13] and Chaboche [14, 15] which allows the
prediction of damage evolution under different stress
state conditions.
A conclusion drawn from the above papers is that the
description of the progressive damage evolution leading
to crack initiation and propagation must take into ac-
count the finite element simulation of bending processes.
In such a situation, the concept of continuum damage
mechanics can be applied to describe the damage process
of the material before the final fracture.
In this paper, Gurson [9] and Lemaitre
s [10] behav-
iour laws coupled with damage have been retained to
simulate the process. To compare the performances of
both theories, a comparative study has been carried out
between the results obtained by the simulation.
After bending, springback occurs upon the removal
of the tool [1, 2, 3, 4]. The amount of elastic recovery
depends on the stress level and the modulus of the
elasticity of the material. Most finite element simulations
of sheet metal bending have focussed on the prediction
of the part springback during air bending processes.
Such efforts typically involve the use of 2D models [2, 5,
6, 7]. However, little work has been done in the past to
predict springback during wiping die bending processes.
In order to improve the accuracy of the wiping die
bending process, the material properties
variation dur-
ing and after bending must be predicted, especially the
damage contour within the sheet.
The accuracy of the springback prediction depends
on the accuracy of the constitutive equations and their
corresponding material parameters. Springback is also
sensitive to a range of material and process parameters,
such as strain hardening [11, 12, 13, 14], evolution of
elastic properties [15, 16], elastic and plastic anisotropy
[16], and the presence of a Bauschinger effect [13, 17, 18,
19].
The elastic properties
variation is the consequence of
the damage evolution generated by the plastic defor-
mation as stated by Lemaitre [20].
In order to investigate the sensitivity of sheet
springback simulations, the Lemaitre and Gurson
 453

damage models have been used in this work, which

allows the study of the influence of the properties

variations on the final quality of the parts.

2 Modelling of the sheet behaviour

Industrial applications like deep drawing, blanking

processes, and bending are all characterized by the
presence of small zones where damage accumulates
further as plastic deformations localize. The correct
description of the mechanical behaviour of the material
in these small zones is important.
In order to predict damage evolution within the sheet, Fig. 3 Hardening Law
the continuum damage mechanics approach has been
applied as a means to describe the workpiece behaviour The derivative form of / gives the rising gradient of
during its forming process. The conditions for initiation the damage noted HG:
and growth of micro-cracks in metals have been studied @/
extensively using micromechanics analysis. It has been HG ¼ ð4Þ
@
ePl
observed from metallurgical test results that ductile
fracture occurs due to void nucleation, growth, and As defined by Crisfield [24], the normal to the frontier
coalescence into micro-cracks. of the yield function is deduced from the derivative form
The application of damage theories allows for the of f by r. it is generally noted by a and written in the
identification of the cause of defects, the prediction of vectorial form:
ductile fracture during forming processes, and the eval-
@f @f 3
uation of the material properties
variation generated by a¼ ¼ ¼ Ls ð5Þ
the damage. Such variations have significant effects on @r @s 2req
the fatigue life of the workpieces. where s is the deviator stress and L is a diagonal
In this investigation, Gurson [9] and Lemaitre [10] matrix.
behaviour laws coupled with damage have been retained The normality rule implicates that the plastic strain
to simulate the wiping die bending process. To study the increment is calculated normally to the yield function
performance of both theories, a comparative study has frontier. Moreover, it can be written:
been carried out between the numerical results.
dePl ¼ d
ePl  a ð6Þ
where d
ePl is the Lagrange multiplier defined by:
3 Lemaitre model
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pl 2 PlT
1 Pl
The von Mises criterion are taken as the basis of the d
e ¼ e_ L e_ ð7Þ
3
theoretical development of the constitutive equations.
T
h i T
The damage evolution is based on the isotropic and dePl ¼ dePlT ¼ dePl Pl Pl
x ; dey ; dez ; dcxy ; dcxz ; dcyz is
assumption as suggested by different authors [6, 14, 15, the vectorial form of the plastic strain rate.
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. The yield function, depending on When the material flow occurs, the expression of the
the equivalent stress, the hardening law, the variable D, yield function becomes:
and also the plastic strain, is given by:



 req
 f ¼ G 2~e
3d
ePl
ry þ R ~ ð1
D Þ ¼ 0 ð8Þ
f req ;
ePl ; D ¼
ry
R~
ePl ; D ð1Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
D T
where G is the shear modulus, ~e ¼ 32 ^e L
1^e, and
As illustrated by Fig. 3, the hardening law R~ is expressed Total
^e ¼ eEl
n þ de as they are defined by Hibbit et al. [25].
by:
The nonlinear Eq. 8 can be resolved using the


~¼K
R ~
ePl n ð2Þ Newton-Raphson iterative method. This approach leads
to the final expression of the plastic corrector as written
where K~ ¼ K ð1
DÞ is the hardening modulus of the in the following relation:
puissance hardening law and n is the hardening expo-
nent. CnPl
NEWT




The damage evolution is taken to be linear. It de- G0 ð1
DÞ 2~e
3d
ePl ~ ePl
n
1
ð1
DÞ ry þ R
n
1
pends on the equivalent plastic strain and is written as: ¼
3G0 ð1
DÞ þ HD þ ðHG G0 ð2~e
3d
ePl ÞÞ


D ¼ /
ePl ð3Þ ð9Þ
454

where ~ is an elastic parameter of material and depends on

K

 the damage effect, as well as on Young
s modulus and
~
ePl
@R
HR ¼ ð10Þ the shear modulus. Then:
@
ePl
~ ð DÞ ¼ K0 ð1
DÞ
K ð24Þ
and
where
@req 
 
~ HG
HD ¼ Pl
¼ ð1
DÞHR
ry þ R ð11Þ E0
@
e K0 ¼ ð25Þ
3ð1
2mÞ
The theory of isotropic plasticity leads to the rela-
tionship between the deviatoric stress and the deviatoric and
strain such as:
~ ¼
K0 @D ¼
K0 HG @
ePl
@K ð26Þ
@s ¼ AD @^e ð15Þ
Taking this last expression into account, Eq. 19 and
where s is the deviatoric form of stress and AD is the Eq. 23 lead to:
matrix defined as presented below:
" ~ m
3K0 HG @
ePl em
@rm ¼ 3K@e ð27Þ
req
1
AD ¼ L
<D and then:
~e
! # ~ T @e
K0 HG @
ePl jjT e
@r ¼ AD @^e þ Kjj ð28Þ
HG
þ   ssT
2G~e ð1 þ BD Þð1
DÞ þ H3G ð2~e
3d
ePl Þ It can be demonstrated that the equivalent plastic
strain can be written as:
ð16Þ
T
where BD ¼ H3GD , G ¼ G0 ð1
DÞ is the shear modulus, and 3G^e L
1 @^e
@
ePl ¼ ð29Þ
<D is the expression given in the next relation: ~e½HD þ 3G þ G0 HG ð2~e þ 3d
ePl Þ
 
3 HD Pl ð1
DÞ Substituting @
ePl with its expression in the relationship
<D ¼ 1
d
e   of Eq. 28:
2req req ~e ð1þBD Þð1
DÞþ H3G ð2~e
3d
ePl Þ

ð17Þ 1 T ~ T @e
@r ¼ AD I
jj @e þ Kjj
3
Also, the relationship leading to the calculation of the ^eT L
1 @^eð1
DÞ
stress increment from the strain increment can be found.
K0 HG jem  
It is already well known that: ~e ð1 þ BD Þð1
DÞ þ H3G ð2~e
3d
ePl Þ
ð30Þ
e ¼ e þ jem ; e ¼ ^e ð18Þ
where After some modifications, the last term has to be
modified so that de will appear. Then a new expression is
1 1
 found in such a manner that:
em ¼ j T e ¼ ex þ ey þ ez ð19Þ
3 3  T  
1 1
and jT ¼ ð111000Þ. jem eT L
1 @e ¼ jjT eeT I
jjT L
1 I
jjT @e ð31Þ
3 3
It can also be written as follows:
1 The substitution of Eq. 31 in Eq. 30 transforms it
e ¼ e þ jjT e ð20Þ into:
3 
1 T ~ T @e
The differentiation of the next relation gives: @r ¼ AD I
jj @e þ Kjj
 3
1 T
@^e ¼ I
jj @e ð21Þ K0 ð1
DÞHG
3
 
~e ð1 þ BD Þð1
DÞ þ H3G ð2~e
3d
ePl Þ
where I is the unit matrix.
On the other hand, we have:    
T T 1 T T
1 1 T
 jj ee I
jj L I
jj @e ð32Þ
r ¼ s þ jrm ð22Þ 3 3
where The expression above relayed the stress increment to
1 the strain increment thanks to the consistent tangent
~
rm ¼ jT r ¼ 3KðDÞe m ð23Þ operator KtgD given in the following expression:
3
 455
"
~ G
KH plastic strain. q1, q2, q3 are material parameters. The
KtgD ¼ AD
  ranges of values reported in the literature [27] and [29],
~e ð1 þ BD Þð1
DÞ þ H3G ð2~e
3d
ePl Þ as specified for typical metals, are q1=1.0–1.5, q2=1.0,
  !  #
1 T T
1 1 T and q3=q12=1.0–2.25. The original Gurson model is
T T
jj ee I
jj L I
jj þ Kjj ~ T
recovered when q1=q2=q3=1.0. The plastic strain is
3 3 assumed to be normal to the yield function:
ð33Þ @U
e_ Pl ¼
e_ Pl ð36Þ
@r
The hardening of
the fully dense matrix material is
4 Gurson model described by r0 ¼ r0
e_ Pl . The evolution of the equiva-
lent plastic strain in the matrix material is obtained from
The concept of continuum damage mechanics as ob- the following equivalent plastic work expression:
served by Kachanov [26] is based on the isotropic dis-
tribution of the spherical voids existing in the matrix ð1
f Þr0
e_ Pl ¼ r : e_ Pl ð37Þ
material. Under the critical conditions of loading, the
growth of voids is inevitable when material flow occurs. The total change in void volume fraction is given as:
Later, the increase of micro-defects density leads to a
cracking phenomenon and consequently to failure. The f_ ¼ f_gr þ f_nucl ð38Þ
relationships defining the model are expressed in terms where f_gr expressed the growth of existing voids and
of the void volume fraction, named f [27]. It is defined as f_nucl expressed the nucleation of new voids. Growth of
the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume of the existing voids is based on the law of conservation of
the material. It follows that f=1)r, where r is the rela- mass and is expressed in terms of the voids fraction:
tive density of a material defined as the ratio of the
volume of solid material to the total volume of material. f_gr ¼ ð1
f Þe_Pl : I ð39Þ
f=0 implies that material is fully dense and f=1 implies
that the material is completely void and has no stress- The nucleation of voids is given by a strain-controlled
carrying capacity. Gurson [3] proposed a yield condition relationship:
as a function of the void volume fraction. Later,
Tvergaard [28] modified this yield condition and trans- f_nucl ¼ A
e_ Pl ð40Þ
formed it into the following form: where A is an exponential function of
ePl and the volume
 2   fraction of the nucleated voids is as given in the fol-
req 3rH

U¼ þ2q1 f cosh
q2
1 þ q3 f 2 ¼ 0; lowing expression:
ry 2ry 
2
ð34Þ Pl
1
e
eN

2
fN sN
A ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi e ð41Þ
where sN 2p
1 The normal distribution of the nucleation strain has a
rH ¼
r : I ð35Þ
3 mean value eN and a standard deviation sN. fN is the

Pl 
Pl 
and r0
e ¼ ry þ R~
e is the yield stress of the fully volume fraction of the nucleated voids during the ten-
dense matrix material as a function of the equivalent sion case. The complete list of parameters used for the
Gurson model simulation is recapitulated in Table 1.
Table 1 Gurson parameters used for simulation Table 2 gives a comparison between the Lemaitre and
Gurson damage models. The total number of parame-
q1 q2 q3 r0 eN sN fN
ters is computed for each model.
1.50 1.10 2.25 1 0.10 0.05 0.04 Gurson flow stress (Eq. 34) depends on a scalar
damage variable f describing the void volume fraction.
Table 2 Comparison between Lemaitre and Gurson damage models

Lemaitre model Gurson model

Microcracks
Damage D ¼ A ATotal f_ The growth rate of the micro-void volume fraction f_ ¼ f_gr þ f_nucl


D ¼ /
ePl

Pl rH
Variables
e ; req Tr e_Pl
: First
 invariant
of the plastic

strain rate tensor

n  req 2 3rH 2

Yield function f ¼ req
ð1
DÞ ry þ K
ePl ¼0 U ¼ ry þ2q1 f cosh
q2 2ry
1 þ q3 f ¼ 0
Young
s Modulus E=E0(1)D) (variable) E=E0 (fixed)
Application Shearing processes Tensile and compressive processes
Damage parameters 5 parameters 7 parameters
456

The model allows for the damage prediction of porous element (F.E.) mesh, including element splitting, sepa-
materials. The normality assumption ensures that plastic rating of nodes, element deletion, and stiffness F.E.
dilation can occur if both the mean stress and damage decreasing. This last technique has been used in this
values are non-zero.
The first invariant of the plastic work in order to simulate crack propagation. During the
strain rate tensor Tr e_Pl is the main variable of the analysis, the initiation of a crack is assumed to occur at
damage evolution (Eq. 39). any point in the structure where the damage reaches its
In the past few years several different approaches critical value Dc. The crack propagation is simulated by
were developed and applied to the analysis of ductile the propagation of a completely damaged area. From a
fracture, commonly known as the coupled damage numerical point of view, the damage value is abruptly set
approach
, incorporating the accumulation of damage in to the value DR (DR1). This method leads to a decrease
the constitutive equations. The first attempts in this field in the stiffness of the concerned elements.
of research were made by Gurson who developed a
ductile damage macroscopic constitutive law based on
micro-void growth and by Tvergaard [28] who improved 5 Simulation of wiping die bending operation
Gurson
s model by including some coalescence effects.
These initial investigations and other subsequent devel- The bent part characteristics are affected by several
opments enabled the development of a continuous factors. In this study, only the influence of the die shape
damage mechanics model for ductile fracture by is treated. The material parameters obtained by tensile
Lemaı̂tre. The main advantage of the coupled damage tests are recapitulated in Table 3.
approach is that it allows the yield surface of the The meshing of the part is carried out by using tri-
material to be modified by the density changes and void angular and quadrangular node continuum elements.
growth induced by the accumulation of damage. 1192 elements are used for the mesh. The tool (punch,
The finite element model, using Gurson
s yield crite- die, and blank holder) is modelled by adopting analyti-
rion, allows for the prediction of the damage evolution cal rigid bodies. The mesh region and the bending
during the plastic loading of structures. The model geometry are shown in Fig. 4.
assumes that throughout the process, the matrix mate- The data used in the numerical modelling are
rial work hardens according to the power law given in reported in Table 4. All parameters remain constant
Eq. 34. The Gurson model assumes that the total vol- except for the die radius.
ume of voids grows, consequently weakening the mate- Rp and Rd are the punch and the die radius, respec-
rial. However, one should be aware of the fact that the tively. J is the clearance between die and punch, C is the
work hardening rate may change at larger strains punch stroke according to lower springback angles in
beyond the start of necking. The model simulates a industrial press machines, a is the bending angle, and t is
weakening of the material due to the propagation of the sheet thickness.
damage but does not include a further failure (cracking)
of the blank material.
The literature values for the model parameters (q1, q2, Table 3 Elastic and hardening parameters
q3, eN, sN, fN, r0) for typical metals were used. These
E0 ry ~k n m0 HG
values showed sufficient similarity between the simulated
GPa MPa MPa – – –
and the actual results from the tensile test [31].
It has to be remarked that in the constitutive frame- 200 560 800 0.745 0.28 0.4
work proposed by Lemaitre, damage affects internal
associated variables, such as strain, the yield condition,
and Young
s modulus. According to this approach,
when damage reaches its critical value, the material
stiffness is reduced to zero. Contrary to the Gurson
approach, the Lemaitre approach allows for the simu-
lation of crack initiation and propagation within the
workpiece.
When the critical Lemaitre damage value is satisfied
within an element, the element fractures and cracks
occur. The direction of crack propagation and the crack
tip position are then determined by the value contour of
the fracture or damage value at each element of the
mesh.
For the simulation of processes where rupture is to be
considered, it is necessary to develop and apply methods
using mechanical fracture models where a material sep-
aration must be predicted. There are at least four pos-
sible methods to simulate a crack propagation in a finite Fig. 4 Mesh used for the fold zone

Table 4 Process parameters for numerical model
RP Rd t J C a
mm mm mm mm mm
4 2-3-4-5-6 4 4 29
Table 5 Friction coefficient for the contact modelling [32]
Surfaces Punch Die Blank holder
Blank top 0.09 – 0.15
Blank bot – 0.15 – influence simulations.
The contact model is simulated by the coulomb fric-
tion law. In industrial processes, lubrication is mostly
used in order to reduce the tool
s wear and friction. For
this reason, relative sliding between punch and blank is
modelled by adopting a low friction coefficient [32]. The
l-coefficients used for numerical modelling are reported
in Table 5.
The computation results, corresponding to different
displacement steps of the punch penetration are pre-
sented in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the springback
takes place when the punch is removed from the sim-
ulation.
6 Simulation results
6.1 Punch load
The punch load is investigated during the bending
operation. The numerical calculation using the Lemaitre
and Gurson models are superimposed as shown in
Fig. 6.
Figure 6a describes the load evolution of the bending
process with various die radii obtained by finite element
simulation. At the initial stage of the bending process,
material first flows at the fold zone. With the punch
force, the blank comes into contact with the punch and
is drawn into the die. Although a large displacement
occurs in the corner, the large deformation is located in
this zone. A severe gradient of stress exists in this part
when tensile strain outside the fold is excessive [33].
Excessive tensile strain will causes a high damage dis-
tribution due to the growth and nucleation of micro
defects. However, the nucleation of voids is rather large
in comparison to the growth of voids as can be seen in
Fig. 6b.
Fig. 5 Deformed configuration at different steps
457
The bending force curve versus punch penetration is
affected by the damage of the sheet. The results show
(°) that the curves are superimposed until a punch pene-
tration of about 7 mm, and there is a significant differ-
90 ence between both evolutions for higher punch
penetration.
In Fig. 6a it can be observed that the punch load
increases sharply, especially for low values of the die
radius, reaching a maximum value, and then the force
decreases rapidly and similarly. The curves fit well to-
gether with a higher maximum force without damage
Figure 7 shows the evolution of maximum bending
force versus the die corner radius obtained by the dif-
ferent simulations; without damage influence and, also,
using Gurson and Lemaitre models. The punch pene-
tration corresponding to the maximum force values for
each configuration is also reported in Fig. 7.
It can be observed that the predicted maximum
bending force decreases with an increasing corner die
radius. The curves have the same trend; nevertheless,
there is a significant difference between curves with and
without damage, especially for low values of the die
radii.
Figure 7 shows that the damage affects the maximum
bending force especially for a small value of the die
radius. As observed, the difference between Lemaitre
and Gurson models does not reach 2.5%.
6.2 Springback
Corrections for springback are essential during die de-
sign in order to obtain specified final shapes.
Figure 8 shows the effects of the die radius on the
springback angle obtained by simulation with and
without damage influence. When damage is accounted
for, it can be observed that the springback is lower as a
consequence of the material parameters
variation,
especially the elastic modulus and the strain within the
fibres. The difference between the curves decreases with
the increase of the die radius. The decrease is attributed
to the damage reduction within the sheet for higher die
radius values.
The springback angle increases rapidly against the die
radius. The simulation results computed by both models
give similar results with a deviation less then 4%.
6.3 Damage evolution
Damage evolution versus arc width curves for the wiping
die bending process are shown in Fig. 9. The damage is
computed at the outer surface of the fold zone. Both
damage curves, plotted for a die radius of 2 mm, evolve
similarly, reaching their maximum in the central zone of
the fold and then fall to zero.
The Lemaitre formulation gives a larger value than
the Gurson one. The difference noticed especially at the
458

Fig. 6 a Punch force evolution

and b Damage distribution
using the Gurson model and the
Lemaitre one when the die
radius changes from 2 mm to
6 mm during the bending
operation
 459

Fig. 8 Springback angle computed with Lemaitre and Gurson

models

can be noted that for low values of the die radius, the
Fig. 7 Maximum load versus punch penetration for different springback error between the Lemaitre model and the
values of the die radius Gurson one increases sharply, whereas it decreases for
bending force. For high values of the die radius, the
maximum value is essentially due to the choice of bending force evolves similarly for both models. The
damage parameters for modelling. difference in springback angle becomes considerable,
In order to evaluate the reliability of each method, reaches a maximum, and falls slightly as can be observed
Lemaitre and Gurson, error is quantified using the fol- in Fig. 10.
lowing relations: In spite of the difference, which is essentially due to
the choice of problem parameters particularly for the
jhLem
hGur j Gurson simulation, it can be concluded that the two
vh ð%Þ ¼
hLem models give similar results. The maximum error reached
 Punch  is 3.7%.
F Punch 
Lem
FGur
vF punch ð%Þ ¼ Punch
FLem
7 Discussion and comparison
vh is the error associated with the spring back angle
obtained by means of the two models and vF Punch is the The comparative study of numerical computation using
error associated with the punch load during bending. It Gurson and Lemaitre models shows that finite element

Fig. 9 Damage evolution at the

outer fold zone for Rd=2 mm
460
Fig. 10 Springback and punch load errors between the Lemaitre
and Gurson models
Table 6 Increment number required for convergence
Rd (mm) 2 3 4 5 6 for the sheet metal forming problems where it is not
Lemaı̂tre model 247 223 218 219 233
Gurson model 243 210 216 211 227
modelling using the Lemaitre damage law in describing
the operation of wiping die bending is more costly.
Incidentally, the total increment number computed
when the Lemaitre model is adopted is higher than the
one required for the convergence using Gurson model.
In fact, the CPUS(Computer Processor Units)-time,
which is tied to the increment number, is more consid-
erable when the Lemaitre model is used for numerical
modelling. Numerical results are reported for two
models in Table 6.
However, Lemaitre assumes that damage evolves in
the same way under a state of compression as well as
under a state of tension. Thus, to apply Lemaitre law to
describe sufficiently and realistically material damage
and response during bending, damage must be deacti-
vated for a negative value of hydrostatic stress (Eq. 23).
Otherwise, simulation can lead to nonrealistic predic-
tions in wiping die bending processes as shown in [34].
In addition, damage parameters are very difficult to
describe by experimental methods, which are the only
way to do so for Lemaitre damage characterisation.
Gurson ones, on the other hand, are adjusted theoreti-
cally and the choice of parameters is more flexible
compared to Lemaitre ones.
As found by Hambli [30], the Gurson model is not
able to predict the fracture propagation in a realistic way
during shearing processes; he showed that only the Le-
maitre damage law can give good results. Throughout
the shearing processes, the Lemaitre model can also be
used in wiping die bending processes when carefully
applied. Crack initiation and propagation can be accu-
rately predicted by means of the Gurson damage model.
From a practical point of view, the simulation can
provide useful information about the influence of the
tool
s design, especially the die shape, on the quality of
the final product.
8 Conclusion
In this work, a numerical simulation of wiping die
bending processes using the continuum damage
mechanics approach has been applied in the modelling
of the operation. The Lemaitre damage model was
implemented in a finite element code allowing for the
description of the damage evolution within the sheet.
The comparative study between the results obtained
by the simulations using Gurson and Lemaitre models
showed that the material behaviour has to be accurately
known, especially in accounting for damage evolution
and rupture simulation. Both models give similar results
on springback prediction with a deviation less than 4%.
The 2D simulation provides a good modelling tool
necessary to go into more detail. Stretching phenomena
and the boards effects are well known in a bent product,
and they cannot be observed by adopting a 2D simula-
tion. In fact, a 3D simulation of wiping die bending
operations becomes necessary in order to predict real-
istically the final state of damage, bending part aptitude,
and the geometry of the final product.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Deville S.A
Industry for its technical support.
References
1. Tang CY, Tai WH (2000) Material damage and forming limits
of textured sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 99:185–140
2. Tsukrov I, Kachanov M (2000) Effective moduli of an aniso-
tropic material with elliptical holes of arbitrary orientational
distribution. Int J Solids Struct 37:5919–5941
3. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by
void nucleation and growth, part I, yield criteria and flow rules
for porous ductile media. Trans ASME, J Eng Mater Technol
99:2–15
4. Sevostianov I, Kachanov M (2001) On the yield condition for
anisotropic porous materials. Mater Sci Eng A313:1–15
5. Kalpakjian S (1991) Manufacturing process for engineering
materials, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, USA
6. Krajcinovic D (1983) Constitutive equations for damaging
materials. J Appl Mech 50:355–360
7. Wang TJ (1992) Unified CDM model and local criterion for
ductile fracture-I, unified CDM model for ductile fracture. Eng
Fract Mech 42:177–183
8. Wang TJ (1994) Further investigation of a new continuum
damage mechanics criterion for ductile fracture: experimental
verification and applications. Eng Fract Mech 48:217–230
9. Chandrakanth S, Pandey PC (1995) An isotropic damage
model for ductile material. Eng Fract Mech 50:457–465
10. Bonora N (1997) A linear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng
Fract Mech 58:11–28
11. Bonora N (1988) Low cycle fatigue life estimation for ductile
metals using a nonlinear continuum damage mechanics model.
Int J Struct 35:1881–1894

12. Bonora N, Salvini P, Lecoviello F (1996) Experimental iden-
tification of damage evolution law in Al-Li2091 alloy. XXV
AIAS National meeting, Galipoli, pp 345–355
13. Lemaitre J, Chaboche JL (1988) Endommagement, mécanique
des matériau solides. Dunod, Paris
14. Chaboche JL (1988) Continuum damage mechanics. Part I:
general concepts. J Appl Mech 55:59–64
15. Chaboche JL (1988) Continuum damage mechanics. Part II:
damage growth, crack initiation, and crack growth. J Appl
Mech 55:65–72
16. Ye D, Wang Y (2001) An approach to investigate pre-nucle-
ation fatigue damage of cyclically loaded metals using Vickers
micro hardness tests. Int J Fatigue 23:85–91
17. Widmark M, Melander A, Meurling F (2000) Low cycle con-
stant amplitude fully reversed strain controlled testing of low
carbon and stainless sheet steels for simulation of straightening
operations. Int J Fatigue 22:307–317
18. Simo JC, Taylor RL (1985) Consistent tangent operator for
rate independent elastoplasticity. J Comput Meth Appl Mech
Eng 48:101–118
19. Simo JC, Ju JW (1987) Strain and stress based continuum
damage models I: formulation. Int J Solids Struct 7:821–840
20. Simo JC, Ju JW (1987) Strain and stress based continuum
damage models II: computational aspects. Int J Solids Struct
23:841–869
21. Doghri I (1993) Fully implicit integration and consistent tan-
gent modulus in elastoplasticity. Int J Numerical Methods Eng
36:3915–3932
22. Doghri I (1995) Numerical implementation and analysis of a
class of metal plasticity models coupled with ductile damage.
Int J Numerical Methods Eng 38:3403–3431
23. Murakami S (1998) Mechanical modelling of material damage.
Trans ASME, J Appl Mech 55:280–286
24. Crisfield MA (1991) Basic plasticity, non-linear finite element
analysis of solids and structures, Mc-Graw Hill, Great Britain,
pp 152–199
View publication stats
461
25. Hibbit K, Sorensen Inc (1995) Mechanical constitutive theories.
In: ABAQUS theory manual, version 5.5, pp 4.1.1.1–4.3.4.3
26. Kachanov LM (1986) Introduction to continuum damage
mechanics, mechanics of elastic stability. Kluwer, USA
27. Hibbit K (2001) Porous metal plasticity. In: ABAQUS/Stan-
dard user
s manual, vol II, version 6.2, Sorensen Inc, pp 11.2.7–
1–11.2.7–6
28. Tvergaart V (1991) Mechanical modelling of ductile fracture.
Mech 26:11–16
29. Hambli R, Potiron A (2001) Damage and fracture prediction in
bending process using 3D finite element model. In: Proceedings
of the 9th international conference on sheet metal, Leuven,
Belgium, pp 229–236
30. Hambli R, Potiron A (2001) Comparison between Lemaitre
and Gurson damage models in crack growth simulation during
blanking process. In: Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on sheet metal, Leuven, Belgium, pp 555–562
31. Klingenberg W, Singh UP (2003) Finite element simulation of
the punching/blanking process using in-process characterisa-
tion of mild steel. J Mater Process Technol 134(March):296–
302
32. Magny C (2002) Lois de frottement évolutives destinées à la
simulation numérique de l
emboutissage. La Revue de Métal-
lurgie – CIT/Science et Génie des Matériaux, pp145–156
33. LP Lei, SM Hwang, BS Kang (2000) Finite element analysis
and design in stainless steel sheet forming and its experimental
comparison. J Mater Process Technol 110:70–77
34. Mkaddem A, Huneau B, Lebrun JL, Boude S (2003) Experi-
mental quantification of damage in sheet metal bending pro-
cess: comparison with numerical prediction. In: Proceedings of
the 10th international conference on sheet metal, Belfast, North
Ireland