4.7 Article

A coalescence criterion for porous single crystals

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS
Volume 124, Issue -, Pages 505-525

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2018.10.018

Keywords

Crystal plasticity; Porous materials; Ductile fracture; Void coalescence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Voids can be observed at various scales in ductile materials, frequently of sizes lower than the grain size, leading to porous single crystals materials. Two local deformation modes of porous ductile (single crystals) materials have been identified and referred to as void growth and void coalescence, the latter being characterized by strong interactions between neighboring voids. A simple semi-analytical coalescence criterion for porous single crystals with periodic arrangement of voids is proposed using effective isotropic yield stresses associated with a criterion derived for isotropic materials. An extension of the coalescence criterion is also proposed to account for shear with respect to the coalescence plane. Effective yield stresses are defined using Taylor theory of single crystal deformation, and rely ultimately on the computation of average Taylor factors. Arbitrary sets of slip systems can be considered. The coalescence criterion is assessed through comparisons to numerical limit-analysis results performed using a Fast-Fourier-Transform based solver. A good agreement is observed between the proposed criterion and numerical results for various configurations including different sets of slip systems (Face-Centered-Cubic, Hexagonal Close-Packed), crystal orientations, void shapes and loading conditions. The competition between void growth and void coalescence is described for specific conditions, emphasizing the strong influence of both crystal orientation and void lattice, as well as their interactions. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available