4.6 Article

Size-dependent yield criterion for single crystals containing spherical voids

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2023.112478

Keywords

Porous materials; Strain gradient plasticity; Crystal plasticity; Limit analysis; Void size effect

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a micromechanics-based yield criterion for a porous single crystal is derived using homogenization and limit analysis. The criterion takes into account the effect of plastic anisotropy and void size on yielding, and is validated against rigorous upper bound yield loci. The criterion has significant implications for studying the mechanical properties of porous materials.
A micromechanics-based yield criterion is derived for a porous single crystal containing a random distribution of spherical voids, using homogenization and limit analysis of a hollow spherical representative volume element obeying a strain gradient crystal plasticity model. The criterion captures the effect of plastic anisotropy due to crystallographic slip on a set of discrete slip systems, as well as the void size dependence of yielding. The yield criterion is formally similar to the well known Gurson model for isotropic porous materials, and reduces to existing results in the literature in the limiting case of large void sizes relative to the length scale in the gradient plasticity model. The yield criterion is validated by comparison with rigorous upper bound yield loci obtained using a numerical limit analysis procedure. Predictions for the size dependence of void growth are obtained by integrating the porous plasticity model, and shown to be consistent with the observations from lower scale discrete dislocation dynamics simulations. The loading path dependence of void growth in the size-independent limit are compared with finite element simulations of void growth in a single crystal using the unit cell model.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available