4.7 Article

On the path-dependence of the fracture locus in ductile materials - Analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 157-170

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2012.05.003

关键词

Ductile fracture; Stress triaxiality; Non-proportional loading; Failure locus

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-0851828, CMMI-0748187]
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  3. Division Of Materials Research [0851828] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0748187] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of loading path on the fracture locus was examined theoretically by means of cell model calculations. Two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element analyses were conducted to simulate plastic deformation of a material containing a periodic distribution of initially spherical voids. In the cell model, failure is defined to correspond to an abrupt loss of overall load bearing capacity. The cylindrical unit cells were subjected to loading along several radial paths, characterized by constant values of stress triaxiality. The strain-to-failure was recorded for each path and the locus relating it to triaxiality was thus uniquely determined. The process was repeated for a set of non-radial loading paths in which uniaxial loading was applied up to some strain level, followed by loading at constant triaxiality. For these cases, the time-weighted average value of stress triaxiality was used to plot the fracture locus. It was found that the failure locus for nonradial loadings differs substantially from that for radial paths. In fact, the nonradial locus does not represent a one-to-one relationship between average triaxiality and strain-to-failure. In addition, by varying the strain level E*(e) at which the load path is changed, a family of failure loci is generated, indexed by E*(e). (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据