Towards objective simulation of quasi-static failure using a bounded rate local model with damage

  • Olivier AllixEmail author
  • Dominique Lindner
  • Olivier Paulien-Camy
Computational Mechanics


Today, the realistic simulation of complex industrial problems requires using industrial codes. For the simulation of failure in quasi-static, and if making use of implicit schemes, the convergence is often problematic. In order to ensure convergence and robustness, explicit algorithms are often used. In this case, mass and time scalings are used to allow for quasi-static simulations. How these techniques affect the failure prediction is nevertheless unclear. Moreover, in the case of damage model another difficulty arises, the one of spurious mesh dependency. In order to avoid this problem, the use of non-local models, as for example gradient ones, is the dominant approach. The implementation of such models in industrial software is cumbersome. A simpler possibility is to rely on bounded rate approaches (Allix in Int J Damage Mech 22:808–828, 2013). In fact, these approaches require only local modifications of the constitutive relation. Nevertheless, they have been much less studied and require dynamic analyses to ensure adapted regularisation effects. Considering these two issues, we study, in this paper, the possibility of combining explicit simulations with bounded rate models with damage. The aim is to enable relevant quasi-static damage simulations to perform up to failure. In this context, one main issue concerns the proposal of adapted scaling techniques. This problem is addressed through examples concerning the simulation of failure and the computation of the burst rotating speed of an axisymmetric disk.


Material softening Damage Bounded rate model Mass and time scaling Turbo-machinery disk burst 



  1. Abu Al-Rub RK, Voyiadjis GZ (2006) A finite strain plastic-damage model for high velocity impact using combined viscosity and gradient localization limiters. Int J Damage Mech 15(4):293–334Google Scholar
  2. Allix O (2001) A composite damage meso-model for impact problems. Compos Sci Technol 61:2193–2205Google Scholar
  3. Allix O (2013) The bounded rate concept: A framework to deal with objective failure predictions in dynamic within a local constitutive model. Int J Damage Mech 22:808–828Google Scholar
  4. Allix O, Deü J (1997) Delay damage modelling for fracture prediction of laminated composites under dynamic loading. Eng Trans 45:29–46Google Scholar
  5. Allix O, Dommanget M, Gratton M, Héreil P (2001) A multi-scale approach for the response of a 3d carbon/carbon composite under shock loading. Compos Sci Technol 61(3):409–415Google Scholar
  6. Allix O, Feissel P, Thévenet P (2003) A delay damage mesomodel of laminates under dynamic loading: basic aspects and identification issues. Comput Struct 81(12):1177–1191Google Scholar
  7. Ambati M, Gerasimov T, Lorenzis LD (2015) Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture. Comput Mech 55(5):1017–40Google Scholar
  8. Askes H, Nguyen DCD, Tyas A (2011) Increasing the critical time step: micro-inertia, inertia penalties and mass scaling. Comput Mech 47(6):657–667Google Scholar
  9. Askes H, Rodriguez-Ferran A, Hetherington J (2015) The effects of element shape on the critical time step in explicit time integrators for elasto-dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 101:809–24Google Scholar
  10. Bazant ZP (1976) Instability, ductility, and size effect in strain-softening concrete. J Eng Mech Div 102(2):331–344Google Scholar
  11. Bazant ZP, Jirasek M (2002) Nonlocal integral formulations of plasticity and damage: survey of progress. J Eng Mech 128(11):1119–1149Google Scholar
  12. Benallal A (2008) A note on ill-posedness for rate-dependent problems and its relation to the rate-independent case. Comput Mech 42(2):261–269Google Scholar
  13. Besson J (2010) Continuum models of ductile fracture: a review. Int J Damage Mech 19(1):3–52Google Scholar
  14. Bettinotti O, Allix O, Malherbe B (2014) A coupling strategy for adaptive local refinement in space and time with a fixed global model in explicit dynamics. Comput Mech 53:561–574Google Scholar
  15. Bettinotti O, Allix OO, Perego U, Oancea V, Malherbe B (2014) A fast weakly intrusive multiscale method in explicit dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 100(8):577–595Google Scholar
  16. Bettinotti O, Allix O, Perego U, Oancea V, Malherbe B (2017) Simulation of delamination under impact using a global local method in explicit dynamics. Finite Elem Anal Des 125(8):1–13Google Scholar
  17. Burkhart TA, Andrews DM, Dunning CE (2013) Finite element modeling mesh quality, energy balance and validation methods: a review with recommendations associated with the modeling of bone tissue. J Biomech 46(9):1477–1488Google Scholar
  18. Chung W, Cho J, Belytschko T (1998) On the dynamic effects of explicit FEM in sheet metal forming analysis. Eng Comput 15(6):750–776Google Scholar
  19. Cocchetti G, Pagani M, Perego U (2013) Selective mass scaling and critical time-step estimate for explicit dynamics analyses with solid-shell elements. Comput Struct 127:39–52Google Scholar
  20. Comi C, Perego U (1997) On visco-damage models for concrete at high strain rates. In: Computational plasticity: fundamentals and applications, pp 1551–1555Google Scholar
  21. Court G (2006) Prévision objective de la rupture ductile en grandes déformations sous sollicitation dynamique : Modèle d’épuisement plastique à taux limités., Ph.D. thesis, ENS-Cachan, CachanGoogle Scholar
  22. Criesfield MA (1981) A fast incremental iterative procedure that handles snap-through. Comput Struct 13:55–62Google Scholar
  23. Curran D (1987) Dynamic failure of solids. Phys Rep 147(5–6):253–388Google Scholar
  24. De Borst R (1991) Simulation of strain localization: a reappraisal of the cosserat continuum. Eng Comput 8(4):317–332Google Scholar
  25. Desmorat R, Chambart M, Gatuingt F, Guilbaud D (2010) Delay-active damage versus non-local enhancement for anisotropic damage dynamics computations with alternated loading. Eng Fract Mech 77(12):2294–2315Google Scholar
  26. Flanagan DP, Belytschko T (1984) Eigenvalues and stable time steps for the uniform strain hexahedron and quadrilateral. J Appl Mech 1:35–40Google Scholar
  27. Flatten A, Klingbeil D, Svendsen B (2006) Non-local modeling of thermomechanical localization in metals. PAMM 6(1):369–370Google Scholar
  28. Francfort G, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fractures as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46:1319–42Google Scholar
  29. Geissler G, Kaliske M (2010) Time-dependent cohesive zone modelling for discrete fracture simulation. Eng Fract Mech 77:153–69Google Scholar
  30. Gerasimov T, Noii N, Allix O, Lorenzis LD (2018) A non-intrusive global/local approach applied to phase-field modeling of brittle fracture. Adv Model Simul Eng Sci 5(14):1–30Google Scholar
  31. Goeke E, McClintock F (1975) Fracture of graphite composites under shock loading. J Appl Phys 46:4671–73Google Scholar
  32. Guimard J-M, Allix O, Pechnik N, Thévenet P (2009) Characterization and modeling of rate effects in the dynamic propagation of mode-II delamination in composite laminates. Int J Fract 160(1):55–71Google Scholar
  33. Gulavani O, Hughes K, Vignjevic R (2014) Explicit dynamic formulation to demonstrate compliance against quasi-static aircraft seat certification loads Part I: influence of time and mass scaling. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerosp Eng 228(11):1982–1995Google Scholar
  34. Hereil P-L, Allix O, Gratton M (1997) Shock behaviour of 3d carbon-carbon composite. Journal de Physique IV 7:529–534Google Scholar
  35. Huang L, Zeng R, Zhang X, Li J (2014) Study on plastic deformation behavior of hot splitting spinning of TA15 titanium alloy. Mater Des 58:465–474Google Scholar
  36. Hughes K, Gulavani O, Vuyst TD, Vignjevic R (2014) Explicit dynamic formulation to demonstrate compliance against quasi-static aircraft seat certification loads-Part II: influence of body blocks. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerosp Eng 228(10):1890–1903Google Scholar
  37. Jacques N, Mercier S, Molinari A (2012) Effects of microscale inertia on dynamic ductile crack growth. J Mech Phys Solids 60(4):665–90Google Scholar
  38. Kim J, Kang S-J, Kang B-S (2003) A comparative study of implicit and explicit FEM for the wrinkling prediction in the hydroforming process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 22(7–8):547–552Google Scholar
  39. Kim S, Cha M, Lee I, Lee K, Kwon I, Hwang T (2014) Damage evaluation and strain monitoring of composite plates using metal-coated FBG sensors under quasi-static indentation. Compos Part B: Eng 66:36–45Google Scholar
  40. Koteras JR, Lehoucq RB (2007) Estimating the critical time-step in explicit dynamics using the lanczos method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 109:2780–88Google Scholar
  41. Lasry D, Belytschko T (1988) Localization limiters in transient problems. Int J Solids Struct 24(6):581–597Google Scholar
  42. Lindner D, Mathieu F, Hild F, Allix O, Ha Minh C, Paulien-Camy O (2015) On the evaluation of stress triaxiality fields in a notched titanium alloy sample via integrated dic. J Appl Mech 82:1–10Google Scholar
  43. Lindner D, Allix O, Hild F, Pinelli X, Paulien-Camy O (2016) I-dic-based identification strategy of failure criteria: application to titanium and nickel-based alloys. Meccanica 51(12):3149–3165Google Scholar
  44. Lombardo M, Askes H (2013) Lumped mass finite element implementation of continuum theories with micro-inertia. Int J Numer Methods Eng 96(7):448–466Google Scholar
  45. Lorenz D, Haufe A (2008) Recent advances and new developments in hot forming simulation with LS-DYNA. Metallumformung 2:21–30Google Scholar
  46. Macek RW, Aubert BH (1995) A mass penalty technique to control the critical time increment in explicit dynamic finite element analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(10):1315–1331Google Scholar
  47. Maziére M, Besson J, Forest S, Tanguy B, Chalons H, Vogel F (2009) Overspeed burst of elastoviscoplastic rotating disks, part 1: analytical and numerical stability analyses. Eur J Mech A/Solids 28:36–44Google Scholar
  48. Miehe C, Aldakheel F, Raina A (2016) Phase field modeling of ductile fracture at finite strains: a variational gradient-extended plasticity-damage theory. Int J Plast 84(1):1–32Google Scholar
  49. Natario P, Silvestre N, Camotim D (2014) Web crippling failure using quasi-static FE models. Thin-Walled Struct 84:34–49Google Scholar
  50. Needleman A (1988) Material rate dependence and mesh sensitivity in localization problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 67(1):69–85Google Scholar
  51. Needleman A, Tvergaard V (1994) Mesh effects in the analysis of dynamic ductile crack growth. Eng Fract Mech 47(1):75–91Google Scholar
  52. Olovsson L, Unosson M, Simonsson K (2004) Selective mass scaling for thin walled structures modeled with tri-linear solid elements. Computat Mech 34(2):134–136Google Scholar
  53. Pandolfi A, Ortiz M (2012) An eigenerosion approach to brittle fracture. Int J Numer Methods Eng 92:679–714Google Scholar
  54. Pijaudier-Cabot G, Bazant ZP (1987) Nonlocal damage theory. J Eng Mech 113(10):1512–1533Google Scholar
  55. Plech P, Rousset M (2010) Implicit mass-matrix penalization of hamiltonian dynamics with application to exact sampling of stiff systems. Multiscale Model Simul 8(2):498–539Google Scholar
  56. Prior A (1994) Applications of implicit and explicit finite element techniques to metal forming. J Mater Proces Technol 45(1–4):649–656Google Scholar
  57. Ricci S, Brunig M (2007) Numerical analysis of nonlocal anisotropic continuum damage. Int J Damage Mech 16(3):283–299Google Scholar
  58. Riks E (1979) Incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems. Int J Solids Struct 15:529–51Google Scholar
  59. Robinson E (1944) Bursting tests of steam-turbine disk wheels. Trans ASME 66:373–386Google Scholar
  60. Saanouni K, Hamed M (2013) Micromorphic approach for finite gradient-elastoplasticity fully coupled with ductile damage: formulation and computational aspects. Int J Solids Struct 50(14–15):2289–2309Google Scholar
  61. Sluys L, de Borst R (1992) Wave propagation and localization in a rate-dependent cracked medium model: formulation and one-dimensional examples. Int J Solids Struct 29(23):2945–2958Google Scholar
  62. Sornin D, Saanouni K (2011) About Elastoplastic Nonlocal Formulations with Damage Gradients. Int J Damage Mech 20(6):845–875Google Scholar
  63. Suffis A, Lubrecht TA, Combescure A (2003) Damage model with delay effect. Int J Solids Struct 40(13–14):3463–3476Google Scholar
  64. Wang L, Long H (2011) Investigation of material deformation in multi-pass conventional metal spinning. Mater Des 32(5):2891–2899Google Scholar
  65. Wong C, Dean T, Lin J (2004) Incremental forming of solid cylindrical components using flow forming principles. J Mater Proces Technol 153–154:60–66Google Scholar
  66. Zhou F, Molinari J-F, Shioya T (2005) A rate-dependent cohesive model for simulating dynamic crack propagation in brittle materials. Eng Fract Mech 72:1383–410Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Allix
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dominique Lindner
    • 1
  • Olivier Paulien-Camy
    • 2
  1. 1.LMT, ENS Paris-Saclay/CNRS/Université Paris-SaclayCachan CedexFrance
  2. 2.SAFRAN Helicopter EnginesBordesFrance

Personalised recommendations