Advertisement

Computational Mechanics

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 1429–1443 | Cite as

Element-wise algorithm for modeling ductile fracture with the Rousselier yield function

  • P. AreiasEmail author
  • D. Dias-da-Costa
  • J. M. Sargado
  • T. Rabczuk
Original Paper

Abstract

Within the theme of ductile fracture in metals, we propose an algorithm for FEM-based computational fracture based on edge rotations and smoothing of complementarity conditions. Rotation axes are the crack front nodes in surface discretizations and each rotated edge affects the position of only one or two nodes. Modified edge positions correspond to the predicted crack path. To represent softening, porous plasticity in the form of the Rousselier yield function is used. The finite strain integration algorithm makes use of a consistent updated Lagrangian formulation which makes use of polar decomposition between each increment. Constitutive updating is based on the implicit integration of a regularized non-smooth problem. The proposed alternative is advantageous when compared with enriched elements that can be significantly different than classical FEM elements and still pose challenges for ductile fracture or large amplitude sliding. For history-dependent materials, there are still some transfer of relevant quantities between meshes. However, diffusion of results is more limited than with tip or full remeshing. To illustrate the advantages of our approach, fracture examples making use of the Rousselier yield function are presented. The Ma-Sutton crack path criterion is employed. Traditional fracture benchmarks and newly proposed verification tests are solved. These were found to be very good in terms of crack path and load/displacement accuracy.

Keywords

Fracture Plasticity Porous Ductile 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Pedro Areias gratefully acknowledges the financing from the “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” under the Project PTDC/EME-PME/108751 and the Program COMPETE FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-010267. Michael Sargado and Timon Rabczuk would like to acknowledge the partial financial support of the Framework Programme 7 Initial Training Network Funding under Grant No. 289361 “Integrating Numerical Simulation and Geometric Design Technology”.

References

  1. 1.
    Antman SS (2005) Nonlinear problems of elasticity, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aravas N (1987) On the numerical integration of a class of pressure-dependent plasticity models. Int J Numer Meth Eng 24:1395– 1416Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Areias P (2011) Simplas. https://ssm7.ae.uiuc.edu:80/simplas. Accessed 13 Dec 2012
  4. 4.
    Areias P, Belytschko T (2006) Analysis of finite strain anisotropic elastoplastic fracture in thin plates and shells. J Aerosp Eng 19(4):259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Areias P, César de Sá JMA, Conceição António CA (2003) A gradient model for finite strain elastoplasticity coupled with damage. Finite Elem Anal Des 39:1191–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Areias P, Dias-da-Costa D, Alfaiate J, Júlio E (2009) Arbitrary bi-dimensional finite strain cohesive crack propagation. Comput Mech 45(1):61–75MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Areias P, Dias-da Costa D, Infante Barbosa J (2012) A new semi-implicit formulation for multiple-surface flow rules in multiplicative plasticity. Comput Mech 49:545–564MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T (2010) Smooth finite strain plasticity with nonlocal pressure support. Int J Numer Methods Eng 81: 106–134zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Areias P, Rabczuk T (2012) Finite strain fracture of plates and shells with configurational forces and edge rotation. Int J Numer Methods Eng (Accepted)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Areias P, Ritto-Corrêa M, Martins JAC (2010) Finite strain plasticity, the stress condition and a complete shell model. Comput Mech 45:189–209MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Areias P, Van Goethem N, Pires EB (2011) A damage model for ductile crack initiation and propagation. Comput Mech 47(6):641–656CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnold DN, Brezzi F, Fortin M (1984) A stable finite element for the Stokes equations. Calcolo XXI(IV):337–344MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Besson J, Steglich D, Brocks W (2001) Modeling of crack growth in round bars and plane strain specimens. Int J Solids Struct 38:8259–8284CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Betsch P, Stein E (1999) Numerical implementation of multiplicative elasto-plasticity into assumed strain elements with application to shells at large strains. Comput Methods Appl Mech 179: 215–245MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broberg KB (1999) Cracks and fracture. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruhns OT, Meyers A, Xiao H (2004) On non-corotational rates of oldroyd’s type and relevant issues in rate constitutive formulations. Proc R Soc Lond A Math 460:909–928MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen B, Harker PT (1997) Smooth approximations to nonlinear complementarity problems. SIAM J Optim 7(2):403–420MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen C, Mangasarian OL (1996) A class of smoothing functions for nonlinear and mixed complementarity problems. Comput Optim Appl 5:97–138MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eterovic AL, Bathe KJ (1991) On the treatment of inequality constraints arising from contact conditions in finite element analysis. Comput Struct 40(2):203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gurson A (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part I—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holzapfel GA (2000) Nonlinear solid mechanics: a continuum approach for engineers. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hughes TJR (2000) The finite element method. Reprint of Prentice-Hall edition, 1987. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Korelc J (2002) Multi-language and multi-environment generation of nonlinear finite element codes. Eng Comput 18(4):312–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemaitre J (1996) A course on damage mechanics, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lorentz E, Besson J, Cano V (2008) Numerical simulation of ductile fracture with the rousselier constitutive law. Comp Methods Appl Math 197:1965–1982zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ma F, Deng X, Sutton MA, Newman JC Jr (1999) CTOD-based mixed-mode fracture criterion, chapter mixed-mode crack behavior. Number STP 1359. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, pp 86–110Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moran B, Ortiz M, Shih CF (1990) Formulation of implicit finite element methods for multiplicative finite deformation plasticity. Int J Numer Meth Eng 29:483–514MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ogden RW (1997) Non-linear elastic deformations. Dover Publications, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roters F, Eisenlohr P, Hantcherli L, Tjahjanto DD, Bieler TR, Raabe D (2010) Overview of constitutive laws, kinematics, homogenization and multiscale methods in crystal plasticity finite-element modeling: theory, experiments, applications. Acta Mater 58:1152–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rousselier G (1987) Ductile fracture models and their potential in local approach of fracture. Nucl Eng Des 105:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samal MK, Seidenfuss M, Roos E (2009) A new mesh-independent Rousselier’s damage model: finite element implementation and experimental verification. Int J Mech Sci 51:619–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seabra MRR, Sustari P, Cesar de Sa JMA, Rodic T (2013) Damage driven crack initiation and propagation in ductile metals using XFEM. Comput Mech 52(1):161–179Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simo JC, Hughes TJR (2000) Computational inelasticity. Corrected Second Printing edition. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tanguy B, Besson J (2002) An extension of the Rousselier model to viscoplastic temperature dependent materials. Int J Fract 116:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Truesdell C, Noll W (2004) The non-linear field theories of mechanics, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tvergaard V (1981) Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain conditions. Int. J. Fract. 17(4):389–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall 32:157–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Goethem N, Areias P (2012) A damage-based temperature-dependent model for ductile fracture with finite strains and configurational forces. Int J Fract 178:215–232Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wriggers P (2008) Nonlinear finite element methods. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Areias
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. Dias-da-Costa
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. M. Sargado
    • 5
  • T. Rabczuk
    • 5
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentColégio Luís António Verney, University of Évora ÉvoraPortugal
  2. 2.ICISTLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.INESC Coimbra CoimbraPortugal
  5. 5.Institute of Structural MechanicsBauhaus-University Weimar WeimarGermany

Personalised recommendations