Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The third Sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile fracture in additively manufactured metal

  • Sandia Fracture Challenge 2017
  • Published:
International Journal of Fracture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Sandia Fracture Challenges provide a forum for the mechanics community to assess its ability to predict ductile fracture through a blind, round-robin format where mechanicians are challenged to predict the deformation and failure of an arbitrary geometry given experimental calibration data. The Third Challenge (SFC3) required participants to predict fracture in an additively manufactured (AM) 316L stainless steel bar containing through holes and internal cavities that could not have been conventionally machined. The volunteer participants were provided extensive data including tension and notched tensions tests of 316L specimens built on the same build-plate as the Challenge geometry, micro-CT scans of the Challenge specimens and geometric measurements of the feature based on the scans, electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) information on grain texture, and post-test fractography of the calibration specimens. Surprisingly, the global behavior of the SFC3 geometry specimens had modest variability despite being made of AM metal, with all of the SFC3 geometry specimens failing under the same failure mode. This is attributed to the large stress concentrations from the holes overwhelming the stochastic local influence of the AM voids and surface roughness. The teams were asked to predict a number of quantities of interest in the response based on global and local measures that were compared to experimental data, based partly on Digital Image Correlation (DIC) measurements of surface displacements and strains, including predictions of variability in the resulting fracture response, as the basis for assessment of the predictive capabilities of the modeling and simulation strategies. Twenty-one teams submitted predictions obtained from a variety of methods: the finite element method (FEM) or the mesh-free, peridynamic method; solvers with explicit time integration, implicit time integration, or quasi-statics; fracture methods including element deletion, peridynamics with bond damage, XFEM, damage (stiffness degradation), and adaptive remeshing. These predictions utilized many different material models: plasticity models including J2 plasticity or Hill yield with isotropic hardening, mixed Swift-Voce hardening, kinematic hardening, or custom hardening curves; fracture criteria including GTN model, Hosford-Coulomb, triaxiality-dependent strain, critical fracture energy, damage-based model, critical void volume fraction, and Johnson-Cook model; and damage evolution models including damage accumulation and evolution, crack band model, fracture energy, displacement value threshold, incremental stress triaxiality, Cocks-Ashby void growth, and void nucleation, growth, and coalescence. Teams used various combinations of calibration data from tensile specimens, the notched tensile specimens, and literature data. A detailed comparison of results based of these different methods is presented in this paper to suggest a set of best practices for modeling ductile fracture in situations like the SFC3 AM-material problem. All blind predictions identified the nominal crack path and initiation location correctly. The SFC3 participants generally fared better in their global predictions of deformation and failure than the participants in the previous Challenges, suggesting the relative maturity of the models used and adoption of best practices from previous Challenges. This paper provides detailed analyses of the results, including discussion of the utility of the provided data, challenges of the experimental-numerical comparison, defects in the AM material, and human factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams BM, Bauman LE, Bohnhoff WJ, Dalbey KR, Ebeida MS, Eddy JP, Eldred MS, Hough PD, Hu KT, Jakeman JD, Stephens JA, Swiler LP, Vigil DM, Wildey TM (2015) Dakota, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis: Version 6.3 User’s Manual. SAND Report SAND2014-4633, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA

  • Agarwala M, Bourell D, Beaman J, Marcus H, Barlow J (1995) Direct selective laser sintering of metals. Rapid Prototyping J 1:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bammann DJ, Aifantis EC (1987) A model for finite-deformation plasticity. Acta Mech 69(1–4):97–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann F (2014) Changing the future of additive manufacturing. Metal Powder Rep 69:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beese AM, Carroll BE (2016) Review of mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V made by laser-based additive manufacturing using powder feedstock. Jom 68:724–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behzadinasab M, Foster J (2018) The third Sandia Fracture Challenge: peridynamics blind prediction of dynamic ductile fracture characterization in additively manufactured metal. Int J Fract

  • Behzadinasab M, Foster JT (2019) On the stability of the generalized, finite deformation correspondence model of peridynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02937

  • Bhavar V, Kattire P, Patil V, Khot S, Gujar K, Singh R (2014) A review on powder bed fusion technology of metal additive manufacturing. In: 4th International conference and exhibition on additive manufacturing technologies-AM-2014, September, 2014, pp 1-2

  • Blaiszik B, Chard K, Pruyne J, Ananthakrishnan R, Tuecke S, Foster I (2016) The materials data facility: data services to advance materials science research. JOM 68(8):2045–2052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce BL, Kramer SL, Fang HE, Cordova TE, Neilsen MK, Dion K et al (2014) The Sandia fracture challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract 186:5–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce B, Kramer S, Bosiljevac T, Corona E, Moore J, Elkhodary K et al (2016) The second Sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile failure under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading. Int J Fract 198:5–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brackett D, Ashcroft I, Hague R (2011) Topology optimization for additive manufacturing, In: Proceedings of the solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, pp 348–362

  • Bremen S, Meiners W, Diatlov A (2012) Selective laser melting. Laser Technik J 9:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann S, Quinkert L (2014) Ductile tearing: applicability of a modular approach using cohesive zones and damage mechanics. Int J Fract 186:5–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broek D (2012) The practical use of fracture mechanics. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AA, Bammann DJ (2012) Validation of a model for static and dynamic recrystallization in metals. Int J Plast 32–33:17–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambert J, Bressolette P, Vergne A (2013) Implementation of coalescence criteria into the GTN model application to work-hardening ductile materials, ECF13

  • Chu T, Ranson W, Sutton MA (1985) Applications of digital-image-correlation techniques to experimental mechanics. Exp Mech 25:232–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockeram BV, Chan KS (2013) In situ studies and modeling of the deformation and fracture mechanism for wrought Zircaloy-2 and Zircaloy-4 as a function of stress state. J Nucl Mater 434:97–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocks A, Ashby M (1980) Intergranular fracture during powerlaw creep under multiaxial stresses. Metal Sci 14(8–9):395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortese L, Coppola T, Campanelli FF, Campana En MS (2013) Prediction of ductile failure in materials for onshore and offshore pipeline applications. Int J Damage Mech 23(1):104–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckard CR, Beaman JJ, Darrah JF (1992) Method for selective laser sintering with layerwise cross-scanning, ed: Google Patents

  • Dion K, Neilsen MK (2016) Coupled thermal stress simulations of ductile tearing. Int J Fract 198:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery JM, Field RV, Foulk JW, Karlson KN, Grigoriu MD (2015) Predicting laser weld reliability with stochastic reduced-order models: predicting laser weld reliability. Int J Numer Methods Eng 103(12):914–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergodan F, Sih GC (1963) On extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear. Trans ASME J Basic Eng 85(5):19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Erice B, Roth CC, Mohr D (2018) Stress-state and strain-rate dependent ductile fracture of dual and complex phase steel. Mech Mater 116:11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher R (1987) Practical methods of optimization (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-91547-8

  • Foster J, Xu X (2018) A generalized, ordinary, finite deformation constitutive correspondence model for peridynamics. Int J Solids Struct 141:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foust M, Thomsen D, Stickles R, Cooper C, Dodds W (2012) Development of the GE aviation low emissions TAPS combustor for next generation aircraft engines. In: 50th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, p 936

  • Frazier WE (2014) Metal additive manufacturing: a review. J Mater Eng Perform 23:1917–1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost HJ, Ashby MF (1982) Deformation-mechanism maps: the plasticity and creep of metals and ceramics. Pergamon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Starr T, Stucker B (2014) Analysis of defect generation in Ti-6Al-4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. Addit Manuf 1:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorji MB, Manopulo N, Hora P, Barlat F (2016) Numerical investigation of the post-necking behavior of aluminum sheets in the presence of geometrical and material inhomogeneities. Int J Solids Struct 102–103:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorji MB, Tancogne-Dejean T, Mohr D (2018) Heterogeneous random medium plasticity and fracture model of additively-manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. Acta Mater 148:442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu D, Shen Y, Lu Z (2009) Microstructural characteristics and formation mechanism of direct laser-sintered Cu-based alloys reinforced with Ni particles. Mater Des 30:2099–2107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu D, Hagedorn Y-C, Meiners W, Meng G, Batista RJS, Wissenbach K et al (2012) Densification behavior, microstructure evolution, and wear performance of selective laser melting processed commercially pure titanium. Acta Mater 60:3849–3860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurson A (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: oart I—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. ASME J Eng Mater Technol 15(91):92–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill TA (2014) POLICY DEBATE: The US advanced manufacturing initiative: will it be implemented as an innovation-or industrial-policy? Innovation 16:67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herderick ED (2017) Accelerating the additive revolution. JOM 69:437–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbitt D, Karlsson B, Sorensen P (1998) ABAQUS/standard: user’s manual, vol 1. Karlsson & Sorensen, Hibbitt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc London 193:281–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmeister W, Griffith M (2001) Solidification in direct metal deposition by LENS processing. Jom 53:30–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horstemeyer Mark F, Gokhale Arun M (1999) A void-crack nucleation model for ductile metals. Int J Solids Struct 36(33):5029–5055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang SH, Liu P, Mokasdar A, Hou L (2013) Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67:1191–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y (1991) Accurate dilatation rates for spherical voids in triaxial stress fields. J Appl Mech 58:1084–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull CW (1986) Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography, ed: Google Patents

  • Ingraffea AR (2004) Computational fracture mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackiewicz J (2011) Use of a modified Gurson model approach for the simulation of ductile fracture by growth and coalescence of microvoids under low, medium and high stress triaxiality loadings. Eng Fract Mech 78:487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackiewicz J (2016) Recent trends in the development of Gurson’s model. In: Hütter G, Zybell L (eds) Recent trends in fracture and damage mechanics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 417–442

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jared BH, Aguilo MA, Beghini LL, Boyce BL, Clark BW, Cook A et al (2017) Additive manufacturing: toward holistic design. Scripta Materialia 135:141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson G, Cook W (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21(1):31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale AB, Bag A, Hwang J-H, Castle EG, Reece MJ, Choi S-H (2017) The deformation and fracture behaviors of 316L stainless steels fabricated by spark plasma sintering technique under uniaxial tension. Mater Sci Eng A 707:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaing M, Fuh J, Lu L (2001) Direct metal laser sintering for rapid tooling: processing and characterisation of EOS parts. J Mater Process Technol 113:269–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharmanda G, Olhoff N, Mohamed A, Lemaire M (2004) Reliability-based topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26:295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King W, Anderson A, Ferencz R, Hodge N, Kamath C, Khairallah S et al (2015) Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals; physics, computational, and materials challenges. Appl Phys Rev 2:041304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer S, Boyce B, Jones A, Gearhart J, Salzbrenner B (2018) The Third Sandia Fracture Challenge, https://doi.org/10.18126/M26D20

  • Kramer SLB, Ivanoff TA, Madison JD, Lentfer A (2019) Evolution of damage and failure in an additively manufactured 316L SS structure: experimental reinvestigation of the third Sandia fracture challenge. Int J Fract. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00357-x

  • Lan W, Deng X, Sutton MA (2007) Three-dimensional finite element simulations of mixed-mode stable tearing crack growth experiments. Eng Fract Mech 74(16):2498–2517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landron C, Maire E, Bouaziz O, Adrien J, Lecarme L, Bareggi A (2011) Validation of void growth models using X-ray microtomography characterization of damage in dual phase steels. Acta Mater 59:7564–7573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecarme L, Maire E, Kumar K, De Vleeschouwer C, Jacques L, Simar A, Pardoen T (2014) Heterogenous void growth revealed by in situ 3-D X-ray microtomography using automatic cavity tracking. Acta Mater 63:130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews MJ, Guss G, Khairallah SA, Rubenchik AM, Depond PJ, King WE (2016) Denudation of metal powder layers in laser powder bed fusion processes. Acta Mater 114:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock FA, Irwin G (1965) Plasticity aspects of fracture mechanics. In: Fracture toughness testing and its applications. ASTM International

  • McDowell D, Dunne F (2010) Microstructure-sensitive computational modeling of fatigue crack formation. Int J Fatigue 32:1521–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Gasser A (1998) Shaped body especially prototype or replacement part production, DE Patent, vol. 19

  • Milles WJ (1997) Fracture toughness of type 304 and 316 stainless steels and their welds. Int Mater Rev 42:45–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 46(1):131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr D, Dunand M, Kim KH (2010) Evaluation of associated and non-associated quadratic plasticity models for advanced high strength steel sheets under multi-axial loading. Int J Plast 26:939–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr D, Marcadet SJ (2015) Micromechanically-motivated phenomenological Hosford-Coulomb model for predicting ductile fracture initiation at low stress triaxialities. Int J Solids Struct 67–68:40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Ramirez DA, Martinez E, Hernandez J, Amato KN et al (2012) Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing using laser and electron beam melting technologies. J Mater Sci Technol 28:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahshon K, Hutchinson JW (2008) Modification of the Gurson model for shear failure. Eur J Mech -A/Solids 27(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. The Comput J 7:308–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg Hans (2004) Note on the sensitivity of stainless steels to strain rate. Research Report 04.0-1, AvestaPolarit Research Foundation and Sheffield Hallam University

  • Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verificaton and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parks M, Littlewood D, Mitchell J, Silling S (2012) Peridigm users’ guide. Techincal Report SAND2012-7800, Sandia National Laboratories

  • Rafi H, Karthik N, Gong H, Starr TL, Stucker BE (2013) Microstructures and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V parts fabricated by selective laser melting and electron beam melting. J Mater Eng Perform 22:3872–3883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 17:201–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth CC, Mohr D (2014) Effect of strain rate on ductile fracture initiation in advanced high strength steel sheets: experiments and modeling. Int J Plast 56:19–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reu PL (2012) Hidden components of 3D-DIC: triangulation and post-processing–part 3. Exp Tech 39:3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Saad Y (2003) Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, 2nd edn, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

  • Salzbrenner BC, Rodelas JM, Madison JD, Jared BH, Swiler LP, Shen Y-L et al (2017) High-throughput stochastic tensile performance of additively manufactured stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol 241:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sames WJ, List FA, Pannala S, Dehoff RR, Babu SS (2016) The metallurgy and processing science of metal additive manufacturing. Int Mater Rev 61:1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwer LE (2009) An overview of the ASME V&V-10 guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics, In 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Espoo, Finland

  • Šebek F, Kubík P, Hulka J, Petruška J (2016) Strain hardening exponent role in phenomenological ductile fracture criteria. Eur J Mech A/Solids 57:149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifi M, Salem A, Beuth J, Harrysson O, Lewandowski JJ (2016) Overview of materials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing. Jom 68:747–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra Solid Mechanics Team, Sierra/Solid Mechanics 4.40 User’s Guide, SAND2016-2707, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, March 2016

  • Silling S (2000) Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. J Mech Phys Solids 48(1):175–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silling S, Epton M, Weckner O, Xu J, Askari E (2007) Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling. J Elast 88(2):151–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simha CHM, Williams BW (2016) Modeling failure of Ti-6Al-4V using damage mechanics incorporating effects of anisotropy, rate, and temperature on strength. Int J Fract 198:101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simo J (1988) A framework for finite strain elastoplasticity based on maximum plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decomposition: Part I. Continuum formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 66(2):199–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simulia, Dassault Systemes. Abaqus 6.14 documentation. Providence, Rhode Island, US (2012)

  • Spear AD, Czabaj MW, Newell P, DeMille K, Phung BR, Zhao D, Creveling P, Briggs N, Brodbine E, Creveling C, Edelman E, Matheson K, Arndt C, Buelte M, Childs S, Nelson I, Safazadeh F, French J, Audd C, Smith A, Dorrian EJ, Clark G, Tayler J, Ichi R The Third Sandia fracture challenge: from theory to practice in a classroom setting. Int J Fract

  • Spear AD, Priest AR, Veilleux MG, Ingraffea AR, Hochhalter JD (2011) Surrogate modeling of high-fidelity fracture simulations for real-time residual strength predictions. AIAA J 49(12):2770–2782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11:341–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Z, Tan X, Tor SB, Yeong WY (2016) Selective laser melting of stainless steel 316L with low porosity and high build rates. Mater Des 104:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton MA, Yan JH, Deng X, Cheng CS, Zavattieri P (2007) Three-dimensional digital image correlation to quantify deformation and crack-opening displacement in ductile aluminum under mixed-mode I/III loading. Opt Eng 46(5):051003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tancogne-Dejean T, Roth CC, Woy U, Mohr D (2016) Probabilistic fracture of Ti-6Al-4V made through additive layer manufacturing. Int J Plast 78:145–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang M, Pistorius PC, Beuth JL (2017) Prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 14:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tupek M, Radovitzky R (2014) An extended constitutive correspondence formulation of peridynamics based on nonlinear bond-strain measures. J Mech Phys Solids 1(65):82–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tupek M, Rimoli J, Radovitzky R (2013) An approach for incorporating classical continuum damage models in state-based peridynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 263:20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tvergaard V (1981) Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain conditions. Int J Fract 17(4):389–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang K, Wierzbicki T (2015) Experimental and numerical study on the plane-strain blanking process on an AHSS sheet. Int J Fract 194:19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wawrzynek PA, Carter BJ, Hwang CY, Ingraffea AR (2010) Advances in simulation of arbitrary 3D crack growth using FRANC3Dv5. J Comput Struct Eng Inst Korea 23(6):607–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins M, Streit R, Reaugh J (1980) Cumulative-strain-damage model of ductile fracture: simulation and prediction of engineering fracture tests, Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (USA); Science Applications, Inc., San Leandro, CA (USA)

  • Wu AS, Brown DW, Kumar M, Gallegos GF, King WE (2014) An experimental investigation into additive manufacturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. Metall Mater Trans A 45:6260–6270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zegard T, Paulino GH (2016) Bridging topology optimization and additive manufacturing. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53:175–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue Z, Faleskog J, Hutchinson JW (2013) Tension-torsion fracture experiments–part II: simulations with the extended Gurson model and a ductile fracture criterion based on plastic strain. Int J Solids Struct 50:4258–4269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Gao X, Sobotka JC, Webler BA, Cockeram BV (2014) On the extension of the Gurson-type porous plasticity models for prediction of ductile fracture under shear-dominated conditions. Int J Solids Struct 51(18):3273–3291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

ADS gratefully acknowledges support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Young Investigator Program, under Agreement No.FA9550-15-1-0172. Southwest Research Institute acknowledges support from internal research and development grant 18.R8747. BLB would like to thank James Redmond and H. Eliot Fang for managing Sandia’s role in this work through the DOE Advanced Scientific Computing program. SLBK would like to thank Dennis Croessmann, Scott Peterson, and Darrick Jones for their management role supporting the experimental efforts at Sandia for this work through the NNSA Delivery Environments program. Microscopy facilities used in this study are provided by the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies at Sandia National Laboratories. SLBK would like to thank Alice Kilgo, Joseph Michael, Bonnie McKenzie, Jhana Gearhart, David Johnson, Darren Pendley, Carl Jacques, Andrew Lenfter and Todd Huber for their help in characterization of the SFC3 materials. SLBK and BLB would like to thank Ben Blaiszik with the Materials Data Facility with support publishing of the SFC3 Challenge data. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Sharlotte L. B. Kramer, Amanda Jones, Lindsay N. Gilkey, Remi Dingreville, Scott E. Sanborn, John L. Bignell, Christopher I. Hammetter, Spencer Grange, John M. Emery, Judith A. Brown, Joseph E. Bishop, Kyle L. Johnson, Kurtis R. Ford, Michael K. Neilsen, Thomas Ivanoff, Bradley C. Salzbrenner & Brad L. Boyce

  2. University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Ahmed Mostafa & Babak Ravaji

  3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Thomas Tancogne-Dejean, Maysam Gorji Bandpay & Keunhwan Pack

  4. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Christian C. Roth

  5. University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    John T. Foster, Masoud Behzadinasab & K. Ravi-Chandar

  6. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA

    James C. Sobotka, John M. McFarland & Jeremy Stein

  7. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Ashley D. Spear, Pania Newell & Michael W. Czabaj

  8. CanmetMATERIALS Natural Resources Canada, Hamilton, Canada

    Bruce Williams & Mark Gesing

  9. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

    Hari Simha

  10. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

    Christopher A. Jones

  11. GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY, USA

    Albert R. Cerrone

  12. Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule (OTH), Resensburg, Resensburg, Germany

    Vincent Keim & Aida Nonn

  13. OnderzoeksCentrum voor de Aanwending van Staal (OCAS), Gent, Belgium

    Steven Cooreman & Philippe Thibaux

  14. Boston Metal, Boston, MA, USA

    Nicoli Ames

  15. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA

    Devin O. Connor & Matthew Parno

  16. Exponent, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Brett Davis, Joseph Tucker & Baptiste Coudrillier

  17. Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, USA

    Kyle N. Karlson, Jakob T. Ostien & James W. Foulk III

  18. Max-Planck-Institut für Eisenforschung GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Steffen Brinckmann

  19. Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz, Poland

    Jacek Jackiewicz

Authors
  1. Sharlotte L. B. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Mostafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Babak Ravaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Tancogne-Dejean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian C. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maysam Gorji Bandpay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Keunhwan Pack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John T. Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Masoud Behzadinasab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James C. Sobotka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. John M. McFarland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jeremy Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ashley D. Spear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Pania Newell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Michael W. Czabaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Bruce Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Hari Simha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Mark Gesing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Lindsay N. Gilkey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Christopher A. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Remi Dingreville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Scott E. Sanborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. John L. Bignell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Albert R. Cerrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Vincent Keim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Aida Nonn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Steven Cooreman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Philippe Thibaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Nicoli Ames
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Devin O. Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Matthew Parno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Brett Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Joseph Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Baptiste Coudrillier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Kyle N. Karlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Jakob T. Ostien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  38. James W. Foulk III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Christopher I. Hammetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Spencer Grange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  41. John M. Emery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Judith A. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Joseph E. Bishop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Kyle L. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Kurtis R. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Steffen Brinckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Michael K. Neilsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Jacek Jackiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  49. K. Ravi-Chandar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Thomas Ivanoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Bradley C. Salzbrenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  52. Brad L. Boyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharlotte L. B. Kramer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (docx 74684 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kramer, S.L.B., Jones, A., Mostafa, A. et al. The third Sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile fracture in additively manufactured metal. Int J Fract 218, 5–61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00361-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00361-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation