Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between Gurson and Lemaitre damage models in wiping die bending processes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is devoted to a finite element prediction of material damage distribution within the workpiece during wiping die bending processes. The damage mechanics approach has been used in this investigation in order to describe the progressive damage evolution within the sheet. A comparative study between the results obtained by the simulations using the Lemaitre and Gurson damage models is presented and discussed. The elastoplastic constitutive laws are integrated by means of an incremental formulation which has been implemented in the finite element code ABAQUS. The punch load, influenced by the friction coefficient, is investigated for different cases of die radius. The springback angle, which depends on the elastic properties of the material, is computed for all cases. Both models give similar results in the modelling of bending operations. The Gurson one is shown to have more flexibility for applications.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tang CY, Tai WH (2000) Material damage and forming limits of textured sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 99:185–140

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tsukrov I, Kachanov M (2000) Effective moduli of an anisotropic material with elliptical holes of arbitrary orientational distribution. Int J Solids Struct 37:5919–5941

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth, part I, yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. Trans ASME, J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sevostianov I, Kachanov M (2001) On the yield condition for anisotropic porous materials. Mater Sci Eng A313:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kalpakjian S (1991) Manufacturing process for engineering materials, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, USA

  6. Krajcinovic D (1983) Constitutive equations for damaging materials. J Appl Mech 50:355–360

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wang TJ (1992) Unified CDM model and local criterion for ductile fracture-I, unified CDM model for ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 42:177–183

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wang TJ (1994) Further investigation of a new continuum damage mechanics criterion for ductile fracture: experimental verification and applications. Eng Fract Mech 48:217–230

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chandrakanth S, Pandey PC (1995) An isotropic damage model for ductile material. Eng Fract Mech 50:457–465

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonora N (1997) A linear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng Fract Mech 58:11–28

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bonora N (1988) Low cycle fatigue life estimation for ductile metals using a nonlinear continuum damage mechanics model. Int J Struct 35:1881–1894

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bonora N, Salvini P, Lecoviello F (1996) Experimental identification of damage evolution law in Al-Li2091 alloy. XXV AIAS National meeting, Galipoli, pp 345–355

  13. Lemaitre J, Chaboche JL (1988) Endommagement, mécanique des matériau solides. Dunod, Paris

  14. Chaboche JL (1988) Continuum damage mechanics. Part I: general concepts. J Appl Mech 55:59–64

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chaboche JL (1988) Continuum damage mechanics. Part II: damage growth, crack initiation, and crack growth. J Appl Mech 55:65–72

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ye D, Wang Y (2001) An approach to investigate pre-nucleation fatigue damage of cyclically loaded metals using Vickers micro hardness tests. Int J Fatigue 23:85–91

    Google Scholar 

  17. Widmark M, Melander A, Meurling F (2000) Low cycle constant amplitude fully reversed strain controlled testing of low carbon and stainless sheet steels for simulation of straightening operations. Int J Fatigue 22:307–317

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simo JC, Taylor RL (1985) Consistent tangent operator for rate independent elastoplasticity. J Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 48:101–118

    Google Scholar 

  19. Simo JC, Ju JW (1987) Strain and stress based continuum damage models I: formulation. Int J Solids Struct 7:821–840

    Google Scholar 

  20. Simo JC, Ju JW (1987) Strain and stress based continuum damage models II: computational aspects. Int J Solids Struct 23:841–869

    Google Scholar 

  21. Doghri I (1993) Fully implicit integration and consistent tangent modulus in elastoplasticity. Int J Numerical Methods Eng 36:3915–3932

    Google Scholar 

  22. Doghri I (1995) Numerical implementation and analysis of a class of metal plasticity models coupled with ductile damage. Int J Numerical Methods Eng 38:3403–3431

    Google Scholar 

  23. Murakami S (1998) Mechanical modelling of material damage. Trans ASME, J Appl Mech 55:280–286

    Google Scholar 

  24. Crisfield MA (1991) Basic plasticity, non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures, Mc-Graw Hill, Great Britain, pp 152–199

  25. Hibbit K, Sorensen Inc (1995) Mechanical constitutive theories. In: ABAQUS theory manual, version 5.5, pp 4.1.1.1–4.3.4.3

  26. Kachanov LM (1986) Introduction to continuum damage mechanics, mechanics of elastic stability. Kluwer, USA

  27. Hibbit K (2001) Porous metal plasticity. In: ABAQUS/Standard user’s manual, vol II, version 6.2, Sorensen Inc, pp 11.2.7–1–11.2.7–6

  28. Tvergaart V (1991) Mechanical modelling of ductile fracture. Mech 26:11–16

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hambli R, Potiron A (2001) Damage and fracture prediction in bending process using 3D finite element model. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on sheet metal, Leuven, Belgium, pp 229–236

  30. Hambli R, Potiron A (2001) Comparison between Lemaitre and Gurson damage models in crack growth simulation during blanking process. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on sheet metal, Leuven, Belgium, pp 555–562

  31. Klingenberg W, Singh UP (2003) Finite element simulation of the punching/blanking process using in-process characterisation of mild steel. J Mater Process Technol 134(March):296–302

    Google Scholar 

  32. Magny C (2002) Lois de frottement évolutives destinées à la simulation numérique de l’emboutissage. La Revue de Métallurgie – CIT/Science et Génie des Matériaux, pp145–156

  33. LP Lei, SM Hwang, BS Kang (2000) Finite element analysis and design in stainless steel sheet forming and its experimental comparison. J Mater Process Technol 110:70–77

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mkaddem A, Huneau B, Lebrun JL, Boude S (2003) Experimental quantification of damage in sheet metal bending process: comparison with numerical prediction. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on sheet metal, Belfast, North Ireland

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Deville S.A Industry for its technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ensam/CER, Angers-LPMI-ERT, 2 Boulevard du Ronceray, BP3525–49035, Angers, France

    Ali Mkaddem & Alain Potiron

  2. Istia-Lasquo, 62 Avenue Notre Dame du Lac, 49000, Angers, France

    Ridha Hambli

Authors
  1. Ali Mkaddem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ridha Hambli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alain Potiron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Mkaddem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mkaddem, A., Hambli, R. & Potiron, A. Comparison between Gurson and Lemaitre damage models in wiping die bending processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23, 451–461 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1701-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1701-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation