Skip to main content
Log in

3D crack initiation and propagation applied to metal forming processes

  • Original Research
  • Published:
International Journal of Material Forming Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerical simulation of ductile fracture in the field of metal forming represents one of the most challenging tasks. Throughout the chain of manufacturing processes, the accurate prediction of the crack surfaces is essential for the quality of the final products. The application of a crack initiation and propagation algorithm known as CIPFAR is presented in order to model the complex ductile fracture processes. In addition, a phase field approach is coupled with a ductile damage criterion to simulate the transition from damage to fracture. The self-contact between crack faces is also modeled through the penalization method in order to prevent the penetration of crack faces. The presented algorithm serves as an efficient computational tool for the industrial purposes in terms of the robustness and quality of the obtained results. Comparisons are carried out with the classical element deletion method in order to show the ability of the new algorithm to tackle the issues of mesh dependency and volume loss.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tekkaya AE, Bouchard P-O, Bruschi S, Tasan CC (2020) Damage in metal forming. CIRP Ann 69:600–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bao Y, Wierzbicki T (2004) On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space. Int J Mech Sci 46:81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lou Y, Yoon JW, Huh H (2014) Modeling of shear ductile fracture considering a changeable cut-off value for stress triaxiality. International Journal of Plasticity 54:56–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouchard P-O, Bourgeon L, Fayolle S, Mocellin K (2011) An enhanced Lemaitre model formulation for materials processing damage computation. Int J Mater Form 4:299–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao T-S, Gachet J-M, Montmitonnet P, Bouchard P-O (2014) A Lode-dependent enhanced Lemaitre model for ductile fracture prediction at low stress triaxiality. Eng Fract Mech 124:80–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cockcroft MG (1968) Ductility and workability of metals. Journal of Metals 96:2444

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 17:201–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part 1-Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductilr media. J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall 32:157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murakami S, Ohno N (1981) A continuum theory of creep and creep damage. In: Creep in structures, Springer, pp 422–444

  12. Kachanov LM (1999) Rupture time under creep conditions. Int J Fract 97:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lemaitre J, Desmorat R (2005) Engineering damage mechanics: ductile, creep, fatigue and brittle failures. Springer Science & Business Media

  14. Yue Z, Cao K, Badreddine H, Saanouni K, Gao J (2019) Failure prediction on steel sheet under different loading paths based on fully coupled ductile damage model. Int J Mech Sci 153:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jirásek M (2007) Mathematical analysis of strain localization. Revue européenne de génie civil 11:977–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Peerlings RHJ, Borst Rd, Brekelmans Wd, Vree Jd, Spee I (1996) Some observations on localization in non-local and gradient damage models. European Journal of Mechanics. A Solids 15:937–953

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Peerlings RHJ, de Borst R, Brekelmans WM, De Vree J (1996) Gradient enhanced damage for quasi-brittle materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 39:3391–3403

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Saanouni K, Hamed M (2013) Micromorphic approach for finite gradient-elastoplasticity fully coupled with ductile damage: Formulation and computational aspects. Int J Solids Struct 50:2289–2309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cao T-S (2014) Numerical simulation of 3D ductile cracks formation using recent improved Lode-dependent plasticity and damage models combined with remeshing. Int J Solids Struct 51:2370–2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saanouni K, Mariage J-F, Cherouat A, Lestriez P (2004) Numerical prediction of discontinuous central bursting in axisymmetric forward extrusion by continuum damage mechanics. Computers & Structures 82:2309–2332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Labergere C, Rassineux A, Saanouni K (2014) Numerical simulation of continuous damage and fracture in metal-forming processes with 2D mesh adaptive methodology. Finite Elem Anal Des 82:46–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang F, Rassineux A, Labergere C, Saanouni K (2018) A 3D h-adaptive local remeshing technique for simulating the initiation and propagation of cracks in ductile materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 330:102–122

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Niu L-B, Takaku H, Kobayashi M (2005) Tensile fracture behaviors in double-notched thin plates of a ductile steel. ISIJ International 45:281–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. El Khaoulani R, Bouchard P-O (2012) An anisotropic mesh adaptation strategy for damage and failure in ductile materials. Finite Elem Anal Des 59:1–10

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Hambli R (2002) Prediction of burr height formation in blanking processes using neural network. Int J Mech Sci 44:2089–2102

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Komori K (1999) Simulation of chevron crack formation and evolution in drawing. Int J Mech Sci 41:1499–1513

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Mediavilla J, Peerlings RHJ, Geers MGD (2006) Discrete crack modelling of ductile fracture driven by non-local softening plasticity. Int J Numer Methods Eng 66:661–688

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Feld-Payet S, Chiaruttini V, Besson J, Feyel F (2015) A new marching ridges algorithm for crack path tracking in regularized media. Int J Solids Struct 71:57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 46:1319–1342

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Ambrosio L, Tortorelli VM (1990) Approximation of functional depending on jumps by elliptic functional via t-convergence. Commun Pur Appl Math 43:999–1036

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Braides A (1998) Approximation of free-discontinuity problems. Springer Science & Business Media

  32. Miehe C, Welschinger F, Hofacker M (2010) Thermodynamically consistent phase-field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi-field FE implementations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 83:1273–1311

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Miehe C, Hofacker M, Welschinger F (2010) A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:2765–2778

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Ambati M, Gerasimov T, De Lorenzis L (2015) Phase-field modeling of ductile fracture. Comput Mech 55:1017–1040

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Borden MJ, Hughes TJR, Landis CM, Anvari A, Lee IJ (2016) A phase-field formulation for fracture in ductile materials: Finite deformation balance law derivation, plastic degradation, and stress triaxiality effects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 312:130–166

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Eldahshan H, Alves J, Bouchard P-O, Perchat E, Munoz DP (2021) CIPFAR: A 3D unified numerical framework for the modeling of ductile fracture based on the phase field model and adaptive remeshing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 387:114171

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 221:163–198

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Miehe C, Hofacker M, Schänzel L-M, Aldakheel F (2015) Phase field modeling of fracture in multi-physics problems. Part II. Coupled brittle-to-ductile failure criteria and crack propagation in thermo-elastic–plastic solids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 294:486–522

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Needleman A (1988) Material rate dependence and mesh sensitivity in localization problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 67:69–85

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Mühlhaus H-B, Alfantis E (1991) A variational principle for gradient plasticity. Int J Solids Struct 28:845–857

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Forest S (2009) Micromorphic approach for gradient elasticity, viscoplasticity, and damage. J Eng Mech 135:117–131

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lemaitre J (1985) A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. J Eng Mater Technol 107:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reusch F, Svendsen B, Klingbeil D (2003) Local and non-local Gurson-based ductile damage and failure modelling at large deformation. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 22:779–792

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Ambati M, Gerasimov T, De Lorenzis L (2015) A review on phase-field models of brittle fracture and a new fast hybrid formulation. Comput Mech 55:383–405

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Alessi R, Ambati M, Gerasimov T, Vidoli S, De Lorenzis L (2018) Comparison of phase-field models of fracture coupled with plasticity. In: Advances in computational plasticity, Springer, pp 1–21

  46. de Borst R, Verhoosel CV (2016) Gradient damage vs phase-field approaches for fracture: Similarities and differences. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 312:78–94

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Geers MGD, De Borst R, Brekelmans WAM, Peerlings RHJ (1998) Strain-based transient-gradient damage model for failure analyses. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 160:133–153

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Geers MGD (1998) Experimental analysis and computational modelling of damage and fracture. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven Technical university

  49. Eldahshan H, Bouchard P-O, Alves J, Perchat E, Munoz DP (2021) Phase field modeling of ductile fracture at large plastic strains using adaptive isotropic remeshing. Comput Mech, pp 1–21

  50. Davaze V, Vallino N, Langrand B, Besson J, Feld-Payet S (2021) A non-local damage approach compatible with dynamic explicit simulations and parallel computing. International Journal of Solids and Structures

  51. Aldakheel F, Wriggers P, Miehe C (2018) A modified Gurson-type plasticity model at finite strains: formulation, numerical analysis and phase-field coupling. Comput Mech 62:815–833

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Eberly D, Gardner R, Morse B, Pizer S, Scharlach C (1994) Ridges for image analysis. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 4:353–373

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Amor H, Marigo J-J, Maurini C (2009) Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57:1209–1229

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Fei F, Choo J (2020) A phase-field method for modeling cracks with frictional contact. Int J Numer Methods Eng 121:740–762

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Goldsmith J, Salmon J (1987) Automatic creation of object hierarchies for ray tracing. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 7:14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Benson DJ, Hallquist JO (1990) A single surface contact algorithm for the post-buckling analysis of shell structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 78:141–163

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. De Lorenzis L, Wriggers P, Weißenfels C (2017) Computational contact mechanics with the finite element method, Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics Second Edition, pp 1–45

  58. Hachani M, Fourment L (2013) A smoothing procedure based on quasi-C1 interpolation for 3D contact mechanics with applications to metal forming. Computers & Structures 128:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Choi J-S, Lee H-C, Im Y-T (2010) A study on chevron crack formation and evolution in a cold extrusion. J Mech Sci Technol 24:1885–1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Husson C, Correia J, Daridon L, Ahzi S (2008) Finite elements simulations of thin copper sheets blanking: Study of blanking parameters on sheared edge quality. J Mater Process Technol 199:74–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hambli R, Potiron A (2000) Finite element modeling of sheet-metal blanking operations with experimental verification. J Mater Process Technol 102:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. de Sá JC, Areias P, Zheng C (2006) Damage modelling in metal forming problems using an implicit non-local gradient model. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:6646–6660

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Hambli R (2001) Comparison between Lemaitre and Gurson damage models in crack growth simulation during blanking process. Int J Mech Sci 43:2769–2790

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Kumar S, Fourment L, Guerdoux S (2015) Parallel, second-order and consistent remeshing transfer operators for evolving meshes with superconvergence property on surface and volume. Finite Elem Anal Des 93:70–84

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the enterprise of Transvalor with mutual cooperation with the center of material forming (CEMEF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hazem Eldahshan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Appendix: Finite element model

Appendix: Finite element model

In order to ensure the well-posedness and stability of the numerical solution, a bubble function is introduced to enrich the velocity field. The bubble function should have a value of 1 at the center of the element and vanishes at the boundaries. The approximate velocity, pressure and phase field variables can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} v_{h} &=& v_{l} + v_{b} = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{n}} {N_{l}^{k}} {v_{l}^{k}} + \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{e}} {N_{b}^{j}} {v}_{b}^{j} \end{array}$$
(29a)
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} p_{h} &=& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{n}} {N_{l}^{k}} P^{k} \end{array}$$
(29b)
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} d_{h} &=& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_{n}} {N_{l}^{k}} d^{k} \end{array}$$
(29c)

where vl and vb are the linear and bubble velocities, respectively, ph is the pressure and dh is the phase field. \({N_{l}^{k}}\) and \({N_{b}^{j}}\) are the base and bubble interpolation functions associated with node k and element j, respectively. Ne and Nn are the number of elements and nodes respectively. The resulting problem in the general form can be written as

Find (vh, ph and dh)

figure d

where \(\vec {g}\) is the body load vector per unit mass, ρ is the density and ωh is the volume of a finite element mesh in the current configuration so that

$$\omega_{h} = \bigcup_{e} \omega_{e} {(e \in N_{e})}.$$

The following properties are taken into account: \({\int \limits }_{\gamma _{t}} \vec {t} \cdot \delta v_{b} d{\omega _{h}} = 0\) since the bubble function vanishes at the boundaries, the inertial contribution of the bubble part is neglected so that \({\int \limits }_{\omega _{h}} \rho \frac {\partial v_{l}}{\partial t} \cdot \delta v_{b} d{\omega _{h}} = {\int \limits }_{\omega _{h}} \rho \frac {\partial v_{b}}{\partial t} \cdot \delta v_{l} d{\omega _{h}}= 0\) and \({\int \limits }_{\omega _{h}} \boldsymbol {s}(v_{b}) :\boldsymbol { \dot {\varepsilon }}(\delta v_{l}) d{\omega _{h}} = {\int \limits }_{\omega _{h}} \boldsymbol {s}(v_{l}) :\boldsymbol { \dot {\varepsilon }}(\delta v_{b}) d{\omega _{h}}= 0\) due to the orthogonality property of the bubble and nodal spaces. The time derivative of the velocity is approximated as follows

$$\begin{aligned}\frac{\partial v_{l,b}}{\partial t} =\frac{{v}^{ t+{\Delta} t}_{l,b} - {{v}^{ t}_{l,b}}}{\Delta t}\end{aligned}$$
(31)

where Δt is the time step. Substituting Eqs. A and 31 in Eqs. AA, the final form of the residual equations can be written on the following form:

$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \boldsymbol{R}^{ll} + \boldsymbol{R}^{lp} &=& \boldsymbol{0} \end{array}$$
(32a)
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \boldsymbol {R}^{bb}+ \boldsymbol{R}^{bp} &=& \boldsymbol{0} \end{array}$$
(32b)
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \boldsymbol{R}^{pl} + \boldsymbol{R}^{pb} + \boldsymbol{R}^{pp} &=& \boldsymbol{0} \end{array}$$
(32c)
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \boldsymbol{R}^{dd} + \boldsymbol{R}^{dl}&=& \boldsymbol{0} \end{array}$$
(32d)

where Rxy is the residual force vector of coupled set of unknowns x and y. The system of equations in (A) will be solved in a staggered manner. A Newton Raphson nonlinear solver is used to solve the system of the first three equations before each remeshing step. Then, the fourth equation will be solved independently. It is worth noting that the system of Eqs. 32a32b and 32c are condensated so that the final unknowns become the velocities and pressures at the nodes without the need to explicitly solve for the bubble velocities.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eldahshan, H., Munoz, D.P., Alves, J. et al. 3D crack initiation and propagation applied to metal forming processes. Int J Mater Form 15, 60 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-022-01702-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-022-01702-7

Keywords

Navigation