© All Rights Reserved

313 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Underbalanced Drilling in Shale
- Properties and Characteristics of Engineering Materials
- Finite Element Analysis of Riveted Joints in Old Steel Buildings in NZ
- Material Science Syllabus
- Silva Cell H 20 Loading Specifications
- Lesson1_MaterialProperties
- F5 CW5 29 Nov 2012 Answer
- The Quasi-static Fracture Behavior of an
- mse_7.pdf
- Lecture(StressandStrain)[1]
- ME 603 AEP Introduction 1
- ECClinkslab Kim Ficsher Li
- An Elastoplastic Semi-Analytical Method to Analyze the Plastic
- Innovative rules in Eurocode 3, Part 1-10 for the choice of material.pdf
- 802717_ch46
- (the International Cryogenics Monograph Series) D. a. Wigley (Auth.)-Mechanical Properties of Materials at Low Temperatures-Springer US (1971)
- 8
- 9
- euro rock
- Elastic Settlement Calculation

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

On: 16 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931793936]

Publisher Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778188386

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of

aluminium extrusions

H. Hooputra; H. Gese; H. Dell; H. Werner

Online publication date: 08 July 2010

To cite this Article Hooputra, H. , Gese, H. , Dell, H. and Werner, H.(2004) 'A comprehensive failure model for

crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions', International Journal of Crashworthiness, 9: 5, 449 464

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or

systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or

distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses

should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly

or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Woodhead Publishing Ltd 0289 449 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 pp. 449463

Corresponding Author:

H Hooputra,

BMW Group

Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147,

D-80788 Munich, Germany

Tel: +49 (0) 89 382 494 17 Fax: +49 (0) 89 382 428 20

Email: hariaokto.hooputra@bmw.de

NOTATION

a, a

1

Constants in analytical approximation of

stress-strain curve

c Directionally dependent material parameter

in ductile fracture curve

c

h

Heat treatment effectivity parameter

d Inhomogeneity parameter

d

0

, d

1

Material parameters in ductile fracture curve

f Material parameter in shear fracture curve

k

0

, k

1

, k

2

Material parameters in ductile fracture curve

h

0

,

h

0

Initial sheet thickness outside of localised neck

and in the localised neck

h,

neck and in the localised neck

k

s

Material parameter in shear fracture curve

m Strain rate sensitivity parameter

n Strain hardening exponent

r

0

, r

45

, r

90

Lankford coefficients describing plastic

orthotropy

t Time

x Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet

(x = rolling direction)

y Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet

(y = normal to rolling direction)

x Axis in local coordinate system of necked

sheet (x = normal to neck)

y Axis in local coordinate system of necked

sheet (y = parallel to neck)

Ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major

principal strain (rate)

Orientation angle of initial neck relative to

rolling direction

Small number for initial sheet imperfection

in Marciniak model

0

Constant in analytical approximation of stress-

strain curve

1

,

2

Principal in plane components of plastic

strain,

1

>

2

eq

Equivalent plastic strain

eq

Equivalent plastic strain rate

( )

eq

ref

(typically 1 s

1

)

A comprehensive failure model for

crashworthiness simulation of aluminium

extrusions

H Hooputra

1

, H Gese

2

, H Dell

2

and H Werner

1

1

BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich, Germany

2

MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich, Germany

Abstract: A correct representation of the plastic deformation and failure of individual component

parts is essential to obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. The aim of this paper is to

present a comprehensive approach for predicting failure in a component based on macroscopic

strains and stresses. This approach requires the use of a number of different failure mechanism

representations, such as necking (due to local instabilities), as well as ductile and shear fracture. All

failure criteria have been developed in a way to include the influence of non-linear strain paths. The

effectiveness of this approach in predicting failure is then discussed by comparing numerical results

with test data by three point bending and axial compression tests of double chamber extrusion

components. All studies presented in this paper were carried out on extrusions made from aluminium

alloy EN AW-7108 T6.

Key words: Crashworthiness simulation, metal failure, failure prediction, plastic instability, ductile

fracture, shear fracture.

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 450 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

eq

*

Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability

eq

Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability

for one orientation angle of the initial neck

relative to rolling direction

eq

**

Equivalent plastic strain at onset of fracture

S

S

+

, Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial

tension/compression at shear fracture

T

T

+

, Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial

tension/compression at ductile fracture

Stress triaxiality

+

,

compression at ductile fracture

Shear stress parameter

+

,

tension/compression.

+

= 2 4k

S

,

= 2 +

4k

S

Angle between extrusion direction and major

principal strain rate

1

,

2

,

3

Principal components of stress tensor

eq

Equiv. stress

m

m

= (

1

+

2

+

3

)/3

x

,

y

Stress components in extrusion direction and

transverse direction

xy

In plane shear stress component

Ratio of maximum shear stress to equivalent

stress

INTRODUCTION

Most of todays crashworthiness simulation codes offer

an incomplete selection of failure models. Often this

selection is limited to simple fracture models based on

the maximum strain criterion (i.e. the true fracture strain

is constant for all stress states). The problem with these

models is that they do not take the dependence of the

fracture strain on the complete state of stress in a

component into account. The result being, that these

simplified approaches have resulted in inaccurate fracture

predictions [1]. On a more advanced level, there exist

some theoretical models based on mesoscopic effects. One

example is the Gurson model, which accounts for the

evolution of material porosity using a special yield criterion.

However, this kind of model is limited to representing

ductile fracture and as such ignores the fracture mechanism

based on shear [1, 2]. In FEM analysis, failure prediction

using the Gurson model is highly dependent on mesh

refinement as this model causes strain softening prior to

fracture. Considering these shortcomings prevalent in

todays numerical codes, there emerges a strong need for

the development of a comprehensive approach for failure

prediction coupled with a numerically robust implementa-

tion. This approach must be flexible enough to make use

of the available discretisation used in todays automotive

crash simulations (i.e. the use of shell elements with typical

edge length between 5 and 15 mm). As localised necking

of thin sheets or profiles (necking in the direction of sheet

thickness) cannot be modelled with this discretisation, a

criterion for instability must be introduced in addition to

the fracture models.

Sheets and thin-walled extrusions made from aluminium

alloys generally fail due to one or a combination of the

following mechanisms (Figure 1):

ductile fracture (based on initiation, growth and

coalescence of voids),

shear fracture (based on shear band localisation).

instability with localised necking (followed by ductile

or shear fracture inside the neck area),

Instability is necessary as a third failure criterion if the

structure is discretised with shell elements. A more in-

depth explanation will be given in the section Numerical

Model for Instability.

The failure strains of the different mechanisms depend

primarily on strain rate, temperature, anisotropy, state of

stress and strain path.

This paper describes the derivation of three failure

criteria for Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS

failure criteria). The failure criteria are based on

macroscopic stresses and strains. The criteria include the

effect of anisotropy, state of stress and strain path. One

set of parameters is valid for one temperature and one

strain rate regime (quasi-static or dynamic).

The IDS failure criteria have been integrated into the

software code CrachFEM

1

. CrachFEM is an add-on

module to FEM codes which use an explicit-dynamic time

integration scheme. CrachFEM transiently predicts failure

Figure 1 Visualisation of ductile fracture, shear fracture and sheet instability (localised necking).

Localised neck

Ductile fracture Shear fracture Sheet instability

1

CrachFEM is a trademark of MATFEM (GER)

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 451 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

of elements during deformation. Critical elements can be

eliminated from the finite element model.

Three point bending and compression tests have been

used to validate the IDS failure criteria. The simulations

were conducted using a coupling of the crash simulation

code PAM-CRASH

2

with CrachFEM.

The instability, ductile, and shear fracture curves were

determined for aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 subjected

to various stress states. This material was selected in order

to illustrate the occurrence of the various failure modes.

The coefficients for the IDS failure criteria were derived

for room temperature and two strain rates (quasi-static

and 250 1/s).

A correct representation of the material plasticity is a

prerequisite of a correct failure prediction because the

failure criteria are based on local stresses and strains.

Therefore, the plasticity of the aluminium extrusion EN

AW-7108 T6 was examined in detail first (strain hardening,

yield locus).

CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL PLASTICITY

Short tensile specimens have been cut out of the outer

walls of a double chamber extrusion, at 0, 45 and 90 to

the extrusion direction. The plastic anisotropy r (necessary

for the IDS failure criteria calculation) and the strain

hardening parameters were derived experimentally using

these samples. Test results are summarised in Table 1.

The results show that the plastic orthotropy is very

pronounced, r-values change from 0.327 in extrusion

direction to 1.378 in diagonal direction.

Static and dynamic, tensile and compression tests of

prismatic specimens cut in the extrusion direction have

been performed to quantify the strain rate sensitivity of

the material and adiabatic flow stress curves. These are

required as input for commercial FEM crash codes with

an explicit-dynamic time integration scheme. A fully

coupled thermo-mechanical solution procedure is not

supported by these codes. The method used to obtain

adiabatic flow stress curves from these experiments is

described in [1]. The adiabatic flow stress curves for

aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 are shown in Figure 2.

There is no significant strain rate sensitivity for strain

rates between quasi-static and 1 s

1

. At higher strain rates,

the material displays a positive strain rate sensitivity for

strains below about 20%, while above this value, the

material shows a negative strain rate sensitivity due to the

adiabatic heating of the material.

Tube-shaped specimens extruded from the same batch

under similar process parameters were used to determine

the initial yield locus of EN AW-7108 T6. Testing was

performed on a multifunctional testing machine with

hydraulic gear for the following load cases

1. Axial tension

2. Axial compression

3. Torsion

4. Axial tension (compression) with internal pressure

5. Torsion with internal pressure

6. Torsion with axial tension (compression) and internal

pressure.

Additionally, ring specimens for uniaxial compression

tests were cut from tubes. The yield locus was measured

for an equivalent plastic strain of 2%, see Figure 3. The

symmetric yield locus of Barlat et al. [3] in connection

with an associated flow rule has been used to describe

plastic deformation. It gives a good approximation in the

tension-tension regime. However, it can be seen from

Figure 3 that the case of pure shear (

x

=

y

) is not well

represented. The experimental results display a slightly

concave shape in this area. Strain hardening and strain

rate effects have been taken into consideration by an affine

Table 1 Quasi-static material parameters of extrusion EN AW-7108 T6

Orientation Anisotropy Flow stress:

eq

= a(

0

+

eq

)

n

parameter r

a [MPa]

0

[ ] n[ ]

L (0) 0.327 596.1 0.020 0.1427

D (45) 1.378 511.5 0.012 0.1148

LT (90) 0.965 642.5 0.042 0.1726

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

True strain []

T

r

u

e

s

t

r

e

s

s

[

M

P

a

]

0.002 1/s

25 1/s

100 1/s

Figure 2 Adiabatic flow stress vs. strain for different

strain rates for EN AW-7108 T6 specimens cut in

extrusion direction.

2

PAM-CRASH is a trademark of ESI Group (F)

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 452 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

expansion or contraction (in case of strain softening) of

the initial yield locus.

NUMERICAL MODEL FOR INSTABILITY (LOCALISED

NECKING)

Localised necking is the main mechanism leading to

fracture in ductile sheet metals. The classical forming

limit curve (FLC) generally used to predict localised

instabilities is not useful in this instance because of its

assumption of linear strain paths in the material. In order

to take the effects of nonlinear strain paths into account,

which can develop during a crash event, a theoretical model

of the instability mechanism (CRACH algorithm) was used

for this study. This algorithm, based on the basic ideas of

the Marciniak approach [4], uses an initial imperfection

to trigger the instability. The calibration and validation of

this approach was achieved using a set of multistage

experiments at static and dynamic strain rates using mild

steel specimens [5].

The failure mechanisms at work in the sheet metal

forming process are summarised in Figure 1. All forming

operations are stable up to the instability strain limit

eq

*

,

after which the instability causes the formation of a localised

thinning of the cross section a neck, see Figure 4.

The state of stress in the neck area changes for all

strain paths to plane strain. As the plastic deformation of

the sheet becomes concentrated in the necked region, the

fracture strain is reached at once. Because the localised

neck has a width in the order of the dimension of the

sheet thickness, the necking process and subsequent

fracture cannot be modelled directly in industrial crash

simulation (shell elements have a typical edge length of 3

to 10 times the sheet thickness). The instability strain

eq

*

has to be used as a fracture criterion instead of the local

fracture strain

eq

**

inside the neck. From a numerical

point of view, a failure criterion based on the strain at

onset of instability,

eq

*

, has the additional advantage that

the strain distribution is physically as well as numerically

homogeneous.

Several attempts have been made in the literature to

calculate the limit curve for instability from the plastic

properties of the sheet. Hill [6] published a model, which

is acceptable to describe the left part of the initial FLC

(

2

< 0). Basic research was performed by Marciniak et

al. [4]. They described the plastic deformation of a sheet

with an initial thickness imperfection up to the point of

instability and showed promising results for the FLC of

isotropic material with strain rate sensitivities for

2

< 0.

However, the orthotropic material model used is not

consistent. Because the Marciniak model uses an isotropic

hardening model, it is also limited to linear strain paths.

Cayssials [7] used a mesoscopic damage model to simulate

the instability strain in plane strain situation for different

Figure 3 Experimental yield data from tube specimens

extruded from EN AW-7108 T6 and cross section of fitted

yield surface (Barlat et al. 1991) for

xy

= 0 at an

equivalent plastic strain of 2% (x = extrusion direction,

y = transverse direction). Units of stress: [GPa].

S

i

g

y

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sig

x

Approximation

2% experiment

2%

Figure 4 (a) The stress distribution in a sheet may just induce the onset of instability; the strain distribution is still

homogeneous. (b) Slightly increasing the stresses leads to a local neck, immediately followed by fracture. The strain distribution

is inhomogeneous, showing a peak within the neck (local strain). In a numerical model, discretised with shell elements, only

the global strain can be evaluated from nodal displacements N

1

to N

4

. Since the global strain does not change significantly

from onset of instability to onset of fracture, the former may be used as a slightly conservative fracture criterion. For the shell

elements, a length to thickness ratio greater than 5 should hold.

(a) Onset of instability (b) Onset of fracture (c) Local and global strain

y

+

y

x

+

x

45

Onset of

fracture

Onset of

instability

Global strain

L

o

c

a

l

s

t

r

a

i

n

G

lo

b

a

l

s

tr

a

in

L

o

c

a

l

s

t

r

a

i

n

N

2

N

1

N

3

N

4

eq

*

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 453 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

steel grades. However, the model does not cover the whole

FLC and is limited to isotropic materials. Hora et al. [8]

have applied a modified force criterion to non-linear strain

paths. The model does not include kinematic hardening

and will therefore be limited in the quantitative prediction

of necking in non-linear cases. This review shows that a

need for a complete description of sheet instability for all

strain paths still exists.

The newly developed algorithm CRACH has been used

in this study which includes a refined description of

material behaviour on a macroscopic level, in conjunction

with the effects of the material microstructure. The

mechanical problem is given in Figure 5. The basic concept

is derived from the Marciniak model [4]. In this model

the localised neck is triggered by an initial imperfection

of the sheet. The sheet has an initial thickness of h

0.

The

thickness inside the infinitely small imperfection is given

in equation (1).

h h

0 0

= (1 ) [1]

is a very small number. Here and in the following chapters,

all values inside the localised neck are indicated with a

tilde (~). As the neck is infinitely small, the increase in

strain parallel to the neck (defined as local y-direction in

Figure 5) is identical inside and outside the neck according

to equation (2).

d d

y y

= [2]

This model is practicable for linear strain paths in the

region of

2

< 0 (

1

and

2

are the principal strains in the

plane of the sheet with

2

1

), where the neck width is

very small. In the region

2

> 0 the neck can have a

significant width. Therefore, the CRACH algorithm uses

an approximation of the neck cross section according to

equation (3).

h h d

x

l

0 0

= 1 cos

j

(

,

\

,

(

,

,

]

]

]

[3]

x indicates the local direction normal to the necking line

according to Figure 5. The initial thickness h

0

has no

influence on the numerical problem and is fixed to 1. The

ratio x/l changes from 0 (neck center) to 1/2 (region of

the sheet with homogeneous deformation). d is the

inhomogeneity parameter and its initial value is calibrated

from the limit strain out of one experiment with the

individual sheet. The parameter d increases with

deformation in the CRACH algorithm in order to account

for the roughening of the sheet during plastic deformation.

The strain outside the neck can be increased

incrementally according to the strain history of a finite

element. The strain inside the neck is calculated by CRACH

using equation (3) and a strain rate dependent plasticity

model with isotropic-kinematic hardening.

The equivalent flow stress of the material is defined by

eq 1 0 eq

eq

eq ref

= ( + )

( )

a

n

j

(

,

\

,

(

[4]

with strain hardening exponent n and strain rate sensitivity

parameter m, where n and m can differ between the

quasistatic and dynamic loading regimes. The plastic

orthotropy is defined by the Lankford coefficients r

0

, r

45

,

and r

90

. An anisotropic yield locus according to Hill-1948

is combined with a model for anisotropic strain hardening

according to Backhaus [9] to account for the Bauschinger

effect in the CRACH algorithm.

The global strain around the neck is increased

incrementally as long as the force equilibrium is fulfilled

according to equations (5a) and (5b).

x x

h h = [5a]

x y x y

h h = [5b]

The first increment without equilibrium indicates the

instability with the start of the localised necking. This

mechanical problem has to be solved for different

orientation angles according to Figure 5 of the initial

neck relative to the rolling direction of the sheet. The

limit strain

eq

*

for one deformation path is derived through

optimisation according to equation (6).

eq

*

eq

= min{ ( )} [6]

For some angles , the equivalent limit strain

eq

can be

high or even infinite. Therefore, an upper limit of

eq

=

1.2 has been defined. In summary, the CRACH algorithm

solves the plastic flow problem inside and outside the

initial neck area. Instability occurs if there is no common

solution for the flow problem inside and outside of the

neck.

Additional features of the CRACH algorithm are:

introduction of a heat treatment effectivity parameter

c

h

(0 < c

h

< 1) to represent interstage annealing; c

h

> 0

Figure 5 Schematic representation of the imperfection

triggering a localised neck in the CRACH algorithm.

y

xy

x

x

l

y

h

h

X

d h h h = ( )/

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 454 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

reduces the effect of strain hardening and resets all

micro stresses to zero according to [10];

inclusion of the possibility to introduce new flow curves

between stages due to heat treatment (i.e. solution heat

treatment and age hardening) or significant changes in

strain rate (i.e. for history deep drawing and crash).

PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR DUCTILE AND

SHEAR FRACTURE

Two main mechanisms can cause the fracture of a ductile

metal:

void nucleation, void growth and void coalescence;

shear fracture due to shear band localisation.

Most of the phenomenological fracture models are based

on a fracture diagram which gives the equivalent plastic

strain at fracture

eq

**

as a function of the stress state (i.e.

stress triaxiality according to equation (8)). The function

eq

**

() can be used directly as a fracture criterion in the

case of a linear strain path. For the more general case of

a nonlinear strain path, an integral fracture criterion is

necessary. Kolmogorov [11] has presented an integral

criterion according to equation (7).

0

eq

eq

**

eq

**

( )

= 1

d

[7]

Integral criteria can account for nonlinear strain paths.

However, in more severe cases of load path changes (i.e.

compression-tension reversal) even the integral criteria

are no longer valid. CrachFEM offers a tensorial criterion

as an option for these cases. The tensorial fracture criterion

is not discussed here.

The fracture criterion is calculated separately for the

risk of ductile fracture and shear fracture in CrachFEM.

It is assumed that there is no interaction between both

fracture mechanisms.

Ductile fracture

For ductile fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent

fracture strain

eq

**

is a function of the stress triaxiality ,

defined in equation (8) by components in principal stress

space.

=

3

=

+ +

+ +

eq

1 2 3

1

2

2

2

3

2

1 2 2 3 3 1

m

[8]

Typically, the dependence of the equivalent fracture

strain on the stress triaxiality is expressed in the form of

equation (9).

eq

**

= d

0

exp(c) [9]

Equation (9) assumes a monotonic decrease of the fracture

strain with increasing stress triaxiality. However,

experimental results from aluminium extrusions used in

this study show that the equivalent plastic strain at fracture

for equibiaxial stress ( 2) can be higher than the

equivalent plastic strain at fracture in plane strain loading

(

3 ). Equation (10) represents a more general

formulation and includes a non-monotonic decrease of

the fracture strain with increasing stress triaxiality.

eq

**

= d

0

exp (c) + d

1

exp (c) [10]

where d

1

is an additional material parameter. Of course,

equation (10) includes the special case of equation (9) for

a monotonic decrease in fracture strain vs. stress triaxiality.

However, equations (9) and (10) remain limited to

describing isotropic materials.

A more general formulation of equation (10), which

includes the orthotropy of fracture, must also include the

boundary conditions of the equivalent fracture strain

T

+

for the equibiaxial tension condition which must not be

orientation dependent. Theoretically, the fracture strain

at equibiaxial compression

dependent as well. However, its value is usually very high.

If

+

is the stress triaxiality for equibiaxial tension and

(a material with isotropic plasticity yields

+

= 2 and

T

+

eq

**

= for =

+

[11a]

T

eq

**

= for =

[11b]

The parameters d

0

and d

1

of equation (10) can be

substituted using the boundary conditions from equations

(11a) and (11b). The result is given in equation (12) below.

eq

**

+ +

+

=

sinh[ ( )] + sinh [ ( )]

sinh [ ( )]

T

T

c c

c

[12]

An orientation dependent parameter c has been introduced

in equation (12) for the orthotropic case. Therefore equation

(12) has two constant parameters,

T

T

+

, and one

orientation dependent parameter c. The dependence of

the parameter c on the angle between the extrusion

direction and the direction of the first principal strain

rate

1

is expressed in equation (13).

c = k

0

+ k

1

cos (2) + k

2

cos (4) [13]

Equations (13) and (14) fulfil the necessary symmetry

boundary conditions. Equations (12) and (13) are used to

approximate the ductile fracture curve in this study.

The parameter

T

+

can be directly obtained from an

equibiaxial tension test (i.e. Erichsen test). The parameters

derived from two additional experiments with different

stress triaxiality. In this project, three point bending (plane

strain tension) and notched tensile specimens (uniaxial

tension at notch root) have been used. For two different

orientations (45 and 90) the value of c is derived from

three point bending tests. If c is known for three orientations

(i.e. c

0

, c

45

and c

90

), the coefficients k

0

, k

1

and k

2

of equation

(13) can be calculated using equations (14ac).

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 455 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

k

0

= (c

0

+ 2c

45

+ c

90

)/4 [14a]

k

1

= (c

0

c

90

)/2 [14b]

k

2

= (c

0

2c

45

+ c

90

)/4 [14c]

Shear fracture

For shear fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent strain

at fracture

eq

**

is a function of the variable given in

equation (15).

=

1 k

s

[15]

where

k

s

is a material parameter and is the ratio of the

maximum shear stress and the equivalent stress (von Mises)

according to equation (16).

=

max

eq

[16]

Analogous to equation (12), the equivalent plastic strain

for shear fracture with respect to is given in equation

(17).

eq

**

+ +

+

=

sinh[ ( )] + sinh [ ( )]

sinh [ ( )]

S

S

f f

f

[17]

where

+

and

equibiaxial tension und compression. Equation (17) has

two constant parameters

S

S

+

, and one orientation

dependent parameter f. No significant orthotropy of the

shear fracture curve has been found up to now for different

sheets and extrusions. Therefore, it is assumed that f is a

constant, independent of the orientation to extrusion

direction.

DERIVATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS

Instability

The limit strain

1

*

of the initial FLC in uniaxial tension

specimens is derived from the specimen thickness and

width measured at a distance of twice the sheet thickness

from the fracture line (outside the localised neck), assuming

volume constancy during the plastic deformation. The

mean value of three quasi-static experiments in extrusion

direction resulted in a strain limit of 125 . 0 . The algorithm

CRACH (input: r-values r

0

= 0.327, r

45

= 1.378, r

90

=

0.965 and strain hardening coefficients a

static

= 596 MPa,

0,static

= 0.02, n

static

= 0.143 in extrusion direction; quasi-

static strain rate sensitivity of m

static

= 0) was used to

derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for this limit strain

(d = 0.0028). The quasi-static FLC predicted by CRACH

is shown in Figure 6.

An approximation of the flow stress curves from tensile

tests at 250 s

1

was used to derive the parameters of the

Swift equation for CRACH in the dynamic regime (a

dynamic

= 572.9 MPa,

0,dynamic

= 0.032,

n

dynamic

= 0.122)

3

. A

correlation of the flow stress curves at a strain rate of

1 s

1

and 100 s

1

yields the strain rate sensitivity of m

dynamic

= 0.006 for the dynamic regime.

The CRACH algorithm (input: r-values and dynamic

strain hardening parameters as cited above) was used to

derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for the limit strains

of the dynamic tensile tests in the different orientations.

A mean value of d = 0.0025 for the three orientations was

used to calculate the dynamic FLC (see Figure 6). It may

be observed from the results that the static and mean

dynamic inhomogeneity parameters are very similar, and

that the dynamic FLC is somewhat lower than the quasi-

static one.

Ductile fracture limit

Different specimen geometries are used to define different

deformation states (i.e. plane strain, equibiaxial strain etc.).

For the derivation of the fracture parameters, the stress

state parameters (defined in equation (8)) and for the

shear fracture curve (defined in equation (16)) must be

known, and thus a material model must be introduced for

this purpose. For this analysis, an isotropic von Mises

yield locus was used. This yield locus does not exactly fit

the materials plasticity results, but it does make the fracture

model more robust and more general. This does not cause

an incompatibility during the calculation because the

material plasticity in the FEM module and the fracture

models are uncoupled.

Erichsen test (equibiaxial stress with = 2), three point

bending of sheet coupons (width/thickness > 4 with plane

strain tension and

= 3 ; tests under 0, 45 and 90 to

extrusion direction) and waisted tensile specimens with

fracture at the notch root (uniaxial tension with = 1)

have been used to obtain the ductile fracture limit. The

local fracture strains have been derived from a grid on the

surface of the specimens (Erichsen test and three point

Figure 6 Initial forming limit curves (FLC) predicted

with CRACH for the quasistatic and dynamic cases

(approx. 250 s

1

) for specimens cut in the extrusion

direction.

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

esp

2

e

p

s

1

Quasistatic

Dynamic

3

This approximation is only used for the prediction of instability with algorithm CRACH. The Swift parameters must not be used for the

extrapolation up to higher strains since this function type cannot account for softening effects due to adiabatic heating.

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 456 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

bending) or from the sheet thickness in the fracture plane

(waisted tensile specimens). The Erichsen tests resulted

in both ductile and shear fractures for different specimens

at the pole location. Therefore, these data have been used

to determine both the ductile and shear fracture limits.

In comparing the equivalent fracture strain between

the quasistatic and dynamic experiments, it has been

observed that for the three point bending and notched

tensile tests (wide specimens) the quasistatic equivalent

strain is lower than in the dynamic case. In all other

experiments, the equivalent fracture strains are higher in

the dynamic case. Whereas, in quasistatic tests the fracture

strain shows a pronounced minimum in the LT direction

(normal to extrusion direction), the fracture strains in

the dynamic case seem to be more isotropic.

The limit diagram for ductile fracture was approximated

using equations (12) and (13). Material parameters shown

in Table 2 were derived from experiments. The

approximation of the ductile fracture curves for three

orientations to extrusion direction versus stress triaxiality

is given for the quasi-static case in Figure 7 together

with the experimental input.

Table 2 Material parameters in equation (12) for the

ductile fracture limit in the quasistatic and dynamic

case (EN AW-7108 T6)

Quasi-static Dynamic

T

+

= 0.26

T

+

= 0.44

= 193.0

= 1494.0

k

0

= 1.759 k

0

= 2.8768

k

1

= 0.125 k

1

= 0.0465

k

2

= 0.048 k

2

= 0.1233

quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case.

The derivation of from the stress triaxiality is given

in Appendix A.

Shear fracture limit

Tensile specimen with a groove (rectangular cross section,

groove depth = half sheet thickness) under 45 to loading

direction ( = 1.469), specially shaped tensile specimens

with a groove parallel to the loading direction (pure shear

with = 1.732) and Erichsen tests (biaxial tension with

= 1.6), have been used to determine the shear fracture

limit. Results from Erichsen tests were added to this curve

in case the specimens had failed in shear fracture. The

dynamic fracture limits are slightly lower than the

quasistatic ones.

The quasistatic and dynamic shear fracture limit curves

were approximated using equation (17). The parameter

k

S

in equation (15) was set to 0.1 based on a number of

tests with different aluminium alloys. The shear fracture

was assumed to be isotropic. Material parameters according

to Table 3 were derived from the experimental results.

The shear fracture limit curve for the quasi-static case is

shown in Figure 8 together with the experimental data.

Table 3 Material parameters in equation (17) for the shear

fracture limit in quasistatic and dynamic case (EN AW-

7108 T6)

Quasi-static Dynamic

S

+

= 0.26

S

+

= 0.35

= 4.16

= 1.2

f = 4.04 f = 2.05

The shear fracture limit curves are plotted in Figure 9 for

the quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case

together with the instability limit and the ductile fracture

limit. For the characterization of the loading path for all

three types of limit curves,

= /

2 1

( =

2

/

1

for

linear strain paths) is used as a common measure. The

derivation of from the stress triaxiality and the

parameter is given in Appendix A.

Ductile

limit

0

Ductile

limit

45

Ductile

limit

90

Experiment

0

Experiment

45

Experiment

90

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Stress triaxiality eta

E

q

u

i

v

a

l

e

n

t

p

l

a

s

t

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

Figure 7 Ductile fracture limit curves

eq

**

( ) together

with experimental data for quasi-static case in orientation

of 0, 45 and 90 to extrusion direction.

For the characterization of the loading path for all three

types of limit curves,

= /

2 1

( =

2

/

1

for linear

strain paths) is used as a common measure. For purposes

of comparing these results with the other fracture limits,

the ductile fracture curves are shown in Figure 9 for the

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Shear limit

0

Experiment

0

Teta

E

q

u

i

v

a

l

e

n

t

p

l

a

s

t

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

Figure 8 Quasi-static shear fracture limit curve

eq

**

() and

experimental data from specimens cut in the extrusion

direction.

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 457 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

IDS failure map for EN AW-7108 T6

For the characterization of the loading path for all three

types of limit curves,

= /

2 1

( =

2

/

1

for linear

strain paths) is used as a common measure. For the purpose

of comparison, all failure limits are combined into a failure

map in Figure 9 for the quasistatic case and in Figure 10

for the dynamic case. The limit curves are plotted for the

special case of linear strain paths and membrane

deformation. A linear strain path is defined by = constant.

In practice, the strain paths are often nonlinear. In this

case, the limit curves used in the numerical solution process

are updated during the deformation based on the theoretical

models described above (algorithm CRACH for instability;

nonlinear damage accumulation with a tensorial damage

model for ductile and shear fracture). In the case of

combined loading (membrane and bending), the limit

curves for instability and shear fracture are checked against

the membrane strains (both effects cover the whole sheet

thickness), whereas the upper and lower surface strains

are used to predict ductile fracture (ductile cracks initiated

at the surface).

VALIDATION

Quasi-static three point bending, as well as quasi-static

and dynamic compression tests in axial direction of the

double chamber extrusions have been used to validate the

IDS failure criteria. The three point bending test

configuration consists of two support pins (radius 25 mm)

and a central punch (radius 50 mm). The distance between

the pins is 350 mm. Double plastic foils, lubricated on

both sides, are placed between the extrusions and the

pins, as well as the punch, to minimise friction. The

dynamic compression tests are conducted using impact

velocities of 10 m/s and an impacting mass of 500 kg.

A coupling of the crash simulation code PAM-CRASH

and CrachFEM has been used for performing the analyses.

Finite elements whose strains exceed any one of the failure

criteria are eliminated from the FE mesh.

The coupling between the codes is organised in the

following manner:

1. The strain and stress tensors of each shell element

are transferred from the FEM code to the CrachFEM

module every 10

th

time step,

2. CrachFEM then calculates factors of safety for

Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS failure

criteria)

CrachFEM tracks the influence of strain path, stress state,

strain rate, and orthotropy on the failure strain. During

1.5

1

0.5

0

2 1 0 1

Instability

Ductile fracture 0

Ductile fracture 45

Ductile fracture 90

Shear fracture

E

q

u

i

v

a

l

e

n

t

p

l

a

s

t

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

alpha = phi

2/phi

1

Figure 9 Quasistatic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6. Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths

and membrane loading.

Ductile fracture 0

Ductile fracture 45

Ductile fracture 90

Shear fracture

Instability

1.5

1

0.5

0

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1

Alpha = Phi

2/phi

1

E

q

u

i

v

a

l

e

n

t

p

l

a

s

t

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

Figure 10 Dynamic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6: Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths

and membrane loading.

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 458 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

deformation, there is a competition between the 3

mechanisms of failure (factor of safety is calculated for all

of the 3 failure modes). The criterion which is found to

become critical first (safety factor below 1) initiates the

element elimination. The result being that CrachFEM

can predict the time and mode of failure for each element.

The yield locus of Barlat-1991 (see Figure 3) and a

strain hardening according to Figure 2 has been used to

describe the plastic behaviour of the extrusions. Although

a strain softening has been found at high strain rates, this

behaviour may be problematic in the numerical application.

A strain softening or a negative strain rate sensitivity can

cause local element instabilities. Therefore, the strain

hardening curves above 25 s

1

according to Figure 2 have

been forced to have a positive strain hardening similar to

the curve for 25 s

1

.

The double chamber extrusion is modelled using shell

elements. The extrusion has a uniform thickness of

2.5 mm. In order to obtain an accurate prediction in the

simulation, a fine mesh (about 5 mm edge length) has

been used to produce the results shown in Figures 11 to

14. This is approximately the minimum edge length of

todays whole car crashworthiness simulation models for

critical structural parts.

Three point bending

The punch and the pins for three point bending test as

well as the impactor for the compression test are modelled

as rigid bodies. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient

of 0.05 is defined for the contact between the punch and

the component (steel-aluminium with lubricated polymer

foil in between). The aluminium-aluminium self contact

friction coefficient was found to be 0.15.

The force-displacement curves obtained from the three

point bending test are shown in Figure 11.

The numerical solution predicted without the use of

failure models shows considerable discrepancies from the

test results. Introducing the IDS failure criteria into the

numerical solution, not only improved the correlation,

but also approximates more accurately the total energy

absorption of the component. The initiation of fracture

in the simulation, using IDS failure criteria, correlates

well with that found in the test (Figures 12(a) and (b).

Fracture was found to initiate mainly in the T-section of

the middle wall and in the external area of the buckling

zone.

Axial compression test

The impactor for the compression test is modelled as a

rigid body too. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient

of 0.20 is defined for the contact between the dropped

mass (steel) and the extrusion. The aluminium-aluminium

self contact friction coefficient is again 0.15.

The simulation without any failure model does not

match the results from the quasi-static and dynamic

compression tests (Figure 13 center). Figure 13 left

shows a regular folding pattern in the quasi-static and

dynamic simulation. The simulations using the IDS failure

criteria accurately predict the real fracture pattern in the

extrusion for both loading velocities (Figure 13 right).

In the quasi-static case there is still folding with significant

fracture. Figure 14 shows fringe plots of the failure risk

parameter for the three failure modes. It is evident that

instability is not responsible for fracture. Ductile fracture

starts in the folds bent inward since they have a smaller

radius of curvature compared to the folds bent outward.

Figure 11 Three point bending test of double chamber

extrusions. Force-displacement curves from tests and

simulations with and without IDS failure criteria.

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

P

u

n

c

h

f

o

r

c

e

[

N

]

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Punch displacement [mm]

Experiments

FEM

no

fracture

FEM

Figure 12 Three point bending test - Fracture pattern from tests and simulation.

(a) Quasistatic three point bending test (b) Simulation of three point bending with IDS

failure criteria. (5 mm edge length of

shell elements)

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 459 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

Quasi-static simulation

without any failure criteria

Quasi-static compression test

Quasi-static simulation

with IDS failure criteria

Dynamic simulation

without any failure criteria

Dynamic compression test

Dynamic simulation with IDS

failure criteria

Shear fracture is initiated at the T-joint in the plane of

symmetry of the profile. In the dynamic case, see Figure

13 bottom, nearly no folding occurs. The wall segments

are separated completely in the corners and at the T-joint

between the middle wall and the outer walls, which is in

good agreement with the experiment.

The predominating fracture mode occurring in the

quasi-static and dynamic compression tests is shear and

ductile fracture. It seems likely that aluminium alloys

generally tend to be highly sensitive for shear loading in

the dynamic case (Figure 13 dynamic compression test).

CONCLUSIONS

A correct representation of the plastic deformation and

failure of individual component parts is essential to

obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. A

comprehensive approach for predicting failure in structural

components based on macroscopic strains and stresses

using the CrachFEM code has been presented. This

approach fits to the state-of-the-art in discretisation of

automotive crash simulation models (shell elements with

edge lengths of 5 to 15 mm). An edge length of 5 mm is

recommended in areas of high strain gradients. Due to

the absence of adaptive meshing procedures, these critical

areas have to be identified in advance. CrachFEM includes

all relevant failure mechanisms, such as Instability (localised

necking), Ductile and Shear fracture (IDS failure criteria).

All failure criteria are implemented in a way to include

the influence of non-linear strain paths.

Figure 13 Static and dynamic compression tests of double chamber extrusions (center) compared to simulations with and

without IDS failure criteria (left and right, respectively). Shell elements with 5 mm edge length were used.

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 460 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

All studies presented in this paper were carried out on

extrusions made from aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6.

The plasticity of these extrusions has been examined

experimentally. A Barlat yield criterion has been used to

model the plastic orthotropy. The IDS failure curves of

EN AW-7108 T6 are strongly dependent on the stress

state and strain rate of the material. The ductile fracture

limit curves and the instability curves show a strong

orthotropic behaviour, whereas the shear fracture limit

curves show no significant dependence on the extrusion

orientation direction. To obtain an accurate failure

prediction, this anisotropic behaviour has to be taken into

account in the simulation.

The comparison of numerical results to test data for

the three point bending and axial compression tests of

double chamber extrusions demonstrates a comprehensive

approach to accurately predict component failure, both

in terms of the mode and the location of cracks. Due to

the loading conditions in all of the examples, instability

did not show up as a dominating failure mode. However,

in loading situations where membrane tensile strains

prevail, instability will be of great importance. An example

for such a case is shown in the publication from Pickett et

al. [12].

The presented failure approach, however, can only

predict the crack initiation. The element elimination used

in the simulation, after the onset of fracture, represents

only a preliminary approach for simulating crack

propagation. A suitable criterion for crack propagation in

combination with a numerical implementation which is

mesh independent to the greatest possible extent remains

a challenge for future development work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Dr. V. Yelisseyev and his

co-workers at company TEST in Voronezh (RUS) for the

excellent experimental work on the measurement of the

yield locus and Dr. Andrew Heath for programming the

interface in PAM-CRASH to CrachFEM.

REFERENCES

1. EL-MAGD, E, GESE, H, THAM, R, HOOPUTRA, H and

WERNER, H. Fracture Criteria for Automobile

Crashworthiness Simulation of wrought Aluminium Alloy

Components, Mat.-wiss u Werkstofftech, 2001 32 712724.

2. SCHMITT, W, SUN, D Z, BLAUEL, J G and CHRISTLEIN, J.

Improved Description of the Material Behaviour of

Aluminium Automobile Components by the Gurson

Model, Proceeding of the 31

st

International Symposium on

Automotive Technology and Automation, Dsseldorf, 1998.

3. BARLAT, F, LEGE, D J and BREM, J C. A six-component

yield function for anisotropic materials, Int J Plasticity,

1991 7 693.

4. MARCINIAK, Z, KUCZYNSKI, K and POKORA, T. Influence of

the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit

diagram for sheet metal in tension, Int. J. of Mechanical

Sciences, 1973 15 789805.

5. DELL, H, GESE, H, KELER, L, WERNER, H and HOOPUTRA,

H Continuous Failure Prediction Model for Nonlinear

Load Paths in Successive Stamping and Crash Processes,

New Sheet Steel Products and Sheet Metal Stamping (SP-

1614), SAE 2001 World Congress, Michigan, SAE-Paper

2001-01-1131, 2001.

6. HILL, R. On discontinuous plastic states with special

reference to localised necking in thin sheets, J Mech Phys

Solids, 1952 1 1930.

7. CAYSSIALS, F. A new method for predicting FLC, IDDRG

Conference, Geneva, 1998 443454.

8. Hora, P, Tong, L, Reissner, J. A Failure Criterion for Prediction

of Strain Path Dependent Failures for Quadratic and Non-

Quadratic Yield Loci, Proceedings of Numisheet, 1996.

9. BACKHAUS, G. Plastic deformation in form of strain

trajectories of constant curvature Theory and comparison

with experimental results, Acta Mechanica, 1979 34 193

204.

Figure 14 Quasi-static compression of EN AW-7108 T6 double chamber extrusions. Left: arrows point to ductile fracture

sites of inward bent folds in the experiment. The fringe plots display the failure risk parameter for the three modes.

Failure is to be expected if the failure risk parameter is greater or equal to 1. The failure modes and their respective crack

location are in good agreement with the experiment. NOTE: element elimination is suppressed in the simulation; all

displacements are scaled by a factor of 0.25 to unfold the profile.

Failure risk

parameter

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Quasi-static compression Instability Ductile fracture Shear fracture

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 461 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

10. DELL H and ELISEEV W W. Materialmodell fr

mehrstufige Umformung mit Wrmebehandlung zwischen

den Stufen, Iswestija AN SSSR Metalli 1991 4 171174.

11. KOLMOGOROV, W L. Spannungen Deformationen Bruch,

Metallurgija, 1970 230.

12. PICKETT, A, PYTTEL, T, PAYEN, F, LAURO, F, PETRINIC, N,

WERNER, H and CHRISTLEIN, J. Failure prediction for

advanced crashworthiness of transportation vehicles,

Int. J. of Impact Engineering, 2004 Vol. 30 Issue 7

853872.

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 462 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

APPENDIX A

The fracture strain for ductile fracture is a function of

the stress triaxiality . The fracture strain for shear fracture

is a function of the stress triaxiality and the shear stress

parameter . The limit strain for instability is a function

of the ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major principal

strain (rate) . For the special case of plane stress

conditions, all three failure curves can be expressed as a

function of by using the Lvy von Mises equations.

This allows to compare all failure curves in one diagram

for the special case of linear strain paths and membrane

loading (see Figure 9 and 10). This appendix provides the

necessary equations to express all failure curves as a function

of .

Equations for ductile fracture

The plane stress condition yields 2 + 2.

=

6 + 12 3

2(3 )

2 2

2

with the special cases of

= 0 for

= 3

for

= 3

Equations for shear fracture

=

1 k

S

=

1 6 6 1 3

12 1

2 2

2

for 2 0

=

1 6 + 6 1 3

12 1

2 2

2

for 0 < 1

=

2 6 6 1 3

12 1

2 2

2

for

1 < 3

=

2 6 + 6 1 3

12 1

2 2

2

for

3 < 2

Figure A1 illustrates the dependencies of the parameters

, and for an arbitrary state of plane stress. For a given

state of plane stress,

1

,

2

,

3

= 0, the corresponding value

of the parameter is displayed normal to the

1

2

plane

of the von Mises yield locus. It is evident from the left side

of Figure A1 that all parameters show a plane of symmetry

which is normal to the line

1

=

2

. Therefore, the right

hand side of Figure A1 shows a side view along the line

1

=

2

in the plane of the von Mises yield locus.

1

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

von Mises

yield locus

von Mises

yield locus

(a) Parameter

2

1

1

2

von Mises

yield locus

2

1

1

2

von Mises

yield locus

(b) Parameter

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions

Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 463 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5

Figure A1 Parameters , and displayed as a function of principal stresses

1

and

2

. As explained in the text,

each parameter is plotted normal to the von Mises yield locus. The parameter is only shown in the relevant area for

instability. The dark shaded areas of parameter indicate that the in-plane shear stresses are most critical. The light

shaded areas indicate that the out-of-plane shear stresses are most critical. A value k

S

= 0.1 is used to construct the

-dependency.

von Mises

yield locus

1

von Mises

yield locus

(c) Parameter

2

2.5

2

1.5

2

0.5

2.5

2

1.5

2

0.5

D

o

w

n

l

o

a

d

e

d

B

y

:

[

I

n

d

i

a

n

I

n

s

t

i

t

u

t

e

o

f

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

,

D

e

l

h

i

]

A

t

:

1

0

:

4

2

1

6

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

1

- Underbalanced Drilling in ShaleTransféré parKarwan Ibrahim
- Properties and Characteristics of Engineering MaterialsTransféré pariamjemah
- Finite Element Analysis of Riveted Joints in Old Steel Buildings in NZTransféré parMaria Aivazoglou
- Material Science SyllabusTransféré parNidhi Sharma
- Silva Cell H 20 Loading SpecificationsTransféré parThupten Gedun Kelvin Ong
- Lesson1_MaterialPropertiesTransféré parBryan Owen Salcedo Santos
- F5 CW5 29 Nov 2012 AnswerTransféré parLeo Chan
- The Quasi-static Fracture Behavior of anTransféré parAugusto Goulart
- mse_7.pdfTransféré parcagaan
- Lecture(StressandStrain)[1]Transféré parchouszesze
- ME 603 AEP Introduction 1Transféré parAnurag Jasti
- ECClinkslab Kim Ficsher LiTransféré parhastoutomo
- An Elastoplastic Semi-Analytical Method to Analyze the PlasticTransféré parviopop
- Innovative rules in Eurocode 3, Part 1-10 for the choice of material.pdfTransféré parjjerman
- 802717_ch46Transféré parmvjayaram007
- (the International Cryogenics Monograph Series) D. a. Wigley (Auth.)-Mechanical Properties of Materials at Low Temperatures-Springer US (1971)Transféré pardeepakroy1984
- 8Transféré parhend mahmoud
- 9Transféré parhend mahmoud
- euro rockTransféré paramy75
- Elastic Settlement CalculationTransféré parbasum mat
- Mecg1014 - Lab 4Transféré parGeovanny Galarza
- 10.1.1.146.5539.pdfTransféré parRelvin Colón
- Defining the Legality of Gray Sandstone RockTransféré parLidija Djurdjevac Ignjatovic
- Strain.docxTransféré parJomarie Alcano
- 05. a Code of Practice for the Determination of Cyclic Stress-strainTransféré parDeivyson Augusto
- tension member 2019.pdfTransféré parFahlevi Corry
- A Test Method to Determine Low-Cycle-Fatigue Behavior of Wrinkled Pipe.pdfTransféré parNavjotSingh
- tension member 2019.pdfTransféré parSchmidt Junior
- BINDED 2Transféré parWiz
- 1-s2.0-S0013794410004601-mainTransféré parbnidhal

- [Murray Mackay (Auth.), Human Biomechanics AndinjuryTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- mecanica alergariiTransféré parAlex Iordache
- A Sample Pizza Shop With Delivery BusinessTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- mechanical_wear_fundamentals and testing.pdfTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- Textbook of Forensic Medicine.pdfTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- VFD-Shneider_manual_BBV28587_02.pdfTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- The Attritious and Fracture Wear of Grinding Wheels.pdfTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- the Mathematical Theory of PlasticityTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- Continuum MechanicsTransféré parEmre Demirci
- Finite Element Based Simulation of Dry Sliding WearTransféré parwondwosenAyele
- Analysis of Wear Using LS_DYNATransféré parwondwosenAyele
- LSPP_eZSetup1Transféré parwondwosenAyele
- Lsopt 50 ManualTransféré parwondwosenAyele

- Multimeter keshTransféré parKeshav Dadhichi
- Cyclone MODEL DS EnTransféré parAlly Hamzah
- TK118 GSM/GPRS/GPS TrackerTransféré parFeJunior
- Electric CurrentTransféré paridrisnate12
- C Viva QuestionsTransféré parKriSh Krish
- Detailed Lesson Plan in Mathematics 3Transféré pardadii
- Non-linear Buckling and Post-buckling Analysis of Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Axial Compressive Loads: A Study on Imperfection Sensitivityl Shells Axial Load 2013 (JB Gunda)Transféré parShell Buckling
- Warta Geologi 1987Transféré parRazin
- Chem7-Structure, Bonding and PropertiesTransféré parNor Ashikin Ismail
- Lab 4 - Creating PCB Using Orcad Layout PlusTransféré parsudean
- Installing Powerboss on Two Speed MotorsTransféré parAdina Dumitrescu
- CREE LED Color MixingTransféré parMichael Tusi Santiago
- 19XRTransféré parnglong24
- dx8-03c-foldoverTransféré parKumar Gaurav
- Adbri%2bMasonry%2bReinforced%2bBlock%2bWallsTransféré parShahabShoaee
- mms- lesson 3Transféré parapi-234158550
- Basic Concept of qTransféré parGopal Sudhir
- CCRBD 1a 1a1Transféré parAzwani Abdullah
- Engineering Mathematics Basic ConceptsTransféré parNelsonPolinarLaurden
- Alteon ITM TrainingTransféré par李謝揚
- Jurnal elusidasi struktur Jein Jelsi Lamia.pdfTransféré parDini Nurfauzia Fatharani
- g2 c08 reteach enrichTransféré parapi-292935504
- Two-way ANOVA.docTransféré parTakudzwa Mamvuto
- Technical FtpTransféré parJosé Da Silva Mata
- glichesTransféré parmahiiloveu
- INDIVIDU_ASSIGN_1_SEM_2_1718.pdfTransféré parafiqzero
- Windows 98Transféré parMichelle Sabandal
- Intelligent Control Based MPPT for Grid Penetration of Photovoltaic power SystemTransféré parVenkatesh Kumar
- Performance Analysis of Energy Efficient Cross Layer Load Balancing in Tactical Multi-Gateway Wireless Sensor NetworkTransféré parAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- 414-datasheetTransféré parAhmad Hamouda

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.