Bao and Widerzbicki 2005

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 1049–1069
www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
On the cut-off value of negative triaxiality for fracture

Yingbin Bao *, Tomasz Wierzbicki
Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Room 5-218, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Received 3 December 2003; received in revised form 28 May 2004; accepted 21 July 2004
Available online 11 November 2004
Abstract
Although yield condition of metals does not strongly depend on it, mean stress plays an important role in fracture of
metals. A cut-off value of the stress triaxiality equal to 1/3, below which fracture never occurs, was derived analytically
from the fracture locus in the principal strain space experimentally reported from upsetting tests. It was found that this
result is consistent with tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure (Bridgman tests). Numerical simulations performed in
this study with the cut-off value in fracture loci successfully captured the main features observed in tensile tests under
hydrostatic pressure by Bridgman and others, and simulated the tests on 1045 steel performed by Kao et al.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fracture; Stress triaxiality; Experiment; Numerical simulation; Cut-off value
1. Introduction
For isotropic materials, plastic yielding depends only on the magnitudes of three principal stresses or
three invariants of the stress tensor. To a first approximation, the yielding of a metal is assumed by the com-
munity to be independent of the first invariant, based on the experimental fact that is unaffected or weakly
affected by hydrostatic pressure. The well-known J2 plasticity suggested by von Mises is among those sim-
plest criteria.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that ductile crack formation strongly depends on the stress
triaxiality. The stress triaxiality parameter is defined as rm =
r, where rm is the mean stress or hydrostatic
stress. McClintock [1] has shown that fracture of ductile metals are strongly dependent of hydrostatic stress
by studying growth of long cylindrical voids. Another important study on void growth is the one by Rice
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 253 6055; fax: +1 617 253 8125.
E-mail address: ybbao@mit.edu (Y. Bao).
0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.07.011
1050 Y. Bao, T. Wierzbicki / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 1049–1069
and Tracey [2]. They found by studying the growth of a spherical void in a general remote field that for any
remote strain rate field, the enlargement rate of spherical voids was amplified over the remote strain rate by
a factor of an exponential function of the stress triaxiality. Atkins [3,4] also pointed out that ductile fracture
should depend on hydrostatic stress.
Experimental studies for high positive stress triaxialities were mainly conducted on pre-notched bars.
For example, Hancock and Mackenzie [5] carried out a series of tensile tests on pre-notched steel speci-
mens. Recently, Hopperstad et al. [6] and Borvik et al. [7] obtained a relationship of stress triaxiality
and fracture strain of Weldox 460 E steel. It was found that ductility depended markedly on the triaxiality
of stress states. In their study, stress triaxiality was calculated using the BridgmanÕs [8] formula based on
initial geometry and the strain was assumed constant across the minimum cross-section. Mirza et al. [9] per-
formed an experimental and numerical study on three different materials (pure iron, mild steel and alum-
inum alloy BS1474) over a wide range of strain-rates (103–104 s1). Equivalent strain to fracture ef for all
the three materials was found to be strongly dependent of the level of stress triaxiality. The dependence was
different for different materials.
Round bars under tensile loading with superposed hydrostatic pressures experience negative stress triax-
ialites. The most comprehensive experimental program in the above test configuration was performed by
Bridgman and described in his famous book [10]. A follow up was described in a series of papers by French
and Weinrich [11–14] on copper, aluminum and brass. The natural strain to fracture calculated was found
to increase with the hydrostatic pressure. In French and WeinrichÕs work on ductile copper [11] with
223 MPa ultimate tensile strength, classical void nucleation, growth, and linkage were found in the fracture
surface from the SEM examination in the case with no pressure. As the pressure increased, the relative area
of the rough portion due to void nucleation, growth and linkage decreased. In more recent studies per-
formed by Margevicius and Lewandowski [15], Liu and Lewandowski [16,17] and Kao et al. [18], similar
phenomena were observed.
Axial compression of short cylinders (so-called upsetting tests) also provides clues of ductile crack for-
mation in the range of negative stress triaxiality. The barreling of the cylindrical surface furnishes consid-
erable flexibility because barrel severity changes by altering the die contact friction conditions and cylinder
aspect ratios. This leads to a variation of the tensile hoop stress at the bulge surface. Ductile fracture in
upsetting tests was studied experimentally first by Kudo and Aoi [19]. A fracture locus in the space of prin-
cipal strains was found. The results were later confirmed and extended by a number of others (e.g. Kuhn
and Dieter [20], Thomason [21,22], Ganser et al. [23]).
In upsetting tests, fracture would never occur if there were no friction between the die platens and spec-
imens. In tensile tests on round bars under different hydrostatic pressures, fracture will also not occur if the
pressure is sufficiently high. In fact, in about half of the over 350 tests carried out by Bridgman [10], fracture
was not observed. French and Weinrich [11] pointed out that the natural strain to fracture at pressures in
excess of 300 MPa approached infinity for a ductile copper with 223 MPa ultimate tensile strength. There-
fore, there must be a cut-off value below which fracture does not come into the picture. The objective of the
present paper is to determine a cut-off value of stress triaxiality by investigating the upsetting tests and the
tensile tests on round bars with different hydrostatic pressures.
2. Observations in BridgmanÕs results
In his famous book, Bridgman [10] presented a wealth of experimental data regarding the hydrostatic
pressure tests of metals. In fact, he studied 20 different types of steels and with each type several different
heat treatments. For each particular steel and heat treatment, tensile tests were performed under several
constant levels of hydrostatic pressure ranging from 0 to 2700 MPa. All together over 350 tests were fully
or partially documented in Table V in his book. The first column of the table designates the specimen. The
Y. Bao, T. Wierzbicki / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 1049–1069 1051
second column in the table shows the applied pressure. The third column gives the natural strain at the final
point of the test. The fourth column indicates whether the specimen fractured or not. The fifth column gives
the average engineering tensile stress at the maximum total tensile load. The sixth column gives the average
final true stress. The seventh column contains the measure values of neck profile. It was found that the frac-
ture ductility is strongly dependent on hydrostatic pressure.
To reveal the nature of fracture in tensile tests under pressure, it is convenient to work with stress triax-
iality, which is a dimensionless parameter, since Bridgman covered a large number of steels. With the lim-
itation of the experimental data reported by Bridgman, we looked at the average stress triaxiality and final
stress triaxiality for each case. In the tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure, the evolution of the stress
triaxiality at the center of the neck is approximately a linear function, which will be shown in Section 4.
The average value of stress triaxiality is equal to one half of the sum of the initial and final values.
r r
m 1 rm m
¼ þ ð1Þ
av 2
r r
initial r
final
The reason for focusing on average stress triaxiality is in view of the fact that ductile fracture is path
dependent.
The expression for the initial stress triaxiality at the beginning of tensile tests is
r p 1
m
¼ þ ð2Þ
r
initial 3
r
where, p is the magnitude of the hydrostatic pressure.
With the neck profile, Bridgman postulated that the stress triaxiality at the center of the neck which is the
location of crack formation can be determined as follows referring the geometry given in Fig. 1 for a tensile
bar with no hydrostatic pressure.
rm 1 a
¼ þ ln 1 þ ð3Þ
r
3 2R
where, a and R are the radius of the minimum cross-section and the radius of the circumferential notch.
Recently, Alves and Jones [24] performed a finite element analysis for notched round bars under tensile
loading. The stress triaxialities at the neck determined by numerical simulations and determined by the
Bridgman solution were compared and a large difference was found. However, it should be noted that in
their study, change of the radius of curvature due to the deformation was not considered in calculating
Fig. 1. Tensile necking in a round bar.

stress and strain components using the Bridgman solution. The error produced by using the initial geometry
depends on the deformation stage. For example, at the deformation stage at which a = 3.46 mm and
R = 4.54 mm, the stress triaxiality using the current profile is 0.66, while the stress triaxiality calculated
using the initial geometry is 0.74. Clearly, it is important to take into account the change of curvature.
Also, they only studied three notched specimens. To have a complete picture on the accuracy of Bridg-
man solution, we performed a numerical simulation on a 1045 steel bar with 6.25 mm diameter under tensile
loading. The stress and strain curve provided by Kao et al. [18] was used in the simulation. A series of
deformation shape is shown in Fig. 2.
It is seen that the neck becomes deeper with deformation. The neck profile a/R for each case, which is the
only unknown parameter in Eq. (3), was determined from the numerical simulation. The corresponding
stress triaxiality at the center of the neck was obtained from the numerical simulation and Bridgman for-
mula as well. A comparison of the Bridgman solution and numerical simulation is displayed in Fig. 3. The
numerical simulation does not follow the Bridgman formula (Eq. (3)) but rather the following function,
r 1 a
m
¼ þ 1:4 ln 1 þ ð4Þ
final 3
r 2R
It is interesting to see that the above equation and the Bridgman formula (Eq. (3)) are the same except for
the coefficient in front of the logarithmic function.
The expression for the final stress triaxiality of tensile tests, using Eq. (4) is
r p 1 a
m
¼ þ þ 1:4 ln 1 þ ð5Þ
r
final 3
r 2R
We analyzed 126 most representative cases and constructed an interesting plot shown in Fig. 4. It should
be noted that the average stress at maximum load is introduced as the equivalent stress r in Eq. (2) since the
initial yield stress is not available. As pointed out by Bridgman [10], the ‘‘true stress’’ at the maximum load
is about 23% greater than the engineering stress. The 126 tests studied in this paper are the ones that all the
necessary information was given in the Bridgman book.
The vertical axis denotes the estimated average stress triaxiality while on the horizontal axis is the sample
cases. Tests in which fracture was observed are indicated by the empty circles while those results in which
no fracture occurred are denoted by the stars. Typical data presented by Bridgman includes the following
Fig. 2. A series of necks developed in a standard tensile test. The quoted e refers to the center of the neck.
Fig. 3. Comparison of Bridgman and numerical simulation.
Fig. 4. Average stress triaxiality in tensile tests with superimposed hydrostatic pressure performed by Bridgman.
information from which points shown in Fig. 3 are evaluated. We show an example of raw data in the case
of a stainless steel
Specimen number 17-0-2.

Hydrostatic pressure p = 1550 MPa.
Logarithmic strain to fracture ef = 2.29.
Fracture/No fracture: fracture.
Average stress at maximum load (engineering) SU = 1764 MPa.
Neck profile a/R = 1.29.
f ¼ 2722 MPa.
Average final stress r
r
m
Substituting the above values into Eqs. (3)–(5), the resulting triaxiality parameter 0:1 (point
r
av
labeled with an arrow in Fig. 4). It is interesting to see that two sets of points (empty circles represent frac-
tured, stars represent no fractured) are separated by a line with an ordinate around 0.3. The final stress
triaxiality for the tests in which fracture was observed is illustrated in Fig. 5. The value is well above 0.3.
A good explanation for BridgmanÕs tests is that a cut-off value of stress triaxiality must be overcome to
make fracture occur.
3. Upsetting tests
A clearer picture of the limiting value of stress triaxiality can be obtained from the analysis of upsetting
tests. A fracture locus in the space of principal strains was first reported by Kudo and Aoi [19]. In their
tests, local strains were determined by means of small grid markings at the mid-height of the cylindrical
surface shown in Fig. 6. A short summary of the experiment is given as follows.
Measurements of the grid dimensions at various stages of the test permitted calculation of the principal
strains, strain increments, and strain histories. The logarithmic surface strains in the cylindrical coordinate
system (r, h, z) shown in Fig. 7 are
w
ehh ¼ ln ð6Þ
w0
l
ezz ¼ ln ð7Þ
l0
where l0 and l are initial and current vertical grid spacing, w0 and w are initial and current circumferential
grid spacing.
The point of crack formation was determined by observing crack formation near the equator. Note that
crack formation in upsetting tests occurs in the equatorial region on the outer surface of the specimens.
Although the loading trajectory in the strain space depends on the friction condition and the aspect ratio
of specimens as illustrated in Fig. 8 from Kudo and AoiÕs study [19] on steel, it is interesting that the failure
Fig. 5. Final stress triaxiality in tensile tests with superimposed hydrostatic pressure performed by Bridgman.
Fig. 6. Small grid markings to measure strains in upsetting tests.
Fig. 7. A cylindrical coordinate system and a photograph of a crack produced by the secondary hoop tension in the equatorial region
of the specimen.
locus determined is always represented as a straight line (Eq. (8)) in the space of {ehh, ezz} independent of
friction coefficient, and the height to diameter ratio of the cylinders,
~ehh þ 12~ezz ¼ C ð8Þ
where ~ehh and ~ezz are components of the strain tensor at the point of crack formation in the hoop and axial
direction, respectively, C is a constant dependent on materials.
Short cylinders of Al2024-T351 with different aspect ratios were compressed by the present authors [25].
As shown in Fig. 9, the failure locus of Al2024-T351 also falls into Eq. (8). It clearly indicates that the shape
of failure locus is independent of materials. In fact, Eq. (8) has been validated by a number of others (e.g.
Kuhn and Dieter [20], Thomason [21,22], Ganser et al. [23]).
When there is no friction between die surfaces and cylinders, no barreling will develop, and the compres-
sion will be homogenous. The strains at the lateral surface of cylinders are then uniform. The relation be-
tween the hoop and axial strain can be found from volume conservation neglecting the elastic part
2
h0 d
¼ ð9Þ
h d0
Fig. 8. Strain path in the region of potential crack formation for various aspect ratios and friction coefficients and a limiting straight
line failure locus.
Fig. 9. Strain path in the region of potential crack formation for various aspect ratios and a limiting straight line failure locus in
Al2024-T351.
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (9), we have

h0 d
ln ¼ 2 ln ð10Þ
h d0
This gives,
ehh þ 12ezz ¼ 0 ð11Þ
By comparing Eq. (8) for the compression with barreling and Eq. (11) for the compression without bar-
reling, one can find that the barreling effect is essentially responsible for a departure of strain trajectories
from the straight line given by Eq. (11). As displayed in Figs. 8 and 9, the two lines which represent Eqs. (8)
and (11) are parallel and therefore never intersect. The specimen under ideal compression (without friction
and barreling) does not fracture. In that case, the stress triaxiality clearly is 1/3. Another proof for the
existence of the cut-off value for fracture comes from the consideration of the Cockcroft–Latham–Oh cri-
terion [26,27] for fracture
Z ef
r1
de ¼ C CL ð12Þ
0 r

where r1 is the maximum principal stress, CCL is a material constant.
According to Eq. (12), fracture can initiate only under the presence of tensile secondary hoop stress,
r > 0. This is equivalent to the requirement of rm =
r1 = r > 1=3. It will be shown later that this equation
is an alternative representation of the empirical fracture criterion Eq. (8). It should be noted that Cock-
croft–Latham–Oh criterion was postulated rather than empirically derived.
Perhaps the most straightforward proof of the existence of the cut-off value of stress triaxiality comes
from the following transformation of the fracture locus (Eq. (8)) into the space of equivalent strain to frac-
ture and stress triaxiality. It should be noted that ~ehh and ~ezz in Eq. (8) are the ‘‘ultimate’’ values of strain at
crack formation. They should be distinguished from the current values ehh and ezz so that the final accumu-
lated strains are
Z
~ehh ¼ dehh
Z ð13Þ
~ezz ¼ dezz
Clearly, the radial stress rrr is zero at the outer surface of cylinders because of zero surface traction. The
shear stress rrz vanishes due to symmetry. Also, the radial gradient oro of all quantities is negligible in the
equatorial region, so the stress state is essentially plane stress in the equatorial region. Also, shear compo-
nents of the stress and strain tensors and their rate tensors vanish because of rotational symmetry.
With the approximate plane stress and the absence of shear components, the yield condition becomes
r2hh rhh rzz þ r2zz ¼ r
2 ð14Þ
Inverting the Levy–Mises flow rule and neglecting the elastic deformation one can show that all the
remaining components of the stress tensor can be expressed in terms of the strain rate ratio a.
1
2 aþ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rhh ¼ pffiffiffi r 2 ð15Þ
3 1 þ a þ a2
a
2 1þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rzz ¼ pffiffiffi r 2 ð16Þ
3 1 þ a þ a2
1 1þa
rm ¼ pffiffiffi r
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
3 1 þ a þ a2
and
2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
de ¼ pffiffiffi 1 þ a þ a2 dezz ð18Þ
3
where
dehh
a¼ ð19Þ
dezz
Introducing now Eqs. (13) and (19) into the failure locus (Eq. (8)), Eq. (8) is then transformed to
Z
1
aþ dezz ¼ C ð20Þ
2
Note that the strain increment ratio a does not need to be constant. The present derivation is therefore
valid for non-proportional as well as proportional loading. The crucial step in the derivation is to divide
2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and multiply the integrand of Eq. (20) by pffiffiffi 1 þ a þ a2 ,
3
Z 1
aþ 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 pffiffiffi 1 þ a þ a2 dezz ¼ C ð21Þ
2 p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffi 1 þ a þ a2 3
3
rm rm
From Eq. (17), depends on the parameter a. Replacing a with , Eq. (21) becomes
r
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r

r r 2
m m
Z ef 1 þ 12 27
3 r r
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

0 2 rm r 2ffi de ¼ C ð22Þ
m
3 þ 12 27
r
r

By diving both sides by C then, we have
r 2ffi
Z ef r m m
3 1þ r 12 27
r
ffi de ¼ 1
r 2 ð23Þ
0 2C rm m
3 þ 12 27
r
r

The integrand of Eq. (23) essentially is 1=ef , i.e.
r 2ffi
rm m
r 2C 3 þ 12 27
m r
r

ef
r

¼
3 rm r 2ffi ð24Þ
m
1þ 12 27
r
r

It is easy to see that in the limiting case of rm = r ! 1=3, the denominator of Eq. (24) tends to zero. This
means that the equivalent strain to fracture must be infinite. The asymptote can be revealed by plotting Eq.
(24) (see Fig. 10, for Al2024-T351, C = 0.05).
3 rhh
It is noted that the first term in Eq. (21) is recognized as proportional to the normalized hoop stress
4 r
and the second term is simply the increment of the equivalent strain de. Thus, Eq. (22) can be put in the
equivalent form.
Z ef
rhh 4
de ¼ C ¼ C CL ð25Þ
0 r
3
Because rhh is the maximum (tensile) principal stress r1, Eq. (25) is the same as the well-known Cockcroft
and Latham–Oh crack formation
R criterion (Eq. (12)). Back in 1973, Kuhn [28] reformulated Cockcoft–
Latham original criterion ð r1 de ¼ CÞ in terms of strain at fracture.
4. ‘‘Virtual’’ tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure
Bridgman [10] measured all he could at that time. However, based on the information he provided, only
qualitative conclusion has been drawn in Section 2. In this study, we performed ‘‘virtual’’ tests on 2024-
Fig. 10. An asymptote of the relationship of equivalent strain to fracture and stress triaxiality.
T351 aluminum alloy and 1045 steel round specimens subject to tension under constant hydrostatic pres-
sures. In particular, we wanted to see if indeed the constant hydrostatic pressure increases the ductility of
the specimen, so that much deeper necks are observed. Another advantage of ‘‘virtual’’ tests is a precise
determination of the stress and strain states. The ‘‘virtual’’ tests were carried out using ABAQUS Standard.
Axisymmetrical elements with initial size of 0.02 mm were introduced to model the round specimens. The
specimens were fixed at one end and a finite displacement was introduced at the other end. In addition, a
constant pressure was applied at the outer surface of the specimens.
In the ‘‘virtual’’ test, crack formation is assumed to occur when the damage accumulation D reaches
unit. The damage accumulation is defined as
8
> rm 1
< 0; 6
D¼ r
3 ð26Þ
> R ef rm
: rm 1
0
f de ; >
r
r
3
This criterionr indicates
that fracture will not occur at the stress triaxiality smaller than 1/3. The weighting
m
function f is defined as
r

r 1
m
f ¼ r ð27Þ
r
ef
m
r r

m
ef is essentially the fracture locus in the space of the equivalent strain to fracture and stress triaxiality.
r

4.1. 2024-T351 aluminum alloy
Several runs were made with increasing magnitudes of hydrostatic pressure (0, 400, 600, 1000, 1100,
1200, 1300, 1500 and 2000 MPa) which were held constant in each ‘‘virtual’’ test on a 2024-T351 aluminum
round bar with a 9 mm diameter. The fracture locus for the present material Al2024-T351 was constructed
experimentally by the present authors [29] and is shown in Fig. 11. This locus is not a smooth curve but has
three branches. It is understandable because there are two competing fracture mechanisms. The well-known
Fig. 11. Dependence of the equivalent strain to crack formation on the stress triaxiality of Al2024-T351.
void nucleation, growth, and linkage mechanism is the fundamental cause of dimple fracture which occurs
in high stress triaxialities. Fracture surface is very rough and dimples with cracked inclusions can be seen in
this type of fracture [25]. Tension tests on notched bars are good examples of this type of fracture. At the
same time, fracture surface is relatively flat and no clear dimples can be observed in upsetting tests and
some other cases [25]. This mechanism is not well understood but is clearly different from void nucleation,
growth, and linkage, and is referred to ‘‘shear decohesion’’ in the present paper. There is a transition in the
intermediate range. A mix fracture mode is developed in this range (French and Weinrich [11] and Kao
et al. [18]). The portion of void growth, and coalescence in fracture surface decrease with increases of super-
imposed hydrostatic pressure (i.e. decrease of stress triaxiality).
It is extremely difficult to describe the entire curve by a single function. It has been shown in one of ear-
lier publications [25] that no single criteria can predict fracture in both upsetting and tensile tests. In our
approach, three weighting functions were introduced to describe the three branches. Since it is possible that
tensile tests with superimposed hydrostatic pressures enter all the three branches, three functions which rep-
resent the three branches were used in our virtual tests.
The fracture locus follows Eq. (24) in the negative stress triaxiality range ð1=3 < rm = r < 0Þ where
‘‘shear decohesion’’ dominates, while it follows a simple relation (Eq. (28)) in the high stress triaxiality
range ð0:4 < rm = rÞ where ‘‘void nucleation, growth and coalescence’’ dominates.
r 1
m
ef ¼ C 1 ð28Þ
r

Eq. (24) can be approximately expressed in the following simple form similar to Eq. (28)
1
rm 1
ef ¼ C 2 þ ð29Þ
r
3
In between, there is a transition range. The curve increases with the stress triaxiality for Al2024-T351. It
should be pointed out that the behavior of the fracture locus in the intermediate range is not necessary the
same as Fig. 11. Two different situations may develop. The curve increases with the stress triaxiality for
materials having smaller equivalent strain to fracture in shear, such as 4340 steel, and Al2024-T351, while
the curve decreases with the stress triaxiality those materials which have larger equivalent strain to fracture
in shear, such as 1100-0 aluminum, and OFHC copper.
Fig. 12. Deformed shapes of Al2024-T351 (contours using equivalent strains).
A series of deformed shapes of the specimens is shown in Fig. 12. It is seen that the depth of the neck
increases with the hydrostatic pressure while the neck radius decreases. It should be noted that fracture was
observed in the cases of 0, 400, 600, 1000, 1100, 1200 and 1300 MPa, while no fracture was predicted in the
cases of 1500 and 2000 MPa up to the point when virtual tests were stopped. The relationship of the stress
triaxiality and equivalent strain to fracture at the center of neck is illustrated in Fig. 13. The evolution of
damage accumulation at the center of the neck is shown in Fig. 14. It should be noted that equivalent strain
plotted in this figure is a local value which is different from the natural strain to fracture ef reported by
Bridgman and others.
a
0
ef ¼ 2 ln ð30Þ
a
For the test with no hydrostatic pressure, the stress triaxiality is 0.33 before neck develops. It increases
beyond the necking point. For the tests with superimposed hydrostatic pressure, the stress triaxiality is a
relative large negative value at the beginning and increases due to the increase of flow stress and neck for-
mation. The increasing rate becomes smaller and smaller. For the cases with 0, 400, 600, 1000, 1100, 1200
and 1300 MPa hydrostatic pressure, the stress triaxiality enters the range of rm = r > 1=3 and fracture
Fig. 13. Relationship of stress triaxiality and equivalent strain at the center of neck of A12024-T351.
Fig. 14. Evolution of damage accumulation at the center of the neck.
occurs at different levels of equivalent strain. For the cases with 1500 and 2000 MPa hydrostatic pressure,
the stress triaxiality approaches 1/3 but does not overcome the cut-off value up to the point when the test
was stopped and fracture does not occur.
Bridgman [10] took a linear relation of the natural axial strain to fracture and pressure as a first approx-
imation based on the experimental data for some steels. It is found that from this study, the following expo-
nential gives a better fit for Al2024-T351 (see Fig. 15)
ef ¼ a expðp=bÞ ð31Þ
where a, b are two material constants. For Al2024-T351 a = 0.311, b = 507.3 MPa.
4.2. 1045 steel
A physical experiment following Bridgman was recently carried out by Kao et al. [18] on 1045 steel
round specimens with 6.25 mm diameter under tension with hydrostatic pressure. It provided sufficient
information including true stress–strain curve, natural axial strain to fracture etc. for numerical simula-
tions. Three hydrostatic pressures, 420, 840 and 1120 MPa were applied. With ef and a0 given by Kao
et al. [18], it is easy to calculate the radius of the minimum cross-section a at fracture,
e
f
a ¼ a0 exp ð32Þ
2
A fracture locus similar to Fig. 11 was constructed and is shown in Fig. 16. The fracture locus was devel-
oped based on the following information/assumptions,
Fig. 15. Comparison of Eq. (31) and virtual test for Al2024-T351.
Fig. 16. Assumed dependence of the equivalent strain to crack formation on the stress triaxiality of 1045 steel.
(a) It follows Eq. (24) in the negative stress triaxiality range since the shape of the fracture locus observed
in upsetting tests is independent of material.
(b) The natural strain to fracture is 1.05 in standard tensile tests without hydrostatic pressure.
(c) It follows Eq. (28) in the high stress triaxiality range.
(d) The equivalent strain to fracture increases slightly with the stress triaxiality in the transition range.
The ‘‘virtual’’ test with the fracture criterion (Eq. (26)) and the assumed fracture locus shown in Fig. 16
successfully captured fracture behavior observed by Kao et al. [18]. A comparison of the physical test by
Table 1
Comparison of ‘‘virtual’’ and physical tests
Applied pressure (MPa) a0 (mm) Physical test ‘‘Virtual’’ test
ef a (mm) ef a (mm)
420 3.125 1.87 1.225 2.0 1.25
840 3.125 2.68 0.82 2.9 0.84
1120 3.125 3.26 0.61 3.7 0.62
Fig. 17. Deformed shapes of 1045 steel.

Kao et al. [18] and the present ‘‘virtual’’ test is given in Table 1. The deformation shapes at fracture ob-
tained from virtual and physical tests are illustrated in Fig. 17. The correlation between Kao et al.Õs exper-
iments and the present ‘‘virtual’’ tests is quite good. It should be noted that in the present paper, we focused
on crack initiation and the deformation shape was taken at the stage of crack initiation, while the fracture
data given by Kao et al. [18] referred to the stage of complete separation of the specimens. However, be-
cause crack propagates very fast once it initiates the stage of crack initiation and the final separation of the
specimen is close, and therefore, the deformation shape of those two stages should be reasonably close.
Fig. 18. Evolution of mean stress of 1045 steel.
Fig. 19. Relationship of stress triaxiality and equivalent strain at the center of neck of 1045 steel.
Fig. 20. Comparison of Eq. (31) and virtual test for 1045 steel.
The evolution of the stress triaxiality is shown in Fig. 18. It follows approximately a linear relation. The
relationship of stress triaxiality and equivalent strain at the center of neck is illustrated in Fig. 19. The
stress triaxiality of all the three cases exceeds the limit value 1/3. As displayed in Fig. 20, the relationship
of applied pressure and equivalent strain also follows Eq. (31) with a = 1.25, b = 1000 MPa for 1045
steel.
5. Discussion
In this paper, we have studied two different tests, i.e. tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure and upset-
ting tests. Fracture initiates at the center of the neck in tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure while frac-
ture initiates at the equatorial area in upsetting tests. The stress states at those two locations are quite
different as shown in Figs. 21 and 22. However, both tests exhibit a limit value of stress triaxiality 1/3,
below which fracture does not occur.
It is recognized that the fracture locus (Eq. (8)) in upsetting tests obtained by Kudo and Aoi [19] was
based on the information when a crack was first observed, while the data reported by Bridgman [8] and
Kao et al. [18] was measured after the specimen totally fractured. However, the difference of deformation
shape and force level between the stage of the initiation of fracture and final fracture in tensile tests is small
because the process from fracture initiation and complete fracture is fast. Also, it is very difficult to observe
crack formation at the center of the neck and stop the test when fracture initiates. It is a good approxima-
tion to take the data published by Bridgman [8] and Kao et al. [18] for the present study which is essentially
dealing with fracture initiation.
It should be noted that exceeding the limit value of 1/3 of the stress triaxiality is a necessary condition
rather than a sufficient condition for fracture initiation. In other words, it is not certain that fracture occurs
if material experiences the stress triaxiality larger than 1/3. Whether a specimen fractures or not depends
on the ductility of material. However, it can be concluded from the present study that fracture never occurs
if a specimen experiencing the stress triaxiality less than 1/3 all the time. This ‘‘obstacle’’ must be over-
come in order to make fracture possible. As an example, the final stress triaxiality of the BridgmanÕs tests
[8] in which fracture was not observed is shown in Fig. 23. The final stress triaxiality at the center of the
Fig. 21. Evolution of stresses at the equatorial area in an upsetting test.
Fig. 22. Evolution of stresses at the center of neck in a tensile test under hydrostatic pressure.
neck exceeded 1/3 in more than half of the tests. In comparison, in all the BridgmanÕs tests [8] in which
fracture was observed, the final stress triaxiality at the center of the neck was larger than 1/3 (see Fig. 5).
By definition, conditions for no fracture can be obtained from various fracture criteria. It is certain that
one can state that fracture will not occur under certain combinations of stress triaxiality and equivalent
strain from various fracture criteria in terms of stress triaxiality and equivalent strain. Different fracture
criteria give different constrains for no fracture condition. We would like to emphasize that the constant
cut-off value of 1/3 proposed in our paper was obtained empirically from the upsetting tests, and is quite
simple.
Fig. 23. Final stress triaxiality of Bridgman tests in which no fracture was observed.
It is important to obtain a fracture locus in a wide range of the stress triaxiality in order to predict frac-
ture in a complex problem with different stress states at different locations. It is quite certain that the frac-
ture locus in the negative stress triaxiality range follows Eq. (24) or Eq. (29), while the fracture locus does
not necessary follow Eq. (28) in the high stress triaxiality range for other materials. Hancock and Macken-
zie [5] and Mirza et al. [9] found different relations of the equivalent strain to fracture and stress triaxiality
in the high stress triaxiality range for different materials. The community clearly lacks the fracture behavior
of materials in the intermediate stress triaxiality range. However, this is out of the scope of the present
study.
Another important feature is the effect of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on neck formation. Bridg-
man [8] found that the flow stress at the maximum load (that is, at the point where necking starts) increases
linearly with superimposed hydrostatic pressure and the rate is dependent on materials. Kao et al. [18] rec-
ognized that the maximum uniform elongation increases with superimposed pressure. Same result has also
been found from the present numerical simulations. This is understandable because necking is a type of
instability and superimposed hydrostatic pressure retards the occurrence of instability.
6. Conclusion
An important feature of fracture was found. There is a cut-off value of the stress triaxiality equal to 1/3,
below which fracture never occurs. This feature was derived analytically from the fracture locus in the prin-
cipal strain space experimentally reported from upsetting tests. Tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure
(Bridgman tests) follow the same principle. The numerical simulation with this cut-off value in the fracture
locus successfully captured the main features observed in the tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure by
Bridgman and others, and simulated the tests on 1045 steel by Kao et al.
Acknowledgments
The present research was supported by the Volpe Center Grant to MIT, the joint MIT/Industry Consor-
tium on the Ultralight Metal Body Structure and the MURI project sponsored by ONR. Thanks are due to
Professor Frank A. McClintock of MIT for many valuable discussions. Yuanli BaiÕs help in data analysis is
highly appreciated.
References
[1] McClintock FA. A criterion of ductile fracture by the growth of holes. J Appl Mech 1968;35:363–71.
[2] Rice JR, Tracey DM. On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 1969;17:201–17.
[3] Atkins AG. Fracture mechanics and metalforming: Damage mechanics and the local approach of yesterday and today. In:
Rossmanith HP, editor. Fracture Research in Retrospect, An Anniversary Volume in Honour of George R IrwinÕs 90th
Birthday. Rotterdam, Brookfield: A.A. Balkema; 1997.
[4] Atkins AG. Fracture in forming. J Mater Process Technol 1996;56:609–81.
[5] Hancock JW, Mackenzie AC. On the mechanisms of ductile failure in high-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states.
J Mech Phys Solids 1976;24:147–69.
[6] Hopperstad OS, Borvik T, Langseth M, Labibes K, Albertini C. On the influence of stress triaxiality and strain rate on the
behavior of a structural steel. Part I, Experiments. Euro J Mech A/Solids 2003;22:1–13.
[7] Borvik T, Hopperstad OS, Berstad T. On the influence of stress triaxiality and strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel.
Part II. Numerical study. Euro J Mech A/Solids 2003;22:15–32.
[8] Bridgman PW. Studies in large plastic flow and fracture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1952.
[9] Mirza MS, Barton DC, Church P. The effect of stress triaxiality and strain-rate on the fracture characteristics of ductile metals.
J Mater Sci 1996;31.
[10] Bridgman PW. Studies in large plastic flow and fracture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1964.
[11] French IE, Weinrich PF. The influence of hydrostatic pressure on the tensile deformation and fracture of copper. Metall Trans A
1975;6A:785–90.
[12] French IE, Weinrich PF. The effects of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanism of tensile fracture of aluminum. Metall Trans A
1975;6A:1165–9.
[13] French IE, Weinrich PF. The effect of hydrostatic pressure on the tensile fracture of a-brass. Acta Metall 1973;21:1533–7.
[14] French IE, Weinrich PF, Weaver CW. Tensile fracture of free machining brass as a function of hydrostatic pressure. Acta Metall
1973;21:1045–9.
[15] Margevicius RW, Lewandowski JJ. The influence of hydrostatic pressure on fracture of single-crystal and polycrystalline NiAl.
Metall Mater Trans A 1994;25A:1457–70.
[16] Liu DS, Lewandowski JJ. The effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on deformation and fracture: Part I. Monolithic 6061
aluminum. Metall Trans A 1993;24A:601–8.
[17] Liu DS, Lewandowski JJ. The effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on deformation and fracture: Part II. Particulate-
reinforced 6061 composites. Metall Trans A 1993;24A:609–15.
[18] Kao AS, Kuhn HA, Richmond O, Spitzig WA. Tensile fracture and fractographic analysis of 1045 spheroidized steel under
hydrostatic pressure. J Mater Res 1990;5:83–91.
[19] Kudo H, Aoi K. Effect of compression test conditions upon fracturing of medium carbon steel. J Jap Soc Technol Plastic
1967;18:17–27.
[20] Kuhn HA, Dieter GE. Workability in bulk forming processes. In: Fracture ICF4. Waterloo, Canada, 1977.
[21] Thomason PF. Tensile plastic instability and ductile fracture criteria in uniaxial compression tests. Int J Mech Sci
1968;11:187–202.
[22] Thomason PF. The use of pure aluminum as an analogue for the history of plastic flow. Studies of ductile fracture criteria in steel
compression specimens. Int J Mech Sci 1968;10:501–18.
[23] Ganser HP, Atkins AG, Kolednik O, Fischer FD, Richard O. Upsetting of cylinders: A comparison of two different damage
indicators. J Eng Mater Technol 2001;123:94–9.
[24] Alves M, Jones N. Influence of hydrostatic stress on failure of axisymmetric notched specimens. J Mech Phys Solids
1999;47:643–67.
[25] Bao Y, Wierzbicki T. A comparative study on various ductile crack formation criteria. J Eng Mater Technol 2004;126:314–24.
[26] Cockcroft MG, Latham DJ. Ductility and the workability of metals. J Inst Metals 1968;96:33–9.
[27] Oh S, Chen CC, Kobayashi S. Ductile failure in axisymmetric extrusion and drawing, Part 2, workability in extrusion and
drawing. J Eng Indust 1979;101:36–44.
[28] Kuhn HA, Lee PW, Erturk T. A fracture criterion for cold forming. J Eng Mater Technol 1973(October):213–8.
[29] Bao Y, Wierzbicki T. On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space. Int J Mech Sci 2004;46:81–98.

Bao and Widerzbicki 2005

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bao and Widerzbicki 2005

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 1049–1069

On the cut-oﬀ value of negative triaxiality for fracture

Keywords: Fracture; Stress triaxiality; Experiment; Numerical simulation; Cut-oﬀ value

2. Observations in BridgmanÕs results

Fig. 1. Tensile necking in a round bar.

Fig. 3. Comparison of Bridgman and numerical simulation.

Specimen number 17-0-2.

Fig. 6. Small grid markings to measure strains in upsetting tests.

Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (9), we have

4. ‘‘Virtual’’ tensile tests under hydrostatic pressure

Fig. 12. Deformed shapes of Al2024-T351 (contours using equivalent strains).

Fig. 14. Evolution of damage accumulation at the center of the neck.

4.2. 1045 steel

Fig. 17. Deformed shapes of 1045 steel.

Fig. 18. Evolution of mean stress of 1045 steel.

Fig. 21. Evolution of stresses at the equatorial area in an upsetting test.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi