Insight into the role of triaxiality in mode-I, plane strain resistance curves of a representative ductile metal has been gained. Growth of a macroscopic crack is simulated as per modified boundary layer formulation for a range of constraint parameter with the fracture process represented by a triaxiality dependent cohesive model. In contrast to the predictions by a fixed cohesive law, the study shows that by including the effect of triaxiality on the work of separation, the stick-slip nature or the non-uniformity in the rate of the crack growth and its manifestations on the plastic wake and fracture surface can be predicted that are closer to trends observed in experimental literature.
Triaxiality Cohesive zone model Ductile fracture Resistance curves
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Aeronautics Research and Development Board (ARDB), India. (Grant no: DARO/08/1051582/M/I) to carry out the research work.
Anvari M, Scheider I, Thaulow C (2006) Simulation of dynamic ductile growth using strain-rate and triaxiality dependent cohesive elements. Eng Fract 73(15):2210–2228Google Scholar
Banerjee A, Manivasagam R (2009) Triaxiality dependent cohesive zone model. Eng Fract Mech 76:1761–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broberg KB (1995) Critical review of some methods in nonlinear fracture mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 50:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe KH (2003) On the practical application of the cohesive model. Eng Fract Mech 70:1963–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao YF, Bower AF (2004) A simple technique for avoiding convergence problems in finite element simulations of crack nucleation and growth on cohesive interfaces. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 12:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock JW, Reuter WG, Parks DM (1993) Constraint and toughness parameterized by T. ASTM Special Tech Publ 1171:21–21Google Scholar
Jha D, Banerjee A (2012) A cohesive model for fatigue failure in complex stress-states. Int J Fat 36(1):155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needleman A (1987) A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech 54:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostby E, Thaulow C, Zhang ZL (2007) Numerical simulations of specimen size and mismatch effects in ductile crack growthPart I: tearing resistance and crack growth paths. Eng Fract Mech 74(11):1770–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineau A (2008) Modeling ductile to brittle fracture transition in steels-micromechanical and physical challenges. Int J Fract 150(1–2):129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid FM, Banerjee A (2013) Implementation and validation of a triaxiality dependent cohesive model: experiments and simulations. Int J Fract 181(2):227–239Google Scholar
Scheider I, Rajendran M, Banerjee A (2011) Comparison of different stress-state dependent cohesive zone models applied to thin-walled structures. Eng Fract Mech 78(3):534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegmund T, Brocks W (1999) Prediction of the work of separation and implications to modeling. Int J Fract 99:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegmund T, Brocks W (2000) A numerical study on the correlation between the work of separation and the dissipation rate in ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 67:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampfl J, Kolednik O (2000) The separation of the fracture energy in metallic materials. Int J Fract 101(4):321–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampfl J, Scherer S, Berchthaler M, Gruber M, Kolednik O (1996) Determination of the fracture toughness by automatic image processing. Int J Fract 78(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar