Advertisement

International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 188, Issue 1, pp 59–70 | Cite as

On the role of triaxiality in mode-I resistance curves

  • Nishant Kanhurkar
  • Faizan Md. Rashid
  • Anuradha Banerjee
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Triaxiality Cohesive zone model  Ductile fracture  Resistance curves 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Banerjee A, Manivasagam R (2009) Triaxiality dependent cohesive zone model. Eng Fract Mech 76:1761–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broberg KB (1995) Critical review of some methods in nonlinear fracture mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 50:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornec A, Scheider I, Schwalbe KH (2003) On the practical application of the cohesive model. Eng Fract Mech 70:1963–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Hancock JW, Reuter WG, Parks DM (1993) Constraint and toughness parameterized by T. ASTM Special Tech Publ 1171:21–21Google Scholar
  7. Jha D, Banerjee A (2012) A cohesive model for fatigue failure in complex stress-states. Int J Fat 36(1):155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Needleman A (1987) A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech 54:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Pineau A (2008) Modeling ductile to brittle fracture transition in steels-micromechanical and physical challenges. Int J Fract 150(1–2):129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Siegmund T, Brocks W (1999) Prediction of the work of separation and implications to modeling. Int J Fract 99:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Stampfl J, Kolednik O (2000) The separation of the fracture energy in metallic materials. Int J Fract 101(4):321–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Sumpter JDG (1999) An alternative view of R-curve testing. Eng Fract Mech 64:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tatschl A, Kolednik O (2003) A new tool for the experimental characterization of micro-plasticity. Mat Sci Eng A 339(1):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turner CE, Kolednik O (1994) A micro and macro approach to the energy dissipation rate model of stable ductile crack growth. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct 17:1089–1107Google Scholar
  20. Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW (1992) The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic–plastic solids. J Mech Phys Solids 40:1377–1397 Google Scholar
  21. Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW (1994) Effect of T-stress on mode I crack growth resistance in a ductile solid. Int J Solids Struct 31(6):823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Varias AG (1998) Constraint effects during stable transient crack growth. Comput Mech 21:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nishant Kanhurkar
    • 1
  • Faizan Md. Rashid
    • 1
  • Anuradha Banerjee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied MechanicsIIT MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations