Advertisement

International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 200, Issue 1–2, pp 151–158 | Cite as

On the nonexistence of certain solutions for damage mechanics models

  • Sergei Alexandrov
  • Robert Goldstein
IUTAM Paris 2015

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that elastic and rigid plastic boundary value problems in damage mechanics may not have a solution. Two classes of damage mechanics models are considered. The constitutive equations of one class of models consist of a pressure-independent yield criterion, its associated flow rule, Hooke’s law and a damage evolution equation. The damage parameter enters the yield criterion. Therefore, these models are partly coupled. The constitutive equations of the other class are the constitutive equations of the classical rigid perfectly plastic model (or a rigid viscoplastic model) supplemented with an empirical ductile fracture criterion. The viscoplastic model contains a saturation stress. These models are uncoupled. In the case of partly coupled models, a simple boundary value problem is formulated and solved. It is shown that the solution breaks down for certain values of input parameters. In the case of uncoupled models, it is shown that empirical ductile fracture criteria are not compatible with solution behavior in the vicinity of maximum friction surfaces. An approach to formulate a new type of empirical ductile damage models is outlined.

Keywords

Damage Partly coupled models Uncoupled models Interface Nonexistence of solutions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research described was supported by the grant RSF-14-11-00844.

References

  1. Agmell M, Ahadi A, Stahl J-E (2014) Identification of plastic constants from orthogonal cutting and inverse analysis. Mech Mater 77:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbar F, Mativenga PT, Sheikh MA (2010) An experimental and coupled thermo-mechanical finite element study of heat partition effects in machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexandrov S, Mustafa Y (2013) Singular solutions in viscoplasticity under plane strain conditions. Meccanica 48:2203–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexandrov S, Richmond O (2001a) Singular plastic flow fields near surfaces of maximum friction stress. Int J Non-Linear Mech 36:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexandrov S, Richmond O (2001b) Couette flows of rigid/plastic solids: analytical examples of the interaction of constitutive and frictional laws. Int J Mech Sci 43:653–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkins AG (1996) Fracture in forming. J Mater Process Technol 56:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behrens A, Just H (2002) Extension of the forming limits in cold and warm forging by the FE based fracture analysis with the integrated damage model of effective stresses. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besson J (2010) Continuum models of ductile fracture: a review. Int J Damage Mech 19:3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonora N (1997) A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng Fract Mech 58:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandrakath S, Pandey PC (1993) A new ductile damage evolution model. Int J Fract 60:R73–R76Google Scholar
  11. Chandrakath S, Pandey PC (1995) An exponential ductile continuum damage model for metals. Int J Fract 72:293–310Google Scholar
  12. Chen G, Li J, He Y, Ren C (2014) A new approach to the determination of plastic flow stress and failure initiation strain for aluminium alloys cutting process. Comp Mater Sci 95:568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dealy JM, Wissbrun KF (1990) Melt rheology and its role in plastic processing: theory and applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hambli R, Reszka M (2002) Fracture criteria identification using an inverse technique method and blanking experiment. Int J Mech Sci 44:1349–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanninen MF, Popelar CH (1985) Advanced fracture mechanics. Clarendon press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim T-K, Ikeda K (2000) Flow behavior of the billet surface layer in porthole die extrusion of aluminium. Metall Mater Trans A 31:1635–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lalwani DI, Mehta NK, Jain PK (2009) Extension of Oxley’s predictive machining theory for Johnson and Cook flow stress model. J Mater Process Tech 209:5305–5312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemaitre J (1985a) A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. Trans ASME J Eng Mater Technol 107:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemaitre J (1985b) Coupled elasto—plasticity and damage constitutive equations. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng 51:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lemaitre J (1987) Formulation and identification of damage kinetic constitutive equations. In: Krajcinovic D, Lemaitre J (eds) Continuum damage mechanics: theory and applications. Springer, Wien, pp 37–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molinari A, Cheriguene R, Miguelez H (2012) Contact variables and thermal effects at the tool-chip interface in orthogonal cutting. Int J Solids Struct 49:3774–3796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murakami S (2012) Continuum damage mechanics. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ng E-G, Aspinwall DK, Brazil D, Monaghan J (1999) Modelling of temperature and forces when orthogonally machining hardened steel. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 39:885–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oldroyd JG (1956) Non-Newtonian flow of liquids and solids. In: Eirich FR (ed) Rheology: theory and applications, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 653–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramesh A, Melkote SN (2008) Modeling of white layer formation under thermally dominate condition in orthogonal machining of hardened AISI 52100 steel. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48:402–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shabara MA, El-Domiaty AA, Kandil MA (1996) Validity assessment of ductile fracture criteria in cold forming. J Mater Eng Perform 5:478–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang T (1992) Unified CDM model and local criterion for ductile fracture - I. Unified CDM model for ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 42:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wideroe F, Welo T (2012) Conditions for sticking friction between aluminium alloy AA6060 and tool steel in hot forming. Key Eng Mater 491:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Problems in MechanicsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations