627 views

Uploaded by p_rameshreddy2006

Numerical Methada

save

- CHABOCHE, J. L. - Continuum Damage Mechanics P.1 - General Concepts
- 561
- Materials Behaviour
- 1045_EN.pdf
- Johnson-Cook Empirical Models
- 17
- Desempeño Sismico de Una Columna Rectangular Formado en Frio Conectado Al Diafragma
- Damage and failure for ductile metals - Abaqus.pdf
- Danes Hi an 2013
- Plastic e
- A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals
- Frac l09 Xfem
- Void Growth in Plastic Solids Needleman
- A Continuum Damage Mechanics Framework for Modeling Micro-damage Healing
- Fracture Lecture of Abaqus
- Crimping Analysis
- Impact of Foundation Nonlinearity on the Crack Propagation of High Concrete Dams
- true_stress_strain.pdf
- Finite Element Analysis and Life Estimation of a Permanent
- Concrete in Compression a Plasticity Theory With A
- 2007 PNAS Cytoskeletal-Dynamics
- 1-s2.0-S0958946504001581-main
- Ch02
- Ch1 Stress Strain
- Lecture 7 - Static Failure Theories
- Martin.pdf
- Simplified Model for Damage in Squat RC Shear Walls
- NT2F12 Tamara Final
- Plastic Buckling of Tubes Under Axial Compression and Internal Pressure
- Cohn, R. Introduction to Neo-Riemannian Theory
- la
- documento de interes
- Arduino Curso Practico de Formacion
- vibraciones para imprimir 2.pdf
- Woods TheComingKingdom16
- Tukel Pekan 26
- Pedoman_PKM_2017_Revisi_1.0.pdf
- relac di y d interno.pdf
- edami - apertura española variante abierta.pdf
- Musica
- Kec_onembute-sultra-titik Koordinat Kantor Desa
- Expression_ecrite_Niveau_3_2006.pdf
- Risiko Audit Da
- concordancia nominal.pdf
- Uji Fisiologi Bakteri
- Bitacora4
- Hidrokarbonn
- DIN Rail Perforated - NS 35
- Analisis Journal 1.docx
- Relat.docx
- BCG Samsung in New Markets
- 142957934-Doktor-Genadij-Jakovljevic-Temnjikov-o-Novom-Nacinu-Lecenja.rtf
- 369119592-Silabus-Teknologi-Perkantoran-K-13.docx
- reglas_de_acentuacin_bsica.pdf
- Ghid Amg 2018
- GUIA
- samsung.tizen.ROM-KTSDVBEUL-1.0.1-170306.1
- Programa TP4 2015
- SOP KAMAR JENAZAH.docx

You are on page 1of 10

:

Overview:

Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit offer a general capability for predicting the beginning of failure and a capability for modeling progressive damage and failure of ductile metals. In the most general case this requires the specification of the following.

The undamaged elastic-plastic response of the material. o We can assume as material properties (Johnson-Cook). A damage initiation criterion (“Damage initiation for ductile metals,” Section 23.2.2); and A damage evolution response, including a choice of element removal (“Damage evolution and element removal for ductile metals,” Section 23.2.3).

A summary of the general framework for progressive damage and failure in Abaqus is given in “Progressive damage and failure,” Section 23.1.1. This section provides an overview of the damage initiation criteria and damage evolution law for ductile metals.

**Damage initiation criterion:
**

Abaqus offers a variety of choices of damage initiation criteria for ductile metals, each associated with distinct types of material failure. They can be classified in the following categories: Damage initiation criteria for the fracture of metals, including ductile and shear criteria. Damage initiation criteria for the necking instability of sheet metal. These include forming limit diagrams (FLD, FLSD, and MSFLD) intended to assess the formability of sheet metal and the Marciniak-Kuczynski (M-K) criterion (available only in Abaqus/Explicit) to numerically predict necking instability in sheet metal taking into account the deformation history.

These criteria are discussed in “Damage initiation for ductile metals,” Section 23.2.2. Each damage initiation criterion has an associated output variable to indicate whether the criterion has been met during the analysis. A value of 1.0 or higher indicates that the initiation criterion has been met. More than one damage initiation criterion can be specified for a given material. If multiple damage initiation criteria are specified for the same material, they are treated independently. Once a particular initiation criterion is satisfied, the material stiffness is degraded according to the specified damage evolution law for that criterion; in the absence of a damage evolution law, however, the material stiffness is not degraded. A failure mechanism for which no damage evolution response is specified is said to be inactive. Abaqus will evaluate the initiation criterion for an inactive mechanism for output purposes only, but the mechanism will have no effect on the material response.

1

2. The damage initiation criteria for sheet metal necking instability (FLD. shell. where represents the set of active mechanisms. For damage in ductile metals Abaqus assumes that the degradation of the stiffness associated with each active failure mechanism can be modeled using a scalar damage variable. ( ). All of the available models use a formulation intended to alleviate the strong mesh dependency of the results that can arise from strain localization effects during progressive damage. . an element is removed from the mesh if all of the section points at any one integration location have lost their load-carrying capacity. MSFLD.e. at this point the thermal contribution of the element is also removed.. and membrane elements). The overall damage variable. plane stress. Abaqus supports different models of damage evolution in ductile metals and provides controls associated with element deletion due to material failure. The material has lost its load-carrying capacity when .” Section 23. For coupled temperature-displacement elements the thermal properties of the material are not affected by the progressive damage of the material stiffness until the condition for element deletion is reached. D. according to a user-specified rule. captures the combined effect of all active mechanisms and is computed in terms of the individual damage variables. continuum shell. By default. Elements: The failure modeling capability for ductile metals can be used with any elements in Abaqus that include mechanical behavior (elements that have displacement degrees of freedom).3. 2 . are the stresses that would exist in the material in the absence of damage. as described in “Damage evolution and element removal for ductile metals. and M-K) are available only for elements that include mechanical behavior and use a plane stress formulation (i.Damage evolution: The damage evolution law describes the rate of degradation of the material stiffness once the corresponding initiation criterion has been reached. FLSD. At any given time during the analysis the stress tensor in the material is given by the scalar damage equation where D is the overall damage variable and is the effective (or undamaged) stress tensor computed in the current increment.

and coalescence of voids. extrusion. growth. Johnson-Cook.2. and shear fracture due to shear band localization. including equation of state. p is the pressure stress. these two mechanisms call for different forms of the criteria for the onset of damage. q is the Mises equivalent stress. 3 . Based on phenomenological observations.2 Damage initiation for ductile metals: Overview: The material damage initiation capability for ductile metals: Is intended as a general capability for predicting initiation of damage in metals. Hill. and Drucker-Prager plasticity models.2. growth. is a function of stress triaxiality and strain where is the stress triaxiality. Hill. to model fracture of a ductile metal. rate: . The criterion for damage initiation is met when the following condition is satisfied: where is a state variable that increases monotonically with plastic deformation. and is the equivalent plastic strain rate. including sheet. The model assumes that the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage.3. These criteria can be used in combination with the damage evolution models for ductile metals discussed in “Damage evolution and element removal for ductile metals. Damage initiation criteria for fracture of metals: Two main mechanisms can cause the fracture of a ductile metal: ductile fracture due to the nucleation. Johnson-Cook. Ductile criterion: The ductile criterion is a phenomenological model for predicting the onset of damage due to nucleation. At each increment during the analysis the incremental increase in is computed as In Abaqus/Standard the ductile criterion can be used in conjunction with the Mises. Can be used in combination with the damage evolution models for ductile metals.23. The functional forms provided by Abaqus for these criteria are discussed below. and Drucker-Prager plasticity models and in Abaqus/Explicit in conjunction with the Mises. and coalescence of voids. and cast metals as well as other materials. Allows the specification of more than one damage initiation criterion.” Section 23.

3–1 Stress-strain curve with progressive damage degradation. Uses mesh-independent measures (either plastic displacement or physical energy dissipation) to drive the evolution of damage after damage initiation. the damaged response depends on the element dimensions such that mesh dependency of the results is minimized. As discussed later. Figure 23.2.23.” Section 23. the damage manifests itself in two forms: softening of the yield stress and degradation of the elasticity. The solid curve in the figure represents the damaged stress-strain response. including the removal of elements from the mesh.2. while the dashed curve is the response in the absence of damage.2. Takes into account the combined effect of different damage mechanisms acting simultaneously on the same material and includes options to specify how each mechanism contributes to the overall material degradation. In the context of an elastic-plastic material with isotropic hardening. that is. Offers options for what occurs upon failure. and is the equivalent plastic strain at failure. In the figure and are the yield stress and equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage.2).2.3–1 illustrates the characteristic stress-strain behavior of a material undergoing damage. Must be used in combination with a damage initiation criterion for ductile metals (“Damage initiation for ductile metals. Damage evolution: Figure 23.3 Damage evolution and element removal for ductile metals: Overview: The damage evolution capability for ductile metals: Assumes that damage is characterized by the progressive degradation of the material stiffness. when the overall damage variable reaches the value . The 4 . leading to material failure.

or in terms of fracture energy 5 . may have an associated damage evolution law. With this approach.2. Instead. D. or in terms of fracture energy dissipation. captures the combined effect of all active damage mechanisms and is computed in terms of the individual damage variables. Hillerborg defines the energy required to open a unit area of crack. such that the energy dissipated decreases as the mesh is refined. The fracture energy is then given as This expression introduces the definition of the equivalent plastic displacement. after damage initiation . For membranes and shells it is a characteristic length in the reference surface. A different approach is required to follow the strain-softening branch of the stress-strain response curve. . The damage evolution law can be specified in terms of equivalent plastic displacement. . Each damage initiation criterion described in “Damage initiation for ductile metals. Using brittle fracture concepts. it is half of the same typical length for a second-order element. For cohesive elements it is equal to the constitutive thickness. and elements that have aspect ratios close to unity are recommended. . The implementation of this stress-displacement concept in a finite element model requires the definition of a characteristic length. Continuing to use the stress-strain relation introduces a strong mesh dependency based on strain localization. the softening response after damage initiation is characterized by a stress-displacement response rather than a stress-strain response. . The definition of the characteristic length depends on the element geometry and formulation: it is a typical length of a line across an element for a first-order element. . as a material parameter. Mesh dependency and characteristic length: When material damage occurs. . Therefore. as the fracture work conjugate of the yield stress after the onset of damage (work per unit area of the crack).2. For axisymmetric elements it is a characteristic length in the r–z plane only. The value of the equivalent plastic strain at failure. This definition of the characteristic length is used because the direction in which fracture occurs is not known in advance. For beams and trusses it is a characteristic length along the element axis. Hillerborg's (1976) fracture energy proposal is used to reduce mesh dependency by creating a stress-displacement response after damage is initiated. the damage evolution law is specified in terms of equivalent plastic displacement. . Before damage initiation . the stress-strain relationship no longer accurately represents the material's behavior. associated with an integration point. depends on the characteristic length of the element and cannot be used as a material parameter for the specification of the damage evolution law.” Section 23. L.overall damage variable. elements with large aspect ratios will have rather different behavior depending on the direction in which they crack: some mesh sensitivity remains because of this effect.

Input File Usage: Use the following option to specify that the damage associated with a particular criterion contributes to the overall damage variable in a maximum sense (default): *DAMAGE EVOLUTION. . is defined with the evolution equation where L is the characteristic length of the element.dissipation. 6 . with . respectively. Evaluating overall damage when multiple criteria are active: The overall damage variable. D. for each mechanism. Both of these options take into account the characteristic length of the element to alleviate mesh dependency of the results. DEGRADATION=MULTIPLICATIVE Defining damage evolution based on effective plastic displacement: As discussed previously. once the damage initiation criterion has been reached. You can choose to combine some of the damage variables in a multiplicative sense to form an intermediate variable. . captures the combined effect of all active mechanisms and is computed in terms of individual damage variables. the overall damage variable is computed as the maximum of variables: and the remaining damage In the above expressions and represent the sets of active mechanisms that contribute to the overall damage in a multiplicative and a maximum sense. as follows: Then. . . DEGRADATION=MAXIMUM Use the following option to specify that the damage associated with a particular criterion contributes to the overall damage variable in a multiplicative sense: *DAMAGE EVOLUTION. the effective plastic displacement.

however. reaching maximum degradation at all section points through the thickness at either of the two element integration locations along the beam axis leads. The output variable SDEG contains the value of D. in a shell element all through-the-thickness section points at any one integration location of an element must fail before the element is removed from the mesh. to the overall damage variable. for traction-separation response. removal of a solid element takes place. linear. otherwise. is specified as 0. when maximum degradation is reached at any one integration point. You can specify an upper bound. Abaqus applies damage to all stiffness components equally for elements that may eventually be removed: In Abaqus/Standard an element is removed from the mesh if D reaches at all of the section points at all the integration locations of an element except for cohesive elements (for cohesive elements the conditions for element deletion are that D reaches at all integration points and. However. . none of the integration points are in compression). for traction-separation response. by default. In the case of second-order reduced-integration beam elements. Except for cohesive elements with traction-separation response. No further damage is accumulated at an integration point once D reaches (except. care . to element removal. Specifying the value of maximum degradation: The default setting of depends on whether elements are to be deleted upon reaching maximum degradation (discussed next). of course. Maximum degradation and choice of element removal: You have control over how Abaqus treats elements with severe damage. by default. In Abaqus/Explicit an element is removed from the mesh if D reaches at all of the section points at any one integration location of an element except for cohesive elements (for cohesive elements the conditions for element deletion are that D reaches at all integration points and. in modified triangular and tetrahedral solid elements 7 . . . For example. any remaining stiffness is lost upon element deletion). The latter choice also affects which stiffness components are damaged. Instantaneous failure will occur if the plastic displacement at failure. D. and you can choose whether to delete an element once maximum degradation is reached.The evolution of the damage variable with the relative plastic displacement can be specified in tabular. this choice is not recommended and should be used with because it causes a sudden drop of the stress at the material point that can lead to dynamic instabilities. none of the integration points are in compression). or exponential form. Removing the element from the mesh: Elements are deleted by default upon reaching maximum degradation. For the default case of element deletion and in all cases for cohesive elements. Similarly.

there is no bulk degradation under positive pressures. With element deletion turned off. ELEMENT DELETION=NO Elements with three-dimensional stress states in Abaqus/Explicit For elements with three-dimensional stress states (including generalized plane strain elements) the shear stiffness will be degraded up to a maximum value. and pressure. Input File Usage: Use the following option to keep the element in the computation: *SECTION CONTROLS. 8 . except in the case of threedimensional beam elements. as discussed below. The default value is if element deletion is turned off. stresses are computed as where the deviatoric and volumetric damage variables are given as In this case the output variable SDEG contains the value of . which ensures that elements will remain active in the simulation with a residual stiffness of at least 1% of the original stiffness. by In a heat transfer analysis the thermal properties of the material are not affected by the progressive damage of the material stiffness until the condition for element deletion is reached. at this point the thermal contribution of the element is also removed. The dimensionality of the stress state of the element affects which stiffness components can become damaged. the degraded deviatoric.e. . to element removal. p. leading to softening of the deviatoric stress components. hydrostatic tension). . at any one integration point leads. This corresponds to a fluid-like behavior. the overall damage variable is enforced to be . The bulk stiffness.and fully integrated membrane elements D reaching default. however. you may choose not to remove the element from the mesh. Keeping the element in the computations Optionally. Therefore.. In a heat transfer analysis the thermal properties of the material are not affected by damage of the material stiffness. will be degraded only while the material is subjected to negative pressures (i.

Then. The stress is.Elements with three-dimensional stress states in Abaqus/Standard For elements with three-dimensional stress states (including generalized plane strain elements) the stiffness will be degraded uniformly until the maximum degradation. continuum shell. . the damage variable increases according to where the equivalent plastic displacement at failure is computed as 9 . and cohesive elements with gasket behavior) their only stress component will be degraded if it is positive (tension). The material stiffness will remain unaffected under compression loading. Instantaneous failure will occur if is specified as 0. to be dissipated during the damage process directly. this choice is not recommended and should be used with care because it causes a sudden drop in the stress at the material point that can lead to dynamic instabilities. truss elements. Output Defining damage evolution based on energy dissipated during the damage process You can specify the fracture energy per unit area. is reached. once the damage initiation criterion is met. Elements with one-dimensional stress states For elements with a one-dimensional stress state (i. therefore. rebar.. shell. The evolution in the damage can be specified in linear or exponential form. ). Output variable SDEG contains the value of D. However. . given by . where the uniaxial damage variable is computed as In this case determines the maximum allowed degradation in uniaxial tension ( variable SDEG contains the value of . . and membrane elements) the stiffness will be degraded uniformly until the maximum degradation. You can specify the fracture energy per unit area. Output variable SDEG contains the value of D.e. . is reached. Linear form Assume a linear evolution of the damage variable with plastic displacement. Elements with plane stress states For elements with a plane stress formulation (plane stress.

Therefore. The model ensures that the energy dissipated during the damage evolution process is equal to only if the effective response of the material is perfectly plastic (constant yield stress) beyond the onset of damage. the model becomes equivalent to that shown in Figure 23.2.and is the value of the yield stress at the time when the failure criterion is reached. 10 .3–2(b).

- CHABOCHE, J. L. - Continuum Damage Mechanics P.1 - General ConceptsUploaded byhasmonteiro
- 561Uploaded byEldori1988
- Materials BehaviourUploaded byVishwarath Taduru
- 1045_EN.pdfUploaded bysaid
- Johnson-Cook Empirical ModelsUploaded bySanaan Khan
- 17Uploaded byZsolt Papp
- Desempeño Sismico de Una Columna Rectangular Formado en Frio Conectado Al DiafragmaUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Damage and failure for ductile metals - Abaqus.pdfUploaded byshayan
- Danes Hi an 2013Uploaded byamd mhm
- Plastic eUploaded byJMPCalcao
- A Constitutive Model and Data for MetalsUploaded bybouazoth
- Frac l09 XfemUploaded bychingon987
- Void Growth in Plastic Solids NeedlemanUploaded byVanaja Jadapalli
- A Continuum Damage Mechanics Framework for Modeling Micro-damage HealingUploaded byimrancenakk
- Fracture Lecture of AbaqusUploaded byMohammed Abu Sufian
- Crimping AnalysisUploaded byJordan Riley
- Impact of Foundation Nonlinearity on the Crack Propagation of High Concrete DamsUploaded byBMWrider1453
- true_stress_strain.pdfUploaded byBrian Forsman
- Finite Element Analysis and Life Estimation of a PermanentUploaded byomarihuano
- Concrete in Compression a Plasticity Theory With AUploaded byheinsteinz
- 2007 PNAS Cytoskeletal-DynamicsUploaded byAdi Pasah
- 1-s2.0-S0958946504001581-mainUploaded bytumballisto
- Ch02Uploaded byReza
- Ch1 Stress StrainUploaded byBalasubramanian Somasundaram
- Lecture 7 - Static Failure TheoriesUploaded byBrian Zachariah Du
- Martin.pdfUploaded byteckhuatl
- Simplified Model for Damage in Squat RC Shear WallsUploaded byFadhila Fadi
- NT2F12 Tamara FinalUploaded bycesarrichardo
- Plastic Buckling of Tubes Under Axial Compression and Internal PressureUploaded byRabee Shammas