PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi]

On: 16 February 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931793936]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Crashworthiness
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778188386
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of
aluminium extrusions
H. Hooputra; H. Gese; H. Dell; H. Werner
Online publication date: 08 July 2010
To cite this Article Hooputra, H. , Gese, H. , Dell, H. and Werner, H.(2004) 'A comprehensive failure model for
crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions', International Journal of Crashworthiness, 9: 5, 449 464
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Woodhead Publishing Ltd 0289 449 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 pp. 449463
Corresponding Author:
H Hooputra,
BMW Group
Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147,
D-80788 Munich, Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 89 382 494 17 Fax: +49 (0) 89 382 428 20
Email: hariaokto.hooputra@bmw.de
NOTATION
a, a
1
Constants in analytical approximation of
stress-strain curve
c Directionally dependent material parameter
in ductile fracture curve
c
h
Heat treatment effectivity parameter
d Inhomogeneity parameter
d
0
, d
1
Material parameters in ductile fracture curve
f Material parameter in shear fracture curve
k
0
, k
1
, k
2
Material parameters in ductile fracture curve
h
0
,

h
0
Initial sheet thickness outside of localised neck
and in the localised neck
h,

h Actual sheet thickness outside of localised

neck and in the localised neck
k
s
Material parameter in shear fracture curve
m Strain rate sensitivity parameter
n Strain hardening exponent
r
0
, r
45
, r
90
Lankford coefficients describing plastic
orthotropy
t Time
x Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet
(x = rolling direction)
y Axis in coordinate system of textured sheet
(y = normal to rolling direction)
x Axis in local coordinate system of necked
sheet (x = normal to neck)
y Axis in local coordinate system of necked
sheet (y = parallel to neck)
Ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major
principal strain (rate)
Orientation angle of initial neck relative to
rolling direction
Small number for initial sheet imperfection
in Marciniak model

0
Constant in analytical approximation of stress-
strain curve

1
,
2
Principal in plane components of plastic
strain,
1
>
2

eq
Equivalent plastic strain

eq
Equivalent plastic strain rate

( )
eq
ref

Reference equivalent plastic strain rate

(typically 1 s
1
)
A comprehensive failure model for
crashworthiness simulation of aluminium
extrusions
H Hooputra
1
, H Gese
2
, H Dell
2
and H Werner
1
1
BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich, Germany
2
MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich, Germany
Abstract: A correct representation of the plastic deformation and failure of individual component
parts is essential to obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. The aim of this paper is to
present a comprehensive approach for predicting failure in a component based on macroscopic
strains and stresses. This approach requires the use of a number of different failure mechanism
representations, such as necking (due to local instabilities), as well as ductile and shear fracture. All
failure criteria have been developed in a way to include the influence of non-linear strain paths. The
effectiveness of this approach in predicting failure is then discussed by comparing numerical results
with test data by three point bending and axial compression tests of double chamber extrusion
components. All studies presented in this paper were carried out on extrusions made from aluminium
alloy EN AW-7108 T6.
Key words: Crashworthiness simulation, metal failure, failure prediction, plastic instability, ductile
fracture, shear fracture.
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 450 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd

eq
*
Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability

eq
Equivalent plastic strain at onset of instability
for one orientation angle of the initial neck
relative to rolling direction

eq
**
Equivalent plastic strain at onset of fracture


S
S
+
, Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial
tension/compression at shear fracture


T
T
+
, Equivalent plastic strain in equibiaxial
tension/compression at ductile fracture
Stress triaxiality

+
,

Stress triaxiality in equibiaxial tension/

compression at ductile fracture
Shear stress parameter

+
,

Shear stress parameter for equibiaxial

tension/compression.
+
= 2 4k
S
,

= 2 +
4k
S
Angle between extrusion direction and major
principal strain rate

1
,
2
,
3
Principal components of stress tensor

eq
Equiv. stress

m

m
= (
1
+
2
+
3
)/3

x
,
y
Stress components in extrusion direction and
transverse direction

xy
In plane shear stress component
Ratio of maximum shear stress to equivalent
stress
INTRODUCTION
Most of todays crashworthiness simulation codes offer
an incomplete selection of failure models. Often this
selection is limited to simple fracture models based on
the maximum strain criterion (i.e. the true fracture strain
is constant for all stress states). The problem with these
models is that they do not take the dependence of the
fracture strain on the complete state of stress in a
component into account. The result being, that these
simplified approaches have resulted in inaccurate fracture
predictions [1]. On a more advanced level, there exist
some theoretical models based on mesoscopic effects. One
example is the Gurson model, which accounts for the
evolution of material porosity using a special yield criterion.
However, this kind of model is limited to representing
ductile fracture and as such ignores the fracture mechanism
based on shear [1, 2]. In FEM analysis, failure prediction
using the Gurson model is highly dependent on mesh
refinement as this model causes strain softening prior to
fracture. Considering these shortcomings prevalent in
todays numerical codes, there emerges a strong need for
the development of a comprehensive approach for failure
prediction coupled with a numerically robust implementa-
tion. This approach must be flexible enough to make use
of the available discretisation used in todays automotive
crash simulations (i.e. the use of shell elements with typical
edge length between 5 and 15 mm). As localised necking
of thin sheets or profiles (necking in the direction of sheet
thickness) cannot be modelled with this discretisation, a
criterion for instability must be introduced in addition to
the fracture models.
Sheets and thin-walled extrusions made from aluminium
alloys generally fail due to one or a combination of the
following mechanisms (Figure 1):
ductile fracture (based on initiation, growth and
coalescence of voids),
shear fracture (based on shear band localisation).
instability with localised necking (followed by ductile
or shear fracture inside the neck area),
Instability is necessary as a third failure criterion if the
structure is discretised with shell elements. A more in-
depth explanation will be given in the section Numerical
Model for Instability.
The failure strains of the different mechanisms depend
primarily on strain rate, temperature, anisotropy, state of
stress and strain path.
This paper describes the derivation of three failure
criteria for Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS
failure criteria). The failure criteria are based on
macroscopic stresses and strains. The criteria include the
effect of anisotropy, state of stress and strain path. One
set of parameters is valid for one temperature and one
strain rate regime (quasi-static or dynamic).
The IDS failure criteria have been integrated into the
software code CrachFEM
1
. CrachFEM is an add-on
module to FEM codes which use an explicit-dynamic time
integration scheme. CrachFEM transiently predicts failure
Figure 1 Visualisation of ductile fracture, shear fracture and sheet instability (localised necking).
Localised neck
Ductile fracture Shear fracture Sheet instability
1
CrachFEM is a trademark of MATFEM (GER)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 451 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
of elements during deformation. Critical elements can be
eliminated from the finite element model.
Three point bending and compression tests have been
used to validate the IDS failure criteria. The simulations
were conducted using a coupling of the crash simulation
code PAM-CRASH
2
with CrachFEM.
The instability, ductile, and shear fracture curves were
determined for aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 subjected
to various stress states. This material was selected in order
to illustrate the occurrence of the various failure modes.
The coefficients for the IDS failure criteria were derived
for room temperature and two strain rates (quasi-static
and 250 1/s).
A correct representation of the material plasticity is a
prerequisite of a correct failure prediction because the
failure criteria are based on local stresses and strains.
Therefore, the plasticity of the aluminium extrusion EN
AW-7108 T6 was examined in detail first (strain hardening,
yield locus).
CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL PLASTICITY
Short tensile specimens have been cut out of the outer
walls of a double chamber extrusion, at 0, 45 and 90 to
the extrusion direction. The plastic anisotropy r (necessary
for the IDS failure criteria calculation) and the strain
hardening parameters were derived experimentally using
these samples. Test results are summarised in Table 1.
The results show that the plastic orthotropy is very
pronounced, r-values change from 0.327 in extrusion
direction to 1.378 in diagonal direction.
Static and dynamic, tensile and compression tests of
prismatic specimens cut in the extrusion direction have
been performed to quantify the strain rate sensitivity of
the material and adiabatic flow stress curves. These are
required as input for commercial FEM crash codes with
an explicit-dynamic time integration scheme. A fully
coupled thermo-mechanical solution procedure is not
supported by these codes. The method used to obtain
adiabatic flow stress curves from these experiments is
described in [1]. The adiabatic flow stress curves for
aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6 are shown in Figure 2.
There is no significant strain rate sensitivity for strain
rates between quasi-static and 1 s
1
. At higher strain rates,
the material displays a positive strain rate sensitivity for
strains below about 20%, while above this value, the
material shows a negative strain rate sensitivity due to the
adiabatic heating of the material.
Tube-shaped specimens extruded from the same batch
under similar process parameters were used to determine
the initial yield locus of EN AW-7108 T6. Testing was
performed on a multifunctional testing machine with
hydraulic gear for the following load cases
1. Axial tension
2. Axial compression
3. Torsion
4. Axial tension (compression) with internal pressure
5. Torsion with internal pressure
6. Torsion with axial tension (compression) and internal
pressure.
Additionally, ring specimens for uniaxial compression
tests were cut from tubes. The yield locus was measured
for an equivalent plastic strain of 2%, see Figure 3. The
symmetric yield locus of Barlat et al. [3] in connection
with an associated flow rule has been used to describe
plastic deformation. It gives a good approximation in the
tension-tension regime. However, it can be seen from
Figure 3 that the case of pure shear (
x
=
y
) is not well
represented. The experimental results display a slightly
concave shape in this area. Strain hardening and strain
rate effects have been taken into consideration by an affine
Table 1 Quasi-static material parameters of extrusion EN AW-7108 T6
Orientation Anisotropy Flow stress:
eq
= a(
0
+
eq
)
n
parameter r
a [MPa]
0
[ ] n[ ]
L (0) 0.327 596.1 0.020 0.1427
D (45) 1.378 511.5 0.012 0.1148
LT (90) 0.965 642.5 0.042 0.1726
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
True strain []
T
r
u
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
0.002 1/s
25 1/s
100 1/s
Figure 2 Adiabatic flow stress vs. strain for different
strain rates for EN AW-7108 T6 specimens cut in
extrusion direction.
2
PAM-CRASH is a trademark of ESI Group (F)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 452 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
expansion or contraction (in case of strain softening) of
the initial yield locus.
NUMERICAL MODEL FOR INSTABILITY (LOCALISED
NECKING)
Localised necking is the main mechanism leading to
fracture in ductile sheet metals. The classical forming
limit curve (FLC) generally used to predict localised
instabilities is not useful in this instance because of its
assumption of linear strain paths in the material. In order
to take the effects of nonlinear strain paths into account,
which can develop during a crash event, a theoretical model
of the instability mechanism (CRACH algorithm) was used
for this study. This algorithm, based on the basic ideas of
the Marciniak approach [4], uses an initial imperfection
to trigger the instability. The calibration and validation of
this approach was achieved using a set of multistage
experiments at static and dynamic strain rates using mild
steel specimens [5].
The failure mechanisms at work in the sheet metal
forming process are summarised in Figure 1. All forming
operations are stable up to the instability strain limit

eq
*
,
after which the instability causes the formation of a localised
thinning of the cross section a neck, see Figure 4.
The state of stress in the neck area changes for all
strain paths to plane strain. As the plastic deformation of
the sheet becomes concentrated in the necked region, the
fracture strain is reached at once. Because the localised
neck has a width in the order of the dimension of the
sheet thickness, the necking process and subsequent
fracture cannot be modelled directly in industrial crash
simulation (shell elements have a typical edge length of 3
to 10 times the sheet thickness). The instability strain

eq
*
has to be used as a fracture criterion instead of the local
fracture strain

eq
**
inside the neck. From a numerical
point of view, a failure criterion based on the strain at
onset of instability,

eq
*
, has the additional advantage that
the strain distribution is physically as well as numerically
homogeneous.
Several attempts have been made in the literature to
calculate the limit curve for instability from the plastic
properties of the sheet. Hill [6] published a model, which
is acceptable to describe the left part of the initial FLC
(
2
< 0). Basic research was performed by Marciniak et
al. [4]. They described the plastic deformation of a sheet
with an initial thickness imperfection up to the point of
instability and showed promising results for the FLC of
isotropic material with strain rate sensitivities for
2
< 0.
However, the orthotropic material model used is not
consistent. Because the Marciniak model uses an isotropic
hardening model, it is also limited to linear strain paths.
Cayssials [7] used a mesoscopic damage model to simulate
the instability strain in plane strain situation for different
Figure 3 Experimental yield data from tube specimens
extruded from EN AW-7108 T6 and cross section of fitted
yield surface (Barlat et al. 1991) for
xy
= 0 at an
equivalent plastic strain of 2% (x = extrusion direction,
y = transverse direction). Units of stress: [GPa].
S
i
g

y
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Sig

x
Approximation

2% experiment

2%
Figure 4 (a) The stress distribution in a sheet may just induce the onset of instability; the strain distribution is still
homogeneous. (b) Slightly increasing the stresses leads to a local neck, immediately followed by fracture. The strain distribution
is inhomogeneous, showing a peak within the neck (local strain). In a numerical model, discretised with shell elements, only
the global strain can be evaluated from nodal displacements N
1
to N
4
. Since the global strain does not change significantly
from onset of instability to onset of fracture, the former may be used as a slightly conservative fracture criterion. For the shell
elements, a length to thickness ratio greater than 5 should hold.
(a) Onset of instability (b) Onset of fracture (c) Local and global strain

y
+
y

x
+
x
45
Onset of
fracture
Onset of
instability
Global strain
L
o
c
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
G
lo
b
a
l
s
tr
a
in
L
o
c
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
N
2
N
1
N
3
N
4

eq
*
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 453 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
steel grades. However, the model does not cover the whole
FLC and is limited to isotropic materials. Hora et al. [8]
have applied a modified force criterion to non-linear strain
paths. The model does not include kinematic hardening
and will therefore be limited in the quantitative prediction
of necking in non-linear cases. This review shows that a
need for a complete description of sheet instability for all
strain paths still exists.
The newly developed algorithm CRACH has been used
in this study which includes a refined description of
material behaviour on a macroscopic level, in conjunction
with the effects of the material microstructure. The
mechanical problem is given in Figure 5. The basic concept
is derived from the Marciniak model [4]. In this model
the localised neck is triggered by an initial imperfection
of the sheet. The sheet has an initial thickness of h
0.
The
thickness inside the infinitely small imperfection is given
in equation (1).

h h
0 0
= (1 ) [1]
is a very small number. Here and in the following chapters,
all values inside the localised neck are indicated with a
tilde (~). As the neck is infinitely small, the increase in
strain parallel to the neck (defined as local y-direction in
Figure 5) is identical inside and outside the neck according
to equation (2).

d d
y y

= [2]
This model is practicable for linear strain paths in the
region of
2
< 0 (
1
and
2
are the principal strains in the
plane of the sheet with
2

1
), where the neck width is
very small. In the region
2
> 0 the neck can have a
significant width. Therefore, the CRACH algorithm uses
an approximation of the neck cross section according to
equation (3).

h h d
x
l
0 0
= 1 cos
j
(
,
\
,
(
,

,
]
]
]
[3]
x indicates the local direction normal to the necking line
according to Figure 5. The initial thickness h
0
has no
influence on the numerical problem and is fixed to 1. The
ratio x/l changes from 0 (neck center) to 1/2 (region of
the sheet with homogeneous deformation). d is the
inhomogeneity parameter and its initial value is calibrated
from the limit strain out of one experiment with the
individual sheet. The parameter d increases with
deformation in the CRACH algorithm in order to account
for the roughening of the sheet during plastic deformation.
The strain outside the neck can be increased
incrementally according to the strain history of a finite
element. The strain inside the neck is calculated by CRACH
using equation (3) and a strain rate dependent plasticity
model with isotropic-kinematic hardening.
The equivalent flow stress of the material is defined by

eq 1 0 eq
eq
eq ref
= ( + )
( )
a
n

j
(
,
\
,
(
[4]
with strain hardening exponent n and strain rate sensitivity
parameter m, where n and m can differ between the
quasistatic and dynamic loading regimes. The plastic
orthotropy is defined by the Lankford coefficients r
0
, r
45
,
and r
90
. An anisotropic yield locus according to Hill-1948
is combined with a model for anisotropic strain hardening
according to Backhaus [9] to account for the Bauschinger
effect in the CRACH algorithm.
The global strain around the neck is increased
incrementally as long as the force equilibrium is fulfilled
according to equations (5a) and (5b).

x x
h h = [5a]

x y x y
h h = [5b]
The first increment without equilibrium indicates the
instability with the start of the localised necking. This
mechanical problem has to be solved for different
orientation angles according to Figure 5 of the initial
neck relative to the rolling direction of the sheet. The
limit strain

eq
*
for one deformation path is derived through
optimisation according to equation (6).

eq
*
eq
= min{ ( )} [6]
For some angles , the equivalent limit strain

eq
can be
high or even infinite. Therefore, an upper limit of

eq
=
1.2 has been defined. In summary, the CRACH algorithm
solves the plastic flow problem inside and outside the
initial neck area. Instability occurs if there is no common
solution for the flow problem inside and outside of the
neck.
Additional features of the CRACH algorithm are:
introduction of a heat treatment effectivity parameter
c
h
(0 < c
h
< 1) to represent interstage annealing; c
h
> 0
Figure 5 Schematic representation of the imperfection
triggering a localised neck in the CRACH algorithm.
y

xy
x
x

l
y
h

h
X
d h h h = ( )/

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 454 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
reduces the effect of strain hardening and resets all
micro stresses to zero according to [10];
inclusion of the possibility to introduce new flow curves
between stages due to heat treatment (i.e. solution heat
treatment and age hardening) or significant changes in
strain rate (i.e. for history deep drawing and crash).
PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR DUCTILE AND
SHEAR FRACTURE
Two main mechanisms can cause the fracture of a ductile
metal:
void nucleation, void growth and void coalescence;
shear fracture due to shear band localisation.
Most of the phenomenological fracture models are based
on a fracture diagram which gives the equivalent plastic
strain at fracture

eq
**
as a function of the stress state (i.e.
stress triaxiality according to equation (8)). The function

eq
**
() can be used directly as a fracture criterion in the
case of a linear strain path. For the more general case of
a nonlinear strain path, an integral fracture criterion is
necessary. Kolmogorov [11] has presented an integral
criterion according to equation (7).

0
eq
eq
**
eq
**
( )
= 1

d
[7]
Integral criteria can account for nonlinear strain paths.
However, in more severe cases of load path changes (i.e.
compression-tension reversal) even the integral criteria
are no longer valid. CrachFEM offers a tensorial criterion
as an option for these cases. The tensorial fracture criterion
is not discussed here.
The fracture criterion is calculated separately for the
risk of ductile fracture and shear fracture in CrachFEM.
It is assumed that there is no interaction between both
fracture mechanisms.
Ductile fracture
For ductile fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent
fracture strain

eq
**
is a function of the stress triaxiality ,
defined in equation (8) by components in principal stress
space.

=
3
=
+ +
+ +
eq
1 2 3
1
2
2
2
3
2
1 2 2 3 3 1
m
[8]
Typically, the dependence of the equivalent fracture
strain on the stress triaxiality is expressed in the form of
equation (9).

eq
**
= d
0
exp(c) [9]
Equation (9) assumes a monotonic decrease of the fracture
strain with increasing stress triaxiality. However,
experimental results from aluminium extrusions used in
this study show that the equivalent plastic strain at fracture
for equibiaxial stress ( 2) can be higher than the
equivalent plastic strain at fracture in plane strain loading
(

3 ). Equation (10) represents a more general
formulation and includes a non-monotonic decrease of
the fracture strain with increasing stress triaxiality.

eq
**
= d
0
exp (c) + d
1
exp (c) [10]
where d
1
is an additional material parameter. Of course,
equation (10) includes the special case of equation (9) for
a monotonic decrease in fracture strain vs. stress triaxiality.
However, equations (9) and (10) remain limited to
describing isotropic materials.
A more general formulation of equation (10), which
includes the orthotropy of fracture, must also include the
boundary conditions of the equivalent fracture strain

T
+
for the equibiaxial tension condition which must not be
orientation dependent. Theoretically, the fracture strain
at equibiaxial compression

must not be orientation

dependent as well. However, its value is usually very high.
If
+
is the stress triaxiality for equibiaxial tension and

indicates the stress triaxiality in equibiaxial compression

(a material with isotropic plasticity yields
+
= 2 and

= 2), the following boundary conditions may be defined.

T
+
eq
**
= for =
+
[11a]


T

eq
**
= for =

[11b]
The parameters d
0
and d
1
of equation (10) can be
substituted using the boundary conditions from equations
(11a) and (11b). The result is given in equation (12) below.

eq
**
+ +
+
=
sinh[ ( )] + sinh [ ( )]
sinh [ ( )]
T
T
c c
c
[12]
An orientation dependent parameter c has been introduced
in equation (12) for the orthotropic case. Therefore equation
(12) has two constant parameters,


T
T
+
, and one
orientation dependent parameter c. The dependence of
the parameter c on the angle between the extrusion
direction and the direction of the first principal strain
rate

1
is expressed in equation (13).
c = k
0
+ k
1
cos (2) + k
2
cos (4) [13]
Equations (13) and (14) fulfil the necessary symmetry
boundary conditions. Equations (12) and (13) are used to
approximate the ductile fracture curve in this study.
The parameter

T
+
can be directly obtained from an
equibiaxial tension test (i.e. Erichsen test). The parameters

and c for one direction (extrusion direction) can be

derived from two additional experiments with different
stress triaxiality. In this project, three point bending (plane
strain tension) and notched tensile specimens (uniaxial
tension at notch root) have been used. For two different
orientations (45 and 90) the value of c is derived from
three point bending tests. If c is known for three orientations
(i.e. c
0
, c
45
and c
90
), the coefficients k
0
, k
1
and k
2
of equation
(13) can be calculated using equations (14ac).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 455 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
k
0
= (c
0
+ 2c
45
+ c
90
)/4 [14a]
k
1
= (c
0
c
90
)/2 [14b]
k
2
= (c
0
2c
45
+ c
90
)/4 [14c]
Shear fracture
For shear fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent strain
at fracture

eq
**
is a function of the variable given in
equation (15).

=
1 k
s
[15]
where

k
s
is a material parameter and is the ratio of the
maximum shear stress and the equivalent stress (von Mises)
according to equation (16).

=
max
eq
[16]
Analogous to equation (12), the equivalent plastic strain
for shear fracture with respect to is given in equation
(17).

eq
**
+ +
+
=
sinh[ ( )] + sinh [ ( )]
sinh [ ( )]
S
S
f f
f
[17]
where
+
and

are the values of the parameter for

equibiaxial tension und compression. Equation (17) has
two constant parameters


S
S
+
, and one orientation
dependent parameter f. No significant orthotropy of the
shear fracture curve has been found up to now for different
sheets and extrusions. Therefore, it is assumed that f is a
constant, independent of the orientation to extrusion
direction.
DERIVATION OF FRACTURE PARAMETERS
Instability
The limit strain

1
*
of the initial FLC in uniaxial tension
specimens is derived from the specimen thickness and
width measured at a distance of twice the sheet thickness
from the fracture line (outside the localised neck), assuming
volume constancy during the plastic deformation. The
mean value of three quasi-static experiments in extrusion
direction resulted in a strain limit of 125 . 0 . The algorithm
CRACH (input: r-values r
0
= 0.327, r
45
= 1.378, r
90
=
0.965 and strain hardening coefficients a
static
= 596 MPa,

0,static
= 0.02, n
static
= 0.143 in extrusion direction; quasi-
static strain rate sensitivity of m
static
= 0) was used to
derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for this limit strain
(d = 0.0028). The quasi-static FLC predicted by CRACH
is shown in Figure 6.
An approximation of the flow stress curves from tensile
tests at 250 s
1
was used to derive the parameters of the
Swift equation for CRACH in the dynamic regime (a
dynamic
= 572.9 MPa,
0,dynamic
= 0.032,

n
dynamic
= 0.122)
3
. A
correlation of the flow stress curves at a strain rate of
1 s
1
and 100 s
1
yields the strain rate sensitivity of m
dynamic
= 0.006 for the dynamic regime.
The CRACH algorithm (input: r-values and dynamic
strain hardening parameters as cited above) was used to
derive the inhomogeneity parameter d for the limit strains
of the dynamic tensile tests in the different orientations.
A mean value of d = 0.0025 for the three orientations was
used to calculate the dynamic FLC (see Figure 6). It may
be observed from the results that the static and mean
dynamic inhomogeneity parameters are very similar, and
that the dynamic FLC is somewhat lower than the quasi-
static one.
Ductile fracture limit
Different specimen geometries are used to define different
deformation states (i.e. plane strain, equibiaxial strain etc.).
For the derivation of the fracture parameters, the stress
state parameters (defined in equation (8)) and for the
shear fracture curve (defined in equation (16)) must be
known, and thus a material model must be introduced for
this purpose. For this analysis, an isotropic von Mises
yield locus was used. This yield locus does not exactly fit
the materials plasticity results, but it does make the fracture
model more robust and more general. This does not cause
an incompatibility during the calculation because the
material plasticity in the FEM module and the fracture
models are uncoupled.
Erichsen test (equibiaxial stress with = 2), three point
bending of sheet coupons (width/thickness > 4 with plane
strain tension and

= 3 ; tests under 0, 45 and 90 to
extrusion direction) and waisted tensile specimens with
fracture at the notch root (uniaxial tension with = 1)
have been used to obtain the ductile fracture limit. The
local fracture strains have been derived from a grid on the
surface of the specimens (Erichsen test and three point
Figure 6 Initial forming limit curves (FLC) predicted
with CRACH for the quasistatic and dynamic cases
(approx. 250 s
1
) for specimens cut in the extrusion
direction.
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
esp

2
e
p
s

1
Quasistatic
Dynamic
3
This approximation is only used for the prediction of instability with algorithm CRACH. The Swift parameters must not be used for the
extrapolation up to higher strains since this function type cannot account for softening effects due to adiabatic heating.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 456 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
bending) or from the sheet thickness in the fracture plane
(waisted tensile specimens). The Erichsen tests resulted
in both ductile and shear fractures for different specimens
at the pole location. Therefore, these data have been used
to determine both the ductile and shear fracture limits.
In comparing the equivalent fracture strain between
the quasistatic and dynamic experiments, it has been
observed that for the three point bending and notched
tensile tests (wide specimens) the quasistatic equivalent
strain is lower than in the dynamic case. In all other
experiments, the equivalent fracture strains are higher in
the dynamic case. Whereas, in quasistatic tests the fracture
strain shows a pronounced minimum in the LT direction
(normal to extrusion direction), the fracture strains in
the dynamic case seem to be more isotropic.
The limit diagram for ductile fracture was approximated
using equations (12) and (13). Material parameters shown
in Table 2 were derived from experiments. The
approximation of the ductile fracture curves for three
orientations to extrusion direction versus stress triaxiality
is given for the quasi-static case in Figure 7 together
with the experimental input.
Table 2 Material parameters in equation (12) for the
ductile fracture limit in the quasistatic and dynamic
case (EN AW-7108 T6)
Quasi-static Dynamic

T
+
= 0.26

T
+
= 0.44

= 193.0

= 1494.0
k
0
= 1.759 k
0
= 2.8768
k
1
= 0.125 k
1
= 0.0465
k
2
= 0.048 k
2
= 0.1233
quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case.
The derivation of from the stress triaxiality is given
in Appendix A.
Shear fracture limit
Tensile specimen with a groove (rectangular cross section,
groove depth = half sheet thickness) under 45 to loading
direction ( = 1.469), specially shaped tensile specimens
with a groove parallel to the loading direction (pure shear
with = 1.732) and Erichsen tests (biaxial tension with
= 1.6), have been used to determine the shear fracture
limit. Results from Erichsen tests were added to this curve
in case the specimens had failed in shear fracture. The
dynamic fracture limits are slightly lower than the
quasistatic ones.
The quasistatic and dynamic shear fracture limit curves
were approximated using equation (17). The parameter
k
S
in equation (15) was set to 0.1 based on a number of
tests with different aluminium alloys. The shear fracture
was assumed to be isotropic. Material parameters according
to Table 3 were derived from the experimental results.
The shear fracture limit curve for the quasi-static case is
shown in Figure 8 together with the experimental data.
Table 3 Material parameters in equation (17) for the shear
fracture limit in quasistatic and dynamic case (EN AW-
7108 T6)
Quasi-static Dynamic

S
+
= 0.26

S
+
= 0.35

= 4.16

= 1.2
f = 4.04 f = 2.05
The shear fracture limit curves are plotted in Figure 9 for
the quasistatic case and in Figure 10 for the dynamic case
together with the instability limit and the ductile fracture
limit. For the characterization of the loading path for all
three types of limit curves,

= /
2 1

( =
2
/
1
for
linear strain paths) is used as a common measure. The
derivation of from the stress triaxiality and the
parameter is given in Appendix A.
Ductile

limit

0
Ductile

limit

45
Ductile

limit

90
Experiment

0
Experiment

45
Experiment

90
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Stress triaxiality eta
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
Figure 7 Ductile fracture limit curves


eq
**
( ) together
with experimental data for quasi-static case in orientation
of 0, 45 and 90 to extrusion direction.
For the characterization of the loading path for all three
types of limit curves,

= /
2 1

( =
2
/
1
for linear
strain paths) is used as a common measure. For purposes
of comparing these results with the other fracture limits,
the ductile fracture curves are shown in Figure 9 for the
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Shear limit

0
Experiment

0
Teta
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
Figure 8 Quasi-static shear fracture limit curve

eq
**
() and
experimental data from specimens cut in the extrusion
direction.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 457 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
IDS failure map for EN AW-7108 T6
For the characterization of the loading path for all three
types of limit curves,

= /
2 1

( =
2
/
1
for linear
strain paths) is used as a common measure. For the purpose
of comparison, all failure limits are combined into a failure
map in Figure 9 for the quasistatic case and in Figure 10
for the dynamic case. The limit curves are plotted for the
special case of linear strain paths and membrane
deformation. A linear strain path is defined by = constant.
In practice, the strain paths are often nonlinear. In this
case, the limit curves used in the numerical solution process
are updated during the deformation based on the theoretical
models described above (algorithm CRACH for instability;
nonlinear damage accumulation with a tensorial damage
model for ductile and shear fracture). In the case of
combined loading (membrane and bending), the limit
curves for instability and shear fracture are checked against
the membrane strains (both effects cover the whole sheet
thickness), whereas the upper and lower surface strains
are used to predict ductile fracture (ductile cracks initiated
at the surface).
VALIDATION
Quasi-static three point bending, as well as quasi-static
and dynamic compression tests in axial direction of the
double chamber extrusions have been used to validate the
IDS failure criteria. The three point bending test
configuration consists of two support pins (radius 25 mm)
and a central punch (radius 50 mm). The distance between
the pins is 350 mm. Double plastic foils, lubricated on
both sides, are placed between the extrusions and the
pins, as well as the punch, to minimise friction. The
dynamic compression tests are conducted using impact
velocities of 10 m/s and an impacting mass of 500 kg.
A coupling of the crash simulation code PAM-CRASH
and CrachFEM has been used for performing the analyses.
Finite elements whose strains exceed any one of the failure
criteria are eliminated from the FE mesh.
The coupling between the codes is organised in the
following manner:
1. The strain and stress tensors of each shell element
are transferred from the FEM code to the CrachFEM
module every 10
th
time step,
2. CrachFEM then calculates factors of safety for
Instability, Ductile, and Shear fracture (IDS failure
criteria)
CrachFEM tracks the influence of strain path, stress state,
strain rate, and orthotropy on the failure strain. During
1.5
1
0.5
0
2 1 0 1
Instability
Ductile fracture 0
Ductile fracture 45
Ductile fracture 90
Shear fracture
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
alpha = phi

2/phi

1
Figure 9 Quasistatic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6. Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths
and membrane loading.
Ductile fracture 0
Ductile fracture 45
Ductile fracture 90
Shear fracture
Instability
1.5
1
0.5
0
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Alpha = Phi

2/phi

1
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
Figure 10 Dynamic failure diagram for extrusion EN AW-7108 T6: Plotted limit curves are valid for linear strain paths
and membrane loading.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 458 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
deformation, there is a competition between the 3
mechanisms of failure (factor of safety is calculated for all
of the 3 failure modes). The criterion which is found to
become critical first (safety factor below 1) initiates the
element elimination. The result being that CrachFEM
can predict the time and mode of failure for each element.
The yield locus of Barlat-1991 (see Figure 3) and a
strain hardening according to Figure 2 has been used to
describe the plastic behaviour of the extrusions. Although
a strain softening has been found at high strain rates, this
behaviour may be problematic in the numerical application.
A strain softening or a negative strain rate sensitivity can
cause local element instabilities. Therefore, the strain
hardening curves above 25 s
1
according to Figure 2 have
been forced to have a positive strain hardening similar to
the curve for 25 s
1
.
The double chamber extrusion is modelled using shell
elements. The extrusion has a uniform thickness of
2.5 mm. In order to obtain an accurate prediction in the
simulation, a fine mesh (about 5 mm edge length) has
been used to produce the results shown in Figures 11 to
14. This is approximately the minimum edge length of
todays whole car crashworthiness simulation models for
critical structural parts.
Three point bending
The punch and the pins for three point bending test as
well as the impactor for the compression test are modelled
as rigid bodies. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient
of 0.05 is defined for the contact between the punch and
the component (steel-aluminium with lubricated polymer
foil in between). The aluminium-aluminium self contact
friction coefficient was found to be 0.15.
The force-displacement curves obtained from the three
point bending test are shown in Figure 11.
The numerical solution predicted without the use of
failure models shows considerable discrepancies from the
test results. Introducing the IDS failure criteria into the
numerical solution, not only improved the correlation,
but also approximates more accurately the total energy
absorption of the component. The initiation of fracture
in the simulation, using IDS failure criteria, correlates
well with that found in the test (Figures 12(a) and (b).
Fracture was found to initiate mainly in the T-section of
the middle wall and in the external area of the buckling
zone.
Axial compression test
The impactor for the compression test is modelled as a
rigid body too. A penalty contact with a friction coefficient
of 0.20 is defined for the contact between the dropped
mass (steel) and the extrusion. The aluminium-aluminium
self contact friction coefficient is again 0.15.
The simulation without any failure model does not
match the results from the quasi-static and dynamic
compression tests (Figure 13 center). Figure 13 left
shows a regular folding pattern in the quasi-static and
dynamic simulation. The simulations using the IDS failure
criteria accurately predict the real fracture pattern in the
extrusion for both loading velocities (Figure 13 right).
In the quasi-static case there is still folding with significant
fracture. Figure 14 shows fringe plots of the failure risk
parameter for the three failure modes. It is evident that
instability is not responsible for fracture. Ductile fracture
starts in the folds bent inward since they have a smaller
radius of curvature compared to the folds bent outward.
Figure 11 Three point bending test of double chamber
extrusions. Force-displacement curves from tests and
simulations with and without IDS failure criteria.
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
P
u
n
c
h

f
o
r
c
e

[
N
]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Punch displacement [mm]
Experiments
FEM

no

fracture
FEM

with IDS criteria

Figure 12 Three point bending test - Fracture pattern from tests and simulation.
(a) Quasistatic three point bending test (b) Simulation of three point bending with IDS
failure criteria. (5 mm edge length of
shell elements)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 459 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
Quasi-static simulation
without any failure criteria
Quasi-static compression test
Quasi-static simulation
with IDS failure criteria
Dynamic simulation
without any failure criteria
Dynamic compression test
Dynamic simulation with IDS
failure criteria
Shear fracture is initiated at the T-joint in the plane of
symmetry of the profile. In the dynamic case, see Figure
13 bottom, nearly no folding occurs. The wall segments
are separated completely in the corners and at the T-joint
between the middle wall and the outer walls, which is in
good agreement with the experiment.
The predominating fracture mode occurring in the
quasi-static and dynamic compression tests is shear and
ductile fracture. It seems likely that aluminium alloys
generally tend to be highly sensitive for shear loading in
the dynamic case (Figure 13 dynamic compression test).
CONCLUSIONS
A correct representation of the plastic deformation and
failure of individual component parts is essential to
obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation results. A
comprehensive approach for predicting failure in structural
components based on macroscopic strains and stresses
using the CrachFEM code has been presented. This
approach fits to the state-of-the-art in discretisation of
automotive crash simulation models (shell elements with
edge lengths of 5 to 15 mm). An edge length of 5 mm is
recommended in areas of high strain gradients. Due to
the absence of adaptive meshing procedures, these critical
areas have to be identified in advance. CrachFEM includes
all relevant failure mechanisms, such as Instability (localised
necking), Ductile and Shear fracture (IDS failure criteria).
All failure criteria are implemented in a way to include
the influence of non-linear strain paths.
Figure 13 Static and dynamic compression tests of double chamber extrusions (center) compared to simulations with and
without IDS failure criteria (left and right, respectively). Shell elements with 5 mm edge length were used.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 460 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
All studies presented in this paper were carried out on
extrusions made from aluminium alloy EN AW-7108 T6.
The plasticity of these extrusions has been examined
experimentally. A Barlat yield criterion has been used to
model the plastic orthotropy. The IDS failure curves of
EN AW-7108 T6 are strongly dependent on the stress
state and strain rate of the material. The ductile fracture
limit curves and the instability curves show a strong
orthotropic behaviour, whereas the shear fracture limit
curves show no significant dependence on the extrusion
orientation direction. To obtain an accurate failure
prediction, this anisotropic behaviour has to be taken into
account in the simulation.
The comparison of numerical results to test data for
the three point bending and axial compression tests of
double chamber extrusions demonstrates a comprehensive
approach to accurately predict component failure, both
in terms of the mode and the location of cracks. Due to
the loading conditions in all of the examples, instability
did not show up as a dominating failure mode. However,
in loading situations where membrane tensile strains
prevail, instability will be of great importance. An example
for such a case is shown in the publication from Pickett et
al. [12].
The presented failure approach, however, can only
predict the crack initiation. The element elimination used
in the simulation, after the onset of fracture, represents
only a preliminary approach for simulating crack
propagation. A suitable criterion for crack propagation in
combination with a numerical implementation which is
mesh independent to the greatest possible extent remains
a challenge for future development work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. V. Yelisseyev and his
co-workers at company TEST in Voronezh (RUS) for the
excellent experimental work on the measurement of the
yield locus and Dr. Andrew Heath for programming the
interface in PAM-CRASH to CrachFEM.
REFERENCES
1. EL-MAGD, E, GESE, H, THAM, R, HOOPUTRA, H and
WERNER, H. Fracture Criteria for Automobile
Crashworthiness Simulation of wrought Aluminium Alloy
Components, Mat.-wiss u Werkstofftech, 2001 32 712724.
2. SCHMITT, W, SUN, D Z, BLAUEL, J G and CHRISTLEIN, J.
Improved Description of the Material Behaviour of
Aluminium Automobile Components by the Gurson
Model, Proceeding of the 31
st
International Symposium on
Automotive Technology and Automation, Dsseldorf, 1998.
3. BARLAT, F, LEGE, D J and BREM, J C. A six-component
yield function for anisotropic materials, Int J Plasticity,
1991 7 693.
4. MARCINIAK, Z, KUCZYNSKI, K and POKORA, T. Influence of
the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit
diagram for sheet metal in tension, Int. J. of Mechanical
Sciences, 1973 15 789805.
5. DELL, H, GESE, H, KELER, L, WERNER, H and HOOPUTRA,
H Continuous Failure Prediction Model for Nonlinear
Load Paths in Successive Stamping and Crash Processes,
New Sheet Steel Products and Sheet Metal Stamping (SP-
1614), SAE 2001 World Congress, Michigan, SAE-Paper
2001-01-1131, 2001.
6. HILL, R. On discontinuous plastic states with special
reference to localised necking in thin sheets, J Mech Phys
Solids, 1952 1 1930.
7. CAYSSIALS, F. A new method for predicting FLC, IDDRG
Conference, Geneva, 1998 443454.
8. Hora, P, Tong, L, Reissner, J. A Failure Criterion for Prediction
of Strain Path Dependent Failures for Quadratic and Non-
Quadratic Yield Loci, Proceedings of Numisheet, 1996.
9. BACKHAUS, G. Plastic deformation in form of strain
trajectories of constant curvature Theory and comparison
with experimental results, Acta Mechanica, 1979 34 193
204.
Figure 14 Quasi-static compression of EN AW-7108 T6 double chamber extrusions. Left: arrows point to ductile fracture
sites of inward bent folds in the experiment. The fringe plots display the failure risk parameter for the three modes.
Failure is to be expected if the failure risk parameter is greater or equal to 1. The failure modes and their respective crack
location are in good agreement with the experiment. NOTE: element elimination is suppressed in the simulation; all
displacements are scaled by a factor of 0.25 to unfold the profile.
Failure risk
parameter
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Quasi-static compression Instability Ductile fracture Shear fracture

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 461 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
10. DELL H and ELISEEV W W. Materialmodell fr
mehrstufige Umformung mit Wrmebehandlung zwischen
den Stufen, Iswestija AN SSSR Metalli 1991 4 171174.
11. KOLMOGOROV, W L. Spannungen Deformationen Bruch,
Metallurgija, 1970 230.
12. PICKETT, A, PYTTEL, T, PAYEN, F, LAURO, F, PETRINIC, N,
WERNER, H and CHRISTLEIN, J. Failure prediction for
advanced crashworthiness of transportation vehicles,
Int. J. of Impact Engineering, 2004 Vol. 30 Issue 7
853872.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
H Hooputra, H Gese, H Dell and H Werner
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5 462 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 Woodhead Publishing Ltd
APPENDIX A
The fracture strain for ductile fracture is a function of
the stress triaxiality . The fracture strain for shear fracture
is a function of the stress triaxiality and the shear stress
parameter . The limit strain for instability is a function
of the ratio of minor principal strain (rate) to major principal
strain (rate) . For the special case of plane stress
conditions, all three failure curves can be expressed as a
function of by using the Lvy von Mises equations.
This allows to compare all failure curves in one diagram
for the special case of linear strain paths and membrane
loading (see Figure 9 and 10). This appendix provides the
necessary equations to express all failure curves as a function
of .
Equations for ductile fracture
The plane stress condition yields 2 + 2.

=
6 + 12 3
2(3 )
2 2
2
with the special cases of
= 0 for

= 3
for

= 3
Equations for shear fracture

=
1 k
S

=
1 6 6 1 3
12 1
2 2
2
for 2 0

=
1 6 + 6 1 3
12 1
2 2
2
for 0 < 1

=
2 6 6 1 3
12 1
2 2
2
for

1 < 3

=
2 6 + 6 1 3
12 1
2 2
2
for

3 < 2
Figure A1 illustrates the dependencies of the parameters
, and for an arbitrary state of plane stress. For a given
state of plane stress,
1
,
2
,
3
= 0, the corresponding value
of the parameter is displayed normal to the
1

2
plane
of the von Mises yield locus. It is evident from the left side
of Figure A1 that all parameters show a plane of symmetry
which is normal to the line
1
=
2
. Therefore, the right
hand side of Figure A1 shows a side view along the line
1
=
2
in the plane of the von Mises yield locus.
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1

von Mises
yield locus
von Mises
yield locus
(a) Parameter

2
1
1
2
von Mises
yield locus

2
1
1
2
von Mises
yield locus
(b) Parameter
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1
A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions
Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0289 463 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 5
Figure A1 Parameters , and displayed as a function of principal stresses
1
and
2
. As explained in the text,
each parameter is plotted normal to the von Mises yield locus. The parameter is only shown in the relevant area for
instability. The dark shaded areas of parameter indicate that the in-plane shear stresses are most critical. The light
shaded areas indicate that the out-of-plane shear stresses are most critical. A value k
S
= 0.1 is used to construct the
-dependency.

von Mises
yield locus

1
von Mises
yield locus
(c) Parameter

2
2.5
2
1.5
2
0.5
2.5
2
1.5
2
0.5
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
I
n
d
i
a
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

D
e
l
h
i
]

A
t
:

1
0
:
4
2

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
1