See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338191018

Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model

in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel

Article  in  Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics · January 2021

DOI: 10.22055/JACM.2019.30906.1790

CITATIONS READS

0 71

4 authors, including:

Mohamad Reza Maraki Ali Hosseinzadeh

Birjand University of Technology Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Metal powder View project

charpy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Hosseinzadeh on 16 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Appl. Comput. Mech., 7(1) (2021) xx-xx ISSN: 2383-4536
DOI: 10.22055/JACM.2019.30906.1790 jacm.scu.ac.ir

Investigation of Rousselier Model and Gurson-Tvergaard-

Needleman Model in Ductile Fracture of API X65 Gas Pipeline
Steel

Mohamad Reza Maraki1 , Mohammad Reza Movahedi2 , Ali Hosseinzadeh3

Khalil Farhangdoost4
1
Department of Material Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran, Email: maraki@birjandut.ac.ir
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran, Email: m.movahedi@shahroodut.ac.ir
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, Email: a.hosseinzadeh.PhD@mail.um.ac.ir
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, Email: farhang@um.ac.ir

Received September 01 2019; Revised November 26 2019; Accepted for publication December 25 2019.
Corresponding author: M.R. Movahedi (m.movahedi@shahroodut.ac.ir)
© 2020 Published by Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
& International Research Center for Mathematics & Mechanics of Complex Systems (M&MoCS)

Abstract. In this research, the micromechanical Rousselier damage model, which is not available in
commercial software is accomplished with a subroutine in Abaqus finite element analysis software. Ductile
fracture behavior of API X65 steel is evaluated by simulation of tensile test of smooth and round notch bar
specimens of base metal in hoop direction and weld metal. The Rousselier model and its parameters of this
model are determined for API X65 steel based on experimental data. In this work, the Rousselier and Gurson
damage model is compared for API X65 steel. Results of the tensile test and simulation for the Gurson model
show inaccuracy in the final stage of the load-displacement plot. This is because in the Gurson model it is
assumed that the fracture surface is flat and shear fracture does not occur in specimens, but in the Rousselier
model, the shear fracture is considered. The Rousselier model shows more accurate results compared with
experimental data in the final stage of loading. Furthermore, the Rousselier model shows little error
comparing with the experiment around maximum load since the void growth due to nucleation is ignored in
this model. Also, the Rousselier model shows better convergence when the grooving radius of tensile test
specimen increasing but the Gurson model behaves differently.

Keywords: Ductile fracture, Rousselier model, Gurson model, API X65 steel.

1. Introduction
Pipelines are one of the right and economical ways to transport natural gas with high pressure at a long-range. In
recent years, demand for oil and natural gas is increasing; thus, natural gas pipelines have developed. API X65 strong
and sturdy steel pipelines are also widely used in natural gas transmission project in Iran. X65 steel is one of the high
strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, which thermomechanical control processing is used in the manufacture of them.
In ductile materials, the fracture can be described employing creating, growing and merging voids. Figure 1 shows the
micro mechanism of soft fracture in material including voids nucleation, voids cracking, voids propagation, and fracture
[1]. The early basis of damage mechanics was established in 1958, by providing the first model of damage done by
Kachanof. The growth of damage in the Kachanof's model was attributed to the microstructure of the material and was

Published online: March 15 2020

ii Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

evaluated by a macroscopic damage parameter [2]. In 1969, Rice introduced a model based on a single void. They also
developed a relationship between crack growth and three-dimensional stress in their mathematical model [3]. In 1977,
Gurson proposed a method to reach an approximate surface to avoid. The initial Gurson model could only model the
creation and growth of the void, and it did not account for the fusion phase of the void [4]. Tvergaard and Needleman
(1984) introduced a function to consider the integration phase of the void, which indicates a fast reduction of stress
tolerance capacity in the final stages of voids integration [5] In 1987, following the method of Lemmetre (1985) in
damage mechanics, Rousselier developed a model for porous metal plasticity that had fewer parameters than the Gurson
model [6]. Mechanical damage models of continuous environments do not describe each porosity as a small void, but
instead, simulate the general behavior of the porous material. Like the Gurson model, the Rousselier model is one of the
models of pressure-dependent plasticity, whose analysis conditions depend on hydrostatic stress. In this model, material
softening is expressed by the damage parameter and the interaction between hardness and damage, and there is no need
to express a critical value for the damage parameter [7].

Fig. 1. Ductile fracture micromechanism (a) break of inhomogeneity of material (b) voids nucleation (c) coalescence of voids and
make crack (d) shear crack growth (e) fracture of material [1].

In recent years, much research has been done to simulate ductile fracture growth by the micromechanical model of
Rousselier damage. In 2013, Zhang and his colleagues simulated the fracture behavior of the steel by conducting a tensile
test on a flat and grooved test specimen derived from a basic metal of aluminum alloy 5052 and calibrating the
parameters of the Rousselier model for this material using laboratory data [8]. In 2015, Weber and his colleagues used
the Rousselier model to evaluate the fracture behavior of weld metal and 6061 aluminum base metal welded with a laser.
They carried out the tensile test of the flat and grooved test specimen drawn from the base metal, the weld region and the
heat affected region and simulated the ductile crack growth for this steel by calibrating the parameters of the Rousselier
model [9]. In 2017, Arun and his colleagues modeled the fracture growth in a four-point bending test by calibrating the
parameters of the Rousselier model for ESSHETE 1250 steel. The crack growth based on the Rousselier model was
compared with the fracture mechanics analysis based on the J integral [10]. In 2018, Fehringer and his colleagues made
three extensions were to the standard Rousselier model. First, the integration of an additional term allowing the
prediction of failure under shear stress conditions developed by Nahshon and Hutchinson is presented. Second, the
extension with a kinematic term using a back-stress tensor to the Rousselier model to properly describe very low cyclic
loading behavior will be described. For the description of the back stress tensor, models developed by Drucker/ Prager,
Armstrong/ Frederick and aboche are used. Third, the plasticity behavior at low-stress triaxialities was improved by
replacing the von Mises plasticity law by a Hosford like yield criterion. The extensions were evaluated with a large
experimental program using ferritic and austenitic steel [11]. In 2018, Sari Sarraf and his colleagues simulated the
damage evolution and void coalescence infinite-element modeling of DP600 using a modified Rousselier model [12]. In
2019, Tu and his colleagues used the Rousselier model to evaluate 3D optical measurement and numerical simulation of
the fracture behavior of Al6061 laser welded joints [13].
In the present study, the ductile fracture behavior of API X65 steel was evaluated by simulation of tensile test of smooth
and round notch bar specimens of base metal in hoop direction and weld metal. The Rousselier model and its
parameters were determined for API X65 steel based on existing experimental data. With the load-displacement curve,
the Rousselier and Gurson damage model was compared with existing experimental data for API X65 steel. It was
shown that the Rousselier model was more accurate in the final stage because of the consideration of shear fracture. Also,
the effect of the grooving radius of the tensile test specimen was evaluated in ductile fracture of the Rousselier and
Gurson damage model.
Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx
 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel iii
Table 1. Chemical composition of API X65 steel [14].
Nb Si Ti S P Mn C
0.047 0.201 0.015 0.002 0.008 1.45 0.072
- Al Cu Ni V Mo Cr
- 0.023 0.008 0.009 0.05 0.24 0.174

Table 2. Mechanical properties of API X65 steel [16].

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) Stress Yields (MPa) Ultimate Stress (MPa) Charpy Energy (J)
210 490 552 222
Table 3. Geometry and design characteristics of the tested pipe [15].
Material API X65
ProductioProcess TMCR
Welding type Spiral
Outer diameter (mm) 1219
Thickness (mm) 14.3

2. Material Introduction
The chemical composition, pipe properties as well as the mechanical properties of the X 65 base steel used in the
present study are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

3. The Roussellier Damage Model

The Rousselier model is based on thermodynamic objectives and general standards (micromechanical models). In
continuous thermodynamics, when the object is in thermodynamic equilibrium, and thermodynamic state of a material
point can be determined by a finite number of state variables, which are divided into observable and internal variables.
For elastic-plastic materials, if small strains are taken into account, the amount of released energy that is dependent on
the internal and observable variables is obtained by equation (1) [25,26]:
ψ (ε ije , p, β )  ψ e (ε ije )  ψ p (ε eq )  ψ β ( β ) (1)

where ψ e  (1/ 2)ε ije C ijkl

e
ε kle is the elastic strain energy. ψ β and ψ p are wasted energy, which is related to the
mechanism of hardening and ductile (damage). The internal wasted energy for the irreversible thermodynamic process
for isothermal conditions is obtained by equation (2):
σ ij p
εij  Rεeq  B β  0 (2)
ρ
The variables σ ij / ρ , R and B are respectively the corresponding forces to the internal variables ε ijp , ε eq , β in the
dissipative mechanism. If X  (εijp , εeq , β) and, Y  (σ ij / ρ , R, B ) so the equation (2) is rewritten as follow:

φ   X iYi (3)

Larger φ equals zero. If the function F is expressed F (σ ij / ρ , R, B ) then Xi is as equation (4):

F
Xi  λ (4)
Yi

where F is called the plastic potential function. Following the equation (4), [27], Rousselier achieved the discrete plastic
potential function, which is dependent on the invariance of the first and second stress tensors:
q  σ 
F  F1  , R  F2  m , B  (5)
 ρ   ρ 

q
F1   R (ε eq ) (6a)
ρ
σ 
F2  B ( β ) g  m  (6b)
 ρ 

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

iv Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

In this respect, F1 refers to the hardening part, on the other hand, the ductile part of the material is expressed by the
damage that is indicated by F2 considering the law of mass conservation and ignoring volumetric variables in relation to
elastic deformations B ( β ) and g (σ m / ρ ) functions in equation (6), at the end of the changes, are obtained as equation (7):

σ    p 
g  m   D exp   (7a)
 ρ   ρσ 1 

σ 1 ρ
B (β )   (7b)
ρ β

 p or σ m is replaced, and σ 1 is a constant. The parameter ρ in equation (6) is the dimensionless density, which is
obtained by dividing the density of the damaged material by the initial density of the material. This parameter (relative
density) is related to the damage parameter β in the form of the following equation:

1
ρ (β )  (8)
1  f 0  f 0 exp( β )

f 0 is the initial volume fraction of the voids. By placing (8) in (7b), the following equation is obtained:

σ 1 f 0 exp( β )
B (β )  (9)
1  f 0  f 0 exp( β )

By placing equations (7) and (8) and (9) in (5), the plastic potential function proposed by Rousselier is obtained as
equation (10):

  p 
 R (ε eq )  B ( β ) D exp 
q
F 
 ρσ 1 
(10)
ρ

D and σ 1 are the material parameter. The parameter β is the internal variable, which describes the damage, and the
equivalent plastic strain used as the internal variable to describe the hardness of the material. R (ε eq ) is the hardness
curve is the material, which can be determined from the standard tensile test. Using the law of normalization, to describe
equations (4) to (10), to evaluate relationships of internal variables, the equivalent plastic strain is obtained as equation
(11):

F
εeq  λ (11)
{R (ε eq )}

The damage parameter is obtained by equation (12):

F   p 
β  λ  εeq D exp  
 ρσ 1 
(12)
B

The plastic strain tensor is obtained by equation (13):

F  1    
  ε 
 B (β )   p  3S 
εijp  λ  λ δ ij   eq 
 D exp  δ ij  ij  (13)
(σ ij / ρ )  3 (σ m / ρ )
 (Sij / ρ ) 



 3σ 1  ρσ 1  2 q 

By comparing (13) with (12) equation (14) is obtained:

1 1 B (β )   p 
εp  εkkp  εeq D exp  
 ρσ 1 
(14a)
3 3 3σ 1

εq  εeq (14b)

Equation (14) points out that in the Rousselier damage model, the deviation of the plastic strain is equivalent to that of
the strain [26]. Rousselier's proposed potential function can be rewritten in another way, which is directly related to the
volume fraction of the voids. Details on how to relate to the function are discussed in this section. Given the material
that contains the void (porous material), the equation between relative density and ( f ) is written as equation (15):

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel v

 1  f 
ρ   
1  f 0  (15)

By placing equation (8) into (15) the volume fraction of voids is correlated with the damage variable with equation (16):

f 0 exp( β )
f  (16)
1  f 0  f 0 exp( β )

Using equation (16), the function B ( β ) in (9) is written in the volume fraction of voids as equation (17):

B (β )  σ 1 f (17)
By placing (17) into (10), the plastic potential function is obtained as equation (18):

  p 
 R (ε eq )  Df σ 1 exp 
q
F 
 ρσ 1 
(18)
ρ

ρ is relative density, and is associated with f by equation (15). Since the equation f 0 is minimal compared to the
unit value, some researchers simplify it to form equation (19) [25]:

ρ  1 f (19)
By placing equation (19) into (18), Rousselier's function is rewritten as equation (20):

  p 
 R (ε eq )  Dσ 1 f exp 
q
F 
 (1  f )σ 1 
(20)
1 f

The development of function f changes can be determined by mass survival. If changes in elastic deformation are
ignored, the development of the function change is determined by equation (21):

f  (1  f )εkkp  (1  f )εp (21)

Equation (21) shows that in the general ductile damage model of Rousselier, the development of volume fraction of
voids depends only on the changes in the volume plastic strain, or the growth of the voids. However, many studies have
shown that the growth of voids is no more than the development of volumetric strain. However, it also depends on the
deflection part of the plastic strain tensor. According to this, some researchers have extended equation (21) by adding
other modifications (deviation plastic strain development) to equation (22) [29, 30]:

f  (1  f )εp  Aεq (22)

In equation (22), parameter A is a normal distribution that is defined as:

1  ε p  ε  2 
exp   N  
fN
A  (23)
SN  2  S N  
2π  
In equation (23), fN is the volume fraction of particles available for nucleation of the voids, εN is the mean strain of
nucleation of the voids, SN is the standard deviation of the pore distribution.
The accuracy of the Rousselier model depends on the precision of the parameters that the model needs to be calibrated,
based on what has been stated, the following parameters are needed to determine [31]:
1) The initial volume fraction of the voids ( f 0 ) corresponds to the volume fraction of the impurities.
2) The Rousselier parameters [ D , σ 1 ] represent the fracture resistance of the matrix of the material.
3) Determine the characteristic length ( Lc ) represents the interaction between the voids in the fracture tip, which is
directly related to the internal impurities. The Rousselier model does not include this parameter; however, in finite
element analysis, this value represents the size of the elements at the fracture tip.
The best estimate for the parameter f 0 and Lc , obtained from metallographic experiments on impurities, is in the form
of equation (24) and (25) [32]:

(d x d y )1/2
f0  fv (24)
dz

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

vi Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

5
Lc  (25)
( N v )1/3

dx, dy and, dZ are the average size of the impurities, and Z is the loading direction. Nv denotes the original amount of
impurities per unit volume. fv Is the volume fraction of impurities, which can be determined either from metallographic
experiments, or chemical analyzes (Franklin's formula) [33].
For example, for manganese sulfide, as an impurity in ferritic steel, fv is derived from chemical analyzes based on
equation (26):

 0.001 
f v  0.054 %S   (26)
 % Mn 
The metallographic method requires microscopic tests, in three specified directions in a particular object, fv is obtained by
equation (27):

f v  (π / 6) N v d x d y d z (27)
D and σ1, in structural equations, can be obtained from the fitting method on the laboratory data. According to this
explanation, the first conjecture is σ1=(2/3)σf , σ1 that is, σf is the equivalent to the time stress when the fracture at the rod
is made under the standard tensile test [31]. Also, D can be selected as the material-dependent parameter for the first
conjecture (2). In general, for porous materials, the initial volume fraction of the voids can be determined by this value
f0≤ 0.001 [34]. After setting all the parameters, these values are used to apply the model to a larger scale.

3.1 Simulation of tensile test based on Rousselier model

The specimens on which the uniaxial tensile test is performed are simulated with real conditions. Table 4 presents the
geometry of all samples based on the parameters shown in "Figure 2" [19]. The governing equations of the Rousselier
model are based on the static implicit method (with the help of the UMAT sub-program) in the Abaqus finite element
analysis software.
Table 4. Geometry characteristics of tested specimens [19].
Specimen R(mm) D(mm) L(mm)
Base Metal (Smooth)  6 30
Welding Metal (Smooth)  8 50
Base Metal (groove 2) 2 8 30
Base Metal (groove 4) 4 8 30
Base Metal (groove 6) 6 8 30

Fig. 2. Dimension of tensile specimens [19]

Although the geometry and loading have symmetry in the Rouselier model, the specimens were modeled axisymmetry
because in this mode (unlike the Gurson model) shear fracture was considered therefore the symmetry along the length
of specimens will not be maintained. The plastic region information is obtained from the true stress-strain graph of
uniaxial tensile tests assuming isotropic and homogeneous material [19].
The CAX4R element is a four-node solid element that was used in the simulation. Figure 3 shows the networking details
and boundary conditions of the flat and grooved samples. D and σ1 are damage parameters in the Rousselier model.
That should be calibrated for this steel. The first conjecture for σ1 is stated as:
2
σ1  σ f (28)
3
In equation (28) σf the fracture stress in the flat specimen is subjected to a standard tensile test. For D, which is a matter-
dependent parameter, the first conjecture can be 2 [6].

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel vii

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh used for Rousselier model: (a) smooth specimen, (b) 2 mm groove radius specimen, (c) 4 mm groove
radius specimen, (d) 6 mm groove radius specimen

Fig. 4. Effect of D parameter on load-displacement plot for the smooth specimen in hoop direction (σ1=600).

Fig. 5. Effect of σ1 parameter on load-displacement plot for the smooth specimen in hoop direction (D=1.5).
The initial volume fraction of voids (f0) associated with the volume fraction of impurities is another parameter of the
Rousselier model. The f0 parameter is determined from the Franklin equation using the X65 steel compound (Table 1)
and assuming a spherical impurity [20].
 0.001 
f 0  0.054 %S   (29)
 % Mn 
According to equation (29) for the base metal and welding of steel X65, the initial volume fraction of the voids is
0.0000707 and 0.0001226, respectively. Also, the characteristic length (lc) which represents the interaction between the
voids in the crack tip and is related to the distance between the internal impurities it is one of the effective parameters in
the Rousselier damage model. In this model, half the element size at the crack tip represents the average distance
between the voids (lc) [21]. In the present study, lc value is considered 0.2 mm by network sensitivity analysis.

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

viii Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6. Von Mises stress contour based on Rousselier model: (a) smooth specimen, (b) 2 mm groove radius specimen, (c) 4 mm
groove radius specimen, (d) 6 mm groove radius specimen

3.1 Calibration of Rousselier Damage Model Parameters for Base Metal and Welding of Steel X65
By comparing the existing results of the uniaxial tensile test with the simulation, the parameters of the Rousselier
model are chosen so that the simulation results are most consistent with the experimental data (force-displacement
curve) [19]. Figure 4 shows the effect diagram of parameter D, and Fig. 5 shows the effect of parameter σ1 on the force-
displacement diagram for a smooth sample taken from the basic metal in the environmental direction. Table 5 also
shows the quantitative impact of the damage parameters of the Rousselier model on maximum load and smooth sample
fracture. According to Figs. 3 and 4, as D increases and σ1 decreases, the softening property of the material goes up, and
the sample breaks down earlier.
Table 5 also shows no significant change in the maximum load by changing the parameters of the Rousselier model, but
the fracture load is significantly different. The reason for this is the effect of the parameters D and σ1 on the ductile of the
Rousselier function. Finally, with several simulations carried out, the values of the Rousselier parameters that were most
consistent with the experimental data were selected as Table 6 for the base metal in the peripheral direction and the X65
steel weld metal.
Table 5. Effect of Rousselier damage parameter on maximum and fracture load for the smooth specimen.
Maximum Fracture σ2 Maximum Fracture
Specimen D load load load load
(MPa)
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1.5 16.92 8.82 450 17.18 6.01
Smooth
1.7 17.13 7.91 500 17.17 6.91
(Base Metal)
1.8 17.14 6.7 600 16.92 8.82
Experimental - 17 8.7 - 17 8.7
Table 6. Calibrated parameters of Rousselier model for the base metal in hoop direction and weld metal API X65 steel.
Steel API X65 σ1 (MPa) D f0
Base Metal 600 1.5 0.0000707
Welding Metal 580 1.8 0.0001226

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel ix

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Void volume fraction contour based on Rousselier model: (a) smooth specimen, (b) 2 mm groove radius specimen, (c) 4
mm groove radius specimen, (d) 6 mm groove radius specimen.

Fig. 8. The stress-strain curve of the base, Haz and weld metal of Al6061.[33]
Figure 6 indicates the Von Mises stress contour obtained by simulating the uniaxial tensile test under laboratory
conditions using the Rousselier model. According to Fig. 6, the specimens were crushed with 4 mm central element
grooves, and stress was transferred to the other elements. The specimen with 2 mm groove deformation at the edge of
the specimen shows shear deformation (shear fracture) at the specimen edge, and the specimen with the 6 mm groove
shows the beginning of void formation.

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

x Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

14

12

10

F (kN)
8

6 Present research

4 Reference research[33]
2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Fig. 9. The load-reduction of diameter curve for experiment specimen with 4 mm groove extracted from the base metal of Al6061
The contour of the volume fraction of the voids for the base metal using the Rousselier model is shown in Fig. 7. It
reveals that the percentage of volume fraction in the central elements is increasing.

4. Verification of Research
For verification of Rousselier model subroutine, comparison of Rousselier model (used in this research) with Similar
research Tu and his colleague on Al6061 laser welded joints has been done. The stress-strain curve of the base, Haz and
weld metal of Al6061 has been shown in Fig. 8 [9]. In Fig. 9 the load-reduction of the diameter curve provided from tow
research for a specimen with a 4 mm groove extracted from the base metal of Al6061 [9].
By comparing the two curves it can be seen accepTable convergence between tow research and it shows correctness the
subroutine used in this research. In Table 7 calibrated parameters of Rousselier model for Al6061 based on tow research
have been compared. In Table 8 values of peak and fracture load are compared and the error percentage of the present
study is presented with reference [9].
Table 7. Comparison of calibrated parameters of Rousselier model for Al6061 from tow research
Parameter Present research Ref. [9]
S (MPa) 300 300
D 1.8 2
f0 0.013 0.013

Table 8. Comparison of peak and fracture load the error percentage of the present study with reference [9].
Specimen Peak Load (kN) Fracture Load (kN)
Specimen with 4 mm groove Present research Ref. [33] E (%) Present research Ref. [33] E (%)
11.51 11.05 4.42 10.59 10.68 0.8

5. Gurson- Tvergaard- Needleman Damage Model

Gurson proposed a model for porous materials based on the growth of a spherical cavity in a volume element.
Tvergaard and Needleman modified the Gurson model and modified the Gurson function to consider the integration
steps of the voids and by adding modulatory parameters.

 q 
2
 3q p 
Φ     2q1 f * cosh  2   1  q1 f
 *2
 0 (30)
 σ   2σ 

They presented which is effective in equation (30),q to the Mises equivalent stress, p hydrostatic stress, σ- flowing field
stress at the current time, q1 and q2 tvergaard modulator constants and f * void volume fraction.
Tvergaard and Needleman Have defined effective void volume fraction to better prediction of the effect of void
integration as:

 f                                             f  f c

f  
*
f *  fc (31)
 f c  u  f  f c            f  f c
 f f  fc

In equation (31), f is the current void volume fraction, ff is the void volume fraction at the end of fracture, f*u=1/q1, fc is

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xi

the critical value of the fracture volume fraction at the moment of void integration. In Gurson's model, the volume
fraction of voids in addition to the growth of existing voids also includes the growth of new voids that are as:

fnucleation  Aε p (32)

In equation (32) ( ε p ), the plastic strain is equivalent, and parameter A is a normal distribution that is defined as:

1  ε p  ε  2 
exp   N  
fN
A   (33)
 2
SN 2π  
S N  

In equation (33), fN is the volume fraction of particles available for nucleation of the voids, εN is the mean strain of
nucleation of the voids, SN is the standard deviation of the pore distribution.
Equations (30) to (33) provide the Gurson- Tvergaard- Needleman model for ductile fracture [5]. The Gurson model has
eight parameters, three of which depend on the nucleation of the voids, including f0, fc, ff three growth-dependent
parameters, and the composition of the voids, including f0, fc, ff and two parameters for correction of levels including q1
and q2.
4.1 Simulation of Tensile Test with Gurson Model
The finite element analysis of damage was performed based on the Gurson model to simulate the tensile test by
commercial Abaqus software. The actual strain stress data obtained from the tensile test were used in the axial
symmetric model of the test specimen, and half of the model was modeled for symmetry. In the simulation, the CAX4R
element, which is a four-node solid element, was used for networking. The applied mesh size Lc is also considered to be
0.2 mm in the crack formation area. Figure 8 shows the grid details and boundary conditions of the flat and grooved
specimens.
According to references [22, 23], four parameters q1, q2, εN, SN are proposed for X65 steel equals 1.5, 1, 0.3 and 0.1
respectively. The parameter f0 was also calculated for the steel used in the present study from equation (29). By
comparing the results of the tensile test with computer simulation, three parameters fc, ff, fN are selected so that the
simulation results are most consistent with the test results (load-displacement curves). Table 7 shows the parameters of
the Gurson model calibrated for the base metal in the peripheral direction and the X65 steel weld metal [24].

Fig. 8. Finite element mesh used for the Gurson model: (a) smooth specimen, (b) 2 mm groove radius specimen, (c) 4 mm groove
radius specimen, (d) 6 mm groove radius specimen.
Table 6. Calibrated parameters of GTN model for the base metal in hoop direction and weld metal API X65 steel [24].
Parameter Base Metal Weld Metal
q1 1.5 1.5
q2 1 1
εN 0.3 0.3
SN 0.1 0.1
fN 0.0145 0.004
f0 0.0000707 0.0001226
fC 0.017 0.012
ff 0.32 0.24

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

xii Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

Fig. 9. Void volume fraction contour based on the GTN model after damage of first element for smooth specimen.

Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental and simulation load- Fig. 11. Comparison of experimental and simulation load-
displacement plot for smooth specimen in the hoop direction. displacement plot for 2 mm groove radius specimen in the hoop
direction.

Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and simulation load- Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and simulation load-
displacement plot for 4 mm groove radius specimen in the displacement plot for 6 mm groove radius specimen in the hoop
hoop direction. direction.
Figure 9 shows the contour of the volume fraction of the voids after the first element in the sample was destroyed. After
the thawing of the specimen, due to the three-dimensional stress in the center of the specimen, most of the voids are
created in this area, resulting in a greater volume of voids in this area. When the volume fraction of the voids reaches its
critical value (fc), the central elements fail, resulting in a fracture in the axial symmetry plane [24].

6. Comparing the Results of the Two Methods

Both methods were used to evaluate the performance of Rousselier and Gurson ductile fracture models for identical
samples. The Gurson method is available in the commercial software of Abaqus, but for the Rousselier method, a utility
subdivision has been developed that is governed by the rules and relationships governing the Rousselier model. Selected
values for the parameters of Rousselier and Gurson-Turgard-Niedelmann models for steel X65 are presented in Tables 3
and 4, respectively. Figures 10 to 13 compare the simulation results of the two models and compare them with the
experimental results. The Gurson model is less consistent with the experimental data because of the fracture of the
second mode fracture analysis (shear fracture) in this model. The Gurson model considers the fracture surface of the
specimen completely flat and does not enter the shear fracture mode. In the Rousselier model, the difference between the
Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx
 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xiii

diagrams of this model and the experimental data around the maximum load is due to the anisotropic effect of the X65
steel pipe, which is ignored in the Rousselier model. Also, the omission of the effect of the creation of the new void
(nucleation) has caused an error in the Rousselier model.
Table 8 shows the percent error of the Rousselier and Gurson model for the fracture times. The Gurson model has a high
error rate for the fracture load because of the assumption of a flat sample fracture level. However, the Rousselier model
shows a much lower error rate for fracture times because it considers the shear mode of facture.
Table 8. Comparison of experimental fracture load and simulation based on Rousselier and Gurson model
Specimen Smooth Groove 2 Groove 4 Groove 6
Experimental (kN) 8.82 13.7 12.2 11.7
Gurson (kN) 9.8 13.2 9.5 8.1
Percent Error 12.3 4 22.4 31.4
Rousselier (kN) 8.83 13.6 12.3 11.8
Percent Error 0.11 0.44 0.24 0.85

7. Conclusion
In the present study, the micromechanical model of the Rousselier damage in Abaqus software was implemented
with the help of a subprogram in the software, and the parameters of this model were calibrated for the base metal in
hoop direction and weld metal. It also compared the strengths and weaknesses of each of these models by comparing the
Rousselier model with the modified Gurson model. Finally, the following results were obtained by comparing the
Rousselier and Gurson models:
1. The Rousselier model has fewer parameters (three parameters) than the Gurson model (eight parameters), so it is
easier to calibrate the parameters of the Rousselier model. However, the Gurson model has to be more flexible because
of the higher parameters.
2. In the Rousselier model, changes in the voids volume fraction are only dependent on the growth of existing voids, and
the creation of new (nucleation) voids was neglected. The anisotropic effects of the X65 steel pipe in this model were
also ignored, which may be one of the causes of error in the Rousselier model around the maximum load.
3. After the specimen was necking in the tensile test in the center of the specimen, three-dimensional stresses were
created, and the plate-strain state was dominant in this area. Approaching the sample surface, the amount of stress
decreases and the stresses become two-dimensional, which is the plate stress state. In this case, the crack grows obliquely
(shear fracture). The Gurson model presented in this paper fails to analyze the second mode of fracture. For this reason,
the diagrams at the bottom of the model do not match the experimental data. However, in the Rousselier model due to
the existence of the parameters D and σ1 in the ductile part of the yield function, in addition to the first mode, the second
mode of fracture was also analyzed. For this reason, the diagrams of this model are in better agreement with the
experimental data.
4. As the groove radius increases, the Rousselier model converges with the experimental data, but in the Gurson model,
the accuracy decreases with increasing surface sensitivity.

Author Contributions
Author 1 planned the scheme, initiated the project and suggested the experiments; Author 2 conducted the
experiments and analyzed the empirical results; Author 3 developed the mathematical modeling and examined the
theory validation. The manuscript was written through the contribution of all authors. All authors discussed the results,
reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this
article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Nomenclature
A Normal cavity distribution parameter σij Cauchy stress tensor
B Force related to the damage parameter σijtr Stress Tensor Test
D Parameter of the Rousselier Model σy Stress yields
E Young's Module [GPa] σd Deviatoric stress
F Yield function or Plastic potential σm Average stress
R Hardness curve σkk Normal stress
X Damage and hardness parameter η Mean Stress to Mises Stress Ratio

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

xiv Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

Function in terms of forces associated with

Y  Plastic potential function
internal variables
f The initial void volume fraction fi Extensive force per unit volume
g Function in terms of forces related to plasticity σ1 Parameter of the Rousselier Model
q or σeq Mises equivalent stress [MPa] F1, F2 Hardness and softness of the Rousselier model
v Volume ψ e ,ψ p ,ψ B Elastic strain energy and wasted energies
s Space dx, dy, dz The average size of impurities
f0 The initial volume fraction of the cavities Nv The original amount of impurities per unit volume
Intermediate variables corresponding to deviation
dɛq, dɛp fv The volume fraction of impurities
and volumetric strain
LC Attribute length size, element size q1, q2, q3 Tvergaard adjustment parameters
The volume fraction of the cavities in the final phase of
Sij Deviation Stress Tensor f*
the cavity integration
β Damage parameter fc The critical value of cavity volume ratio
δij Kronecker delta ff Cavity volume ratio at the end of fracture
ḟnucleation, Growth of voids and development of nucleation of
ɛeq Equivalent plastic strain
ḟgrowth, ḟ voids
ɛijp, ɛije, Particle volume fraction available for nucleation of
General strain tensor, elastic, plastic fN
ɛij voids
λ Positive numerical coefficient ɛN Average strain nucleation of voids
ν Poisson's Ratio SN The standard deviation of cavity distribution
ρ Relative density, density (kgm-3)

References
[1] S. Castagne, A. M. Habraken, S. Cescotto, Application of a Damage Model to an Aluminum Alloy, International
Journal of Damage Mechanics, 12(1), 2003, 5-30.
[2] F. H. Aboutaledi, Numerical simulation of cutting and fine cutting processes by Lemaitre's ductile damage model in
conjunction with large deformation theory, Modares Mechanical Engineering, 13(6), 2013, 96-102.
[3] J. R. Rice, On The Ductile Enlargement of Void in Triaxial Stress Fields, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
17, 1969, 201-17.
[4] A. Gurson, Continuum Theory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth: Part I—Yield Criteria and Flow
Rules for Porous Ductile Media, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 99, 1977, 2-15.
[5] V. Tvergaard, A. Needleman, Analysis of the cup-con fracture in a round tensile bar, Acta Metallurgical, 32, 1984, 157-
169.
[6] G. Rousselier, J. C. Devaux, G. Mottet, G. Devesa, A Methodology for Ductile Fracture Analysis Based on Damage
Mechanics: An Illustration of a Local Approach of Fracture, nonlinear fracture mechanics, elastic-plastic fracture,
ASTM international, 1998.
[7] M. K. Samal, P. K. Shah, On the Application of Rousselier's Damage Model to Predict Fracture Resistance Behavior
of Zircaloy Fuel Pin Specimens, Procedia Engineering, 55, 2013, 710-715.
[8] J. Guo, S. Zhao, R.i. Murakami, S. Zang, Experimental and numerical investigation for ductile fracture of Al-alloy
5052 using modified Rousselier model, Computational Materials Science, 71, 2013, 115-123.
[9] H. Y. Tu, S. Schmauder, U. Weber, Simulation of the fracture behavior of Al6061 laser welded joints with the
Rousselier model, Computational Materials Science, 116, 2016, 122-128.
[10] S. Arun, A. H. Sherry, M. C. Smith, M. Sheikh, Simulations of the large-scale four-point bending test using
Rousselier model, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 178, 2017, 497-511.
[11] F. Fehringer, X. Schuler, M. Seidenfuß, Development of a damage mechanics based limit strain concept using an
enhanced Rousselier model, Procedia Structural Integrity, 13, 2018, 932-938.
[12] I. S. Sarraf, D. E. Green, A. Jenab, Damage evolution and void coalescence in finite-element modeling of DP600
using a modified Rousselier model, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 196, 2018, 168-190.
[13] H. Tu, S. Schmauder, Y. Li, 3D optical measurement and numerical simulation of the fracture behavior of Al6061
laser welded joints, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 206, 2019, 501-508.
[14] M. Rakhshekhorshid, S. H. Hashemi, Investigation of cooling rate on continuous cooling transformation behavior
of API X65 pipeline steel, Modares Mechanical Engineering, 13(8), 2013, 57-67.
[15] S. H. Hashemi, M. Rakhshekhorshid, ANN model for investigation the effect of chemical composition on hardness
and impact energy in API X65 micro-alloyed steel, Modares Mechanical Engineering, 12(4), 2012, 156-163.
[16] S. H. Hashemi, D. Mohammadyani, Characterisation of weldment hardness, impact energy and microstructure in
API X65 steel, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 98, 2012, 8-15.
[17] H. Y. Tu, S. Schmauder, U. Weber, Y. Rudnik, V. Ploshikhin, Simulation of the damage behavior of electron beam
welded joints with the Rousselier model, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 103, 2013, 153-161.
[18] G. Rousselier, The Rousselier Model for Porous Metal Plasticity and Ductile Fracture, ASTM International, 10, 1988,
249-261.
[19] M. Rezaei Yekta, Experimental and numerical (Gurson) analysis of tensile testing on API X65 pipeline steel, Master of

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xv

Science Thesis, Mechanical Engineer, University of Birjand, 2011.

[20] A. Franklin, Comparison between a quantitative microscopy and chemical methods for assessment of non-metallic
inclusions, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 207, 1969, 181-186.
[21] E. Lorentz, J. Besson, V. Cano, Numerical simulation of ductile fracture with the Rousselier constitutive law,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 197(21), 2008, 1965-1982.
[22] F. Dotta, C. Ruggieri, Structural integrity assessments of high-pressure pipelines with axial flaws using a
micromechanics model, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 81(9), 2004, 761-770.
[23] C.K. Oh, Y.J. Kim, J.H. Baek, Y.P. Kim, W. Kim, A phenomenological model of ductile fracture for API X65 steel,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 49(12), 2007, 1399-1412.
[24] S. H. Hashemi, M. Rezaei, V. Soleimani, Local damage modeling of ductile fracture in API pipeline steel of grade X65 and
X70, ISME2011, The university of Berjand, Birjand, Iran 2011.
[25] G. Rousselier, Ductile fracture models and their potential in local approach of fracture, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 105, 1987, 97-111.
[26] J. Lemaitre and J.L. Chaboche, Mechanics of Solid Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[27] G. Rousselier, J.C. Devaux, G. Mottet, and G. Devesa, A methodology for ductile fracture analysis based on
damage mechanics: an illustration of a local approach of fracture, in Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics: Volume II Elastic-
Plastic Fracture, ed: ASTM International, 1988.
[28] G.Rousselier, The Rousselier Model for Porous Metal Plasticity and Ductile Fracture, Handbook of Materials Behavior
Models Volume II: Failure of Materials, pp.436-445, CA: Academic Press, 2001.
[29] C. Chu and A. Needleman, Void nucleation effects in biaxially stretched sheets, Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, 102, 1980, 249-256.
[30] K. Nahshon and J. Hutchinson, Modification of the Gurson model for shear failure, European Journal of Mechanics-
A/Solids, 27, 2008, 1-17.
[31] M. Bethmont, G. Rousselier, K. Kussmaul, A. Sauter, and A. Jovanovic, The method of local approach of fracture
and its application to a thermal shock experiment, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 119, 1990, 249-261.
[32] R. Batisse, M. Bethmont, G. Devesa, and G. Rousselier, Ductile Fracture of a 508 Cl 3 steel in relation with
inclusion content: The benefit of the local approach of fracture and continuum damage mechanics, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, 105, 1987, 113-120.
[33] A. Franklin, Comparison between a quantitative microscopy and chemical methods for assessment of non-metallic
inclusions, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 207, 1969, 181-186.
[34] G. Rousselier, The Rousselier Model for Porous Metal Plasticity and Ductile Fracture, Handbook of Materials Behavior
Models, 2, 2001, 436-445.

ORCID iD
Mohamad Reza Maraki https://orcid.org/ 000-0002-4469-5305
Mohammad Reza Movahedi https://orcid.org/000-0002-9858-5400
Ali Hosseinzadeh https://orcid.org/000-0001-5463-6766
Khalil Farhangdoost https://orcid.org/ 000-0002-1090-2943

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee SCU, Ahvaz, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under
the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC
BY-NC 4.0 license) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

How to cite this article: Maraki M.R., Movahedi M.R., Hosseinzadeh, A., Farhangdoost K., Investigation of
Rousselier Model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman Model in Ductile Fracture of API X65 Gas Pipeline Steel, J.
Appl. Comput. Mech., 7(1), 2021, x–xx. https://doi.org/10.22055/JACM.2019.30906.1790

Appendix
The subroutine code of Rousselier mode
UMAT FOR ROUSSELIER MODEL
C A USER MATERIAL SUBROUTINE FOR ROUSSELIER MODEL
SUBROUTINE UMAT(STRESS,STATEV,DDSDDE,SSE,SPD,SCD,
1 RPL,DDSDDT,DRPLDE,DRPLDT,STRAN,DSTRAN,
2 TIME,DTIME,TEMP,DTEMP,PREDEF,DPRED,MATERL,NDI,NSHR,NTENS,
3 NSTATV,PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,DROT,PNEWDT,CELENT,
4 DFGRD0,DFGRD1,NOEL,NPT,KSLAY,KSPT,KSTEP,KINC)
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
CHARACTER*80 MATERL

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

xvi Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

DIMENSION STRESS(NTENS),STATEV(NSTATV),
1 DDSDDE(NTENS,NTENS),DDSDDT(NTENS),DRPLDE(NTENS) ,
2 STRAN(NTENS),DSTRAN(NTENS),TIME(2),PREDEF(1),DPRED(1),
3 PROPS(NPROPS),COORDS(3),DROT(3,3),
4 DFGRD0(3,3),DFGRD1(3,3)
DIMENSION EPLAS(6), SE(NTENS), SDE(NTENS),
1 S(NTENS), DEP(NTENS), EET(NTENS),
2 DDE(NTENS,NTENS), DDP(NTENS,NTENS),
3 SA(NTENS),HEF(2,4), CC(2,2),
4 FQ(4), FP(4), DW(6), DJ(6)
PARAMETER (ZERO = 0.D0,OP5 = 1.5D0,ONE = 1.0D0,TWO = 2.0D0,
1 THREE = 3.0D0,FOUR = 4.0D0,SIX = 6.0D0,
2 TOL = 1.D-14,MNI = 100)
DATA DW/1.0,1.0,1.0,0.5,0.5,0.5/
DATA DJ/1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0/
CUser needs to input:
C props(1) = Young's modulus, E
C props(2) = Poisson's ratio, POISSON
C props(3) = First Yield Stress, YS
C props(4) = Rousselier Parameter, S1
C props(5) = Rousselier Parameter, D
C props(6) = Initial void volume fraction, F0
C props(7..) = Set of hardening data
C Subroutine used in UMAT
C KFI → Determine the increment of void volume fraction
C KHARD → Determine the current yield stress
C Import material properties and parameters
E = props(1)
POISSON = props(2)
YS = props(3)
S1 = props(4)
D = props(5)
F0 = props(6)
C Compute the values of elastic properties for UMAT
C3K = E/(ONE-TWO*POISSON)
C2G = E/(ONE+POISSON)
G = C2G/TWO
C3G = THREE*G
CLAME = (C3K-C2G)/THREE
C1K = C3K/THREE
C Calculate a number of ordered pair of hardening data
NVALUE = (NPROPS/2)-3
C Recover the value of elastic(EET)and plastic(EPLAS) strain
C tensor at the begining of increment
CALL ROTSIG(STATEV(1), DROT,EET, 2,NDI,NSHR)
CALL ROTSIG(STATEV(1+NTENS),DROT,EPLAS,2,NDI,NSHR)
C Recover the value of equivalent plastic strain (EEQPT),
C void volume fraction (FT) and relative density (RHO)
C at the begining of increment
EEQPT = STATEV(1 + 2*NTENS)
FT = STATEV(2 + 2*NTENS)
RHOT = STATEV(3 + 2*NTENS)
IF(EEQPT.EQ.0.0) THEN
FT = F0
RHOT = ONE
END IF
C Define stiffness matrix, or Jacobian matrix
C for elastic case(DDE)
DO 200 K1 = 1, NTENS
DO 100 K2 = 1, NTENS
DDE(K2,K1) = 0.0
DDP(K2,K1) = 0.0

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xvii

DDSDDE(K2,K1) = 0.0
100 CONTINUE
200 CONTINUE
DO 400 K1 = 1, NDI
DO 300 K2 = 1, NDI
DDE(K2,K1) = CLAME
300 CONTINUE
DDE(K1,K1) = C2G + CLAME
400 CONTINUE
DO 500 K1 = NDI + 1, NTENS
DDE(K1,K1) = G
500 CONTINUE
C Compute trial stress tensor from elastic strains
C increment(DSTRAN)
DO 700 K1 = 1, NTENS
DO 600 K2 = 1, NTENS
STRESS(K2)= STRESS(K2)+ DDE(K2,K1)*DSTRAN(K1)
600 CONTINUE
700 CONTINUE
C Calculate equivalent values(SEQ) and mean value(SM) of trial
C stress tensor(STRESS)
CALL SINV(STRESS,SM,SEQ,NDI,NSHR)
C Determine subsequent yield stress(SEQO)
CALL KHARD(H,DH,EEQPT,PROPS(7),NVALUE)
C Check if the stress value is beyond the yield surface
sigdif = (SEQ/RHOT) - H + FT*S1*D*EXP(SM/(S1*RHOT))
IF ( sigdif .le. zero ) THEN
C In Case of elastic (Not Yielding)
C Store elastic(EET), plastic(EPLAS) strain tensor
C in state variable array
DO 800 K1 = 1, NTENS
STATEV(K1) = EET(K1)
STATEV(K1+NTENS) = EPLAS(K1)
800 CONTINUE
C Store value of equivalent plastic strain (EEQPT),
C void volume fraction (FT) and relative density (RHO)
C in state variable array
STATEV(1 + 2*NTENS) = EEQPT
STATEV(2 + 2*NTENS) = FT
STATEV(3 + 2*NTENS) = RHOT
C Set Jacobain matrix(DDSDDE) of current increment
C = Jacobian matrix of elastic part(DDE)
DDSDDE = DDE
ELSE
C In Case of plastic (Yielding)
IF(TIME(1).EQ.0.0.AND.(SEQ.NE.0.0.AND.sigdif.GT.10000.0))THEN
PNEWDT = 0.5
GO TO 5000
ENDIF
C Define new parameters to store the trial stress tensor(SE)
SE = STRESS
C Determine mean value(SME)and equivalent value(SEQE) of
C trial stress tensor(SE)
CALL SINV(SE,SME,SEQE,NDI,NSHR)
C Determine hydrostatic pressure(PE)
PE = - SME
C Calculate deviatoric component(SDE) of SE
SDE = SE
DO 1000 I = 1, NDI
SDE(I) = SDE(I) - SME
1000 CONTINUE
C Set the initial value of equivalent(DEEQP) and

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

xviii Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

C mean value(DEMP) of plastic strain increment tensor

DEMP = 0.D0
DEEQP = 0.D0
C Set the initial value of void volume fraction(DF)
DF = 0.D0
C Set the initial value of iteration number(ITER)
ITER = 0
C Starting iterative Process for computing the increment values
C of Mean Value(CM) and Equivalent Value(CEQ) of Plastic strain
C increment tensor
C Update iteration number
1500 ITER = ITER + 1
C Update equivalent value of plastic strain(EEQP) for
C current iteration
EEQP = EEQPT + DEEQP
C Calculate subsequent yield stress(H) and slop on the hardening
C curve(DH) for current iteration
CALL KHARD(H,DH,EEQP,PROPS(7),NVALUE)
C Compute mean(SM) and equivalent values(SEQ) of stress tensor
C for current iteration using Eq.(2.21)
P = PE + C1K*DEMP
SEQ = SEQE - C3G*DEEQP
IF(SEQ.LE.0.0) SEQ = 0.D0
C Determine the increment of void volume fraction(DF)
C for current iteration using Newton-Raphson method
CALL KFI(FT, DEMP, DF)
C Update the values of void volume fraction(F)
C for current iteration
F = FT + DF
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
RHO = (ONE - F)/(ONE-F0)
FZEB = (ONE - F0)/((ONE - F)*(ONE - F))
EPR = EXP(-P/(RHO*S1))
DEPR = D*EPR
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
FF0 = (SEQ/RHO) - H + F*S1*DEPR
FQ0OLD = one/RHO
FP0OLD = -(F/RHO)*DEPR
FEM = - DH
FF = SEQ*FZEB + DEPR*(S1 - F*P*FZEB)
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
HEF(1,1) = ZERO
HEF(1,2) = ONE
HEF(1,3) = ZERO
HEF(1,4) = ZERO
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
HEF(2,1) = ONE - F
HEF(2,2) = ZERO
HEF(2,3) = ZERO
HEF(2,4) = ZERO
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
EMH1 = zero
EMH2 = zero
FH1 = zero
FH2 = -DEMP
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
DIVID = (ONE-EMH1)*(ONE-FH2)-(EMH2*FH1)
CC(1,1) = (one-FH2)/DIVID
CC(2,2) = (one-EMH1)/DIVID
CC(1,2) = EMH2/DIVID
CC(2,1) = FH1/DIVID
C Compute variable defined in Appendix

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xix

H1EP = 0.D0
H2EP = 0.D0
H1EQ = 0.D0
H2EQ = 0.D0
DO 1600 I = 1,2
H1EP = H1EP + CC(1,I)*(HEF(I,1) + C1K*HEF( I,3))
H2EP = H2EP + CC(2,I)*(HEF(I,1) + C1K*HEF( I,3))
H1EQ = H1EQ + CC(1,I)*(HEF(I,2) - C3G*HEF( I,4))
1600 H2EQ = H2EQ + CC(2,I)*(HEF(I,2) - C3G*HEF( I,4))
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
FP0 = -(F/RHO)*DEPR
FP(1) = (F/(S1*RHO*RHO))*DEPR
FP(2) = zero
FP(3) = zero
FP(4) = -(one/(S1*RHO*RHO))*DEPR
1 *(S1*(RHO +(F/(one-F0)))-RHO*F*P*FZEB)
C Compute variable defined in Appendix
FQ0 = ONE/RHO
FQ(1) = zero
FQ(2) = zero
FQ(3) = zero
FQ(4) = FZEB
C Define the Aravas’s coefficients in Eq.(2.31)
C using formula given in Appendix I
A11 = FQ0+DEMP*(C1K*FQ(1)+FQ(3)*H1EP+FQ(4)*H2EP)
1 + DEEQP*(C1K*FP(1)+FP(3)*H1EP+FP(4)*H2EP)
A12 = FP0+DEMP*(-C3G*FQ(2)+FQ(3)*H1EQ+FQ(4)*H2EQ)
1 + DEEQP*(-C3G*FP(2) + FP(3)*H1EQ + FP(4)*H2EQ)
B1 = - DEMP*FQ0 - DEEQP*FP0
A21 = C1K*FP0OLD + FEM*H1EP + FF*H2EP
A22 = - C3G*FQ0OLD + FEM*H1EQ + FF*H2EQ
B2 = - FF0
C Determine the correction values for volumetric(CM) and
C deviatoric(CEQ) component of plastic strain increment tensor
C for current iteration
DET = A11*A22 - A12*A21
CM = (A22*B1 - A12*B2)/DET
CEQ = (A11*B2 - A21*B1)/DET
C Update mean value(DEMP) and equivalent value(DEEQP) of
C plastic strain increment tensor for current iteration
DEMP = DEMP + CM
DEEQP = DEEQP + CEQ
C Checking whether the number of current iteration exceed the
C maximum allowed number
IF (ITER.LT.MNI) GOTO 1700
WRITE(102,*)'THE ITERATION CANNOT CONVERGE'
STOP
C Start new iteration, if the increment values of volumetric or
C deviatoric part of plastic strain tensor is not less than
C the tolerance
1700 IF((ABS(CM).GT.TOL).OR.(ABS(CEQ).GT.TOL)) GOTO 1500
C ENDING ITERATIVE PROCESS
C Update final values of hydrostatic pressure(P)and equivalent
C value(SEQ) of stress tensor(S) for current increment
P = PE + C1K*DEMP
SEQ = SEQE - C3G*DEEQP
C Update the final values of stress tensor(S) and
C plastic strain increment(DEP) for current increment
C using Eqs.(2.33) and (2.34)
S = 0.D0
DEP = 0.D0
S = SEQ*(SDE/SEQE)

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

xx Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

DEP = 1.5*(SDE/SEQE)*DEEQP
DO 1900 I= 1, NDI
S(I) = S(I) - P
DEP(I) = DEP(I) + DEMP/THREE
1900 CONTINUE
C Store the stress tensor of current increment to variable
C ‘STRESS’
STRESS = S
C Update plastic strain tensor(EPLAS) at the end of increment
DO 2000 K1 = 1, NTENS
if (K1.le.NDI) then
EPLAS(K1) = EPLAS(K1) + DEP(K1)
else
EPLAS(K1) = EPLAS(K1) + two*DEP(K1)
end if
2000 CONTINUE
C Update elastic strain tensor(EET) at the end of time step
C using Eq.(3.35)
EET = EET - DEP
C Update the final values of equivalent plastic strain(EEQPT)
C and void volume fraction (FT) for current increment
EEQPT = EEQPT + DEEQP
FT = FT + DF
C Consistent Tangent Modulus for Plastic Part
C Determine the flow direction(SA) using Eq.(2.20)
DO 2200 I = 1, NTENS
SA(I) = OP5*(SDE(I)/SEQE)
2200 CONTINUE
C Set the initail vaules of variable defined in
C Appendix
H1EP = ZERO
H1EQ = ZERO
H1P = ZERO
H1Q = ZERO
H2EP = ZERO
H2EQ = ZERO
H2P = ZERO
H2Q = ZERO
C Compute variable defined in Appendix using formula
C given in Appendix
DO 2300 I = 1,2
H1EP = H1EP + CC(1,I)*HEF(I,1)
H1EQ = H1EQ + CC(1,I)*HEF(I,2)
H1P = H1P + CC(1,I)*HEF(I,3)
H1Q = H1Q + CC(1,I)*HEF(I,4)
H2EP = H2EP + CC(2,I)*HEF(I,1)
H2EQ = H2EQ + CC(2,I)*HEF(I,2)
H2P = H2P + CC(2,I)*HEF(I,3)
H2Q = H2Q + CC(2,I)*HEF(I,4)
2300 CONTINUE
C Determine coefficients in Eq.(2.65) using formula given
C in Appendix
AA11 = FQ0 + (DEMP*FQ(3) + DEEQP*FP(3))*H1EP
1 + (DEMP*FQ(4) + DEEQP*FP(4))*H2EP
AA12 = FP0 + (DEMP*FQ(3) + DEEQP*FP(3))*H1EQ
1 + (DEMP*FQ(4) + DEEQP*FP(4))*H2EQ
AA21 = FEM*H1EP + FF*H2EP
AA22 = FEM*H1EQ + FF*H2EQ
BB11 = (DEMP/three)*(FQ(1)+ FQ(3)*H1P + FQ(4)*H2P) +
1 (DEEQP/three)*(FP(1)+ FP(3)*H1P + FP(4) *H2P)
BB12 = -(DEMP)* (FQ(2) + FQ(3)*H1Q + FQ(4)*H2Q) -
1 (DEEQP)*(FP(2) + FP(3)*H1Q + FP(4)*H2Q)

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

 Investigation of Rousselier model and Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model in ductile fracture of API X65 gas pipeline steel xxi

BB21 = (FP0 + FEM*H1P + FF*H2P)/three

BB22 = -(FQ0 + FEM*H1Q + FF*H2Q)
C Determine coefficients in Eq.(2.66) using formula given
C in Appendix I
DIV = (AA11 + C3K*BB11)*(AA22 + C3G*BB22) -
1 (AA12 + C3G*BB12)*(AA21 + C3K*BB21)
C11 = ((AA22 + C3G*BB22)*BB11 - (AA12 + C3G*BB12) *BB21)/DIV
C21 = ((AA11 + C3K*BB11)*BB21 - (AA21 + C3K*BB21)*BB11)/DIV
C12 = ((AA22 + C3G*BB22)*BB12 - (AA12 + C3G*BB12)*BB22)/DIV
C22 = ((AA11 + C3K*BB11)*BB22 - (AA21 + C3K*BB21)*BB12)/DIV
C Evaluate the four coefficients given by Zhange using Eq.(2.70)
D0 = C2G*(SEQ/SEQE)
D1 = C1K-(C2G/THREE)*(SEQ/SEQE)-THREE*C1K*C1K*C11
D2 = ((FOUR*G*G*DEEQP)/SEQE)-FOUR*G*G*C22
D3 = -(C2G)*C1K*C12
D4 = -(SIX*G)*C1K*C21
C Determine the consistent tangent modulus(CTM) for
C presure-dependent plasticity model using Eq.(2.69)
DO 2600 I = 1, NTENS
DO 2500 J = 1, NTENS
DIJ = 0.0
IF(I.EQ.J) DIJ = 1.0
DDP(I,J) = DIJ*DW(I)*D0 + D1*DJ(I)*DJ(J) +
1 D2*SA(I)*SA(J) + D3*DJ(I)*SA(J) +
2 D4*SA(I)*DJ(J)
2500 CONTINUE
2600 CONTINUE
C Set Jacobain matrix(DDSDDE) of current increment =
C Jacobian matrix of plastic part(DDP)
DDSDDE = DDP
C Store elastic(EET), plastic(EPLAS) and equivalent value of
C plastic strain(EEQPT)in state variable array
DO 2800 K1 = 1, NTENS
STATEV(K1) = EET(K1)
STATEV(K1 + NTENS) = EPLAS(K1)
2800 CONTINUE
STATEV(1 + 2*NTENS) = EEQPT
STATEV(2 + 2*NTENS) = FT
STATEV(3 + 2*NTENS) = RHOT
ENDIF
5000 RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE KHARD(SYIELD,HARD,EQPLAS,TABLE,NVALUE)
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
DIMENSION TABLE(2,NVALUE)
C SET YIELD STRESS TO LAST VALUE OF TABLE, HARDENING TO ZERO
SYIELD=TABLE(1,NVALUE)
HARD=0.0
C IF MORE THAN ONE ENTRY, SEARCH TABLE
IF(NVALUE.GT.1) THEN
DO 10 K1=1,NVALUE-1
EQPL1=TABLE(2,K1+1)
IF(EQPLAS.LT.EQPL1) THEN
EQPL0=TABLE(2,K1)
IF(EQPL1.LE.EQPL0) THEN
WRITE(6,1)
1 FORMAT(//,30X,'***ERROR - PLASTIC STRAIN MUST BE ',
1 'ENTERED IN ASCENDING ORDER')
CALL XIT
ENDIF
C CURRENT YIELD STRESS AND HARDENING
DEQPL=EQPL1-EQPL0

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx

View publication stats

xxii Mohamad Reza Maraki et. al., Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021

SYIEL0=TABLE(1,K1)
SYIEL1=TABLE(1,K1+1)
DSYIEL=SYIEL1-SYIEL0
HARD=DSYIEL/DEQPL
SYIELD=SYIEL0+(EQPLAS-EQPL0)*HARD
GOTO 20
ENDIF
10 CONTINUE
20 CONTINUE
ENDIF
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE KHARD
SUBROUTINE KFI(FT, DEMP, DF)
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
PARAMETER (one = 1.d0, TOL = 1.D-14, MNI = 500)
C Set the initial value of iteration number (I) and
C the increment of void volume fraction(DF)
I=0
DF = 0.D0
C Starting iterative process for finding DF
C by Newton-Raphson Method
C Update void volume fraction(F) for current iteration
1000 F = FT + DF
C Determine the correction values(CF) of void volume fraction
C increment using Newton-Raphson method based on Eq.(3.20)
F1 = DF - (one - F)*DEMP
F2 = one + DEMP
CF = -F1/F2
C Update the value of void volume fraction increment (DF) for
C current iteration
DF = DF + CF
C Update the iteration number
I=I+1
C Checking whether the number of current iteration exceed
C the maximum allowed number or not
IF (I .LT. MNI) GOTO 1100
WRITE (102,*)'KBI CANNOT CONVERGE'
STOP
C Checking whether the correction value (CF) is greater than
C the tolerance
TCF = CF*1000.
1100 IF (ABS (TCF) .GT. TOL) GOTO 1000
END SUBROUTINE KFI

Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 7, No. 1, (2021), xx-xx