Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tafmec

Predicting ductile fracture in ferrous materials during cylinder upsetting T

using an ellipsoidal void model
Kazutake Komori
Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, School of Engineering, Daido University, 10-3 Takiharu-town, Minami-ward, Nagoya-city, Aichi-prefecture 457-8530,
Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The ductile fracture in ferrous materials during cylinder upsetting was predicted using an ellipsoidal void model
Ductile fracture to show the validity of the proposed model. The simulation and experiment of cylinder upsetting were performed
Void model using five types of ferrous bars. Seven kinds of prestrains different in magnitude were introduced in the bars by
Steels drawing, and special attention was paid to the effect of the prestrain on ductile fracture during cylinder up-
Cylinder upsetting
setting, which was scarcely paid attention to in earlier studies. A specimen for the plane-strain tensile test
Prestrain
obtained from a bar was proposed to obtain a material constant on ductile fracture. Both in the simulation and in
the experiment, with increasing the prestrain, the axial strain at fracture initiation monotonically increased,
whereas the circumferential strain at fracture initiation monotonically decreased. The effect of the prestrain on
the circumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation calculated using an ellipsoidal void model substantially
agrees with that obtained experimentally, whereas the effect of the prestrain on the circumferential and axial
strains at fracture initiation calculated using conventional ductile fracture criteria considerably differs from that
obtained experimentally. Hence, the validity of the ellipsoidal void model was confirmed.

1. Introduction meaning microscopically.

Ductile fracture, which occurs when a material is subjected to large
plastic deformation, is undesirable during metal-forming processes.
Numerous ductile fracture criteria have been proposed for various
materials. However, a ductile fracture criterion which is applicable to
all metal-forming processes is yet to be developed [1,2].
Ductile fracture is a microscopic phenomenon because ductile
fracture occurs through nucleation, growth, and coalescence of voids
[3]. However, the ductile fracture criteria which are widely used for
metal-forming processes [4–7] are derived from a macroscopic view-
point. Hence, it is challenging to improve the prediction accuracy for a
microscopic ductile fracture phenomenon using a macroscopic ductile
fracture criterion.
A large number of studies have been performed on the ductile
fracture of materials using the Gurson yield function [8]. Although
these studies simulate the nucleation and growth of voids, these studies
are not intrinsically able to simulate the coalescence of voids. Hence,
the coalescence of voids is generally assumed to occur when the void
volume fraction reaches a critical value [9]. However, this assumption
is shown to be inappropriate because the critical void volume fraction
depends on the stress state [10,11]. Therefore, the coalescence of voids
should be evaluated using a model which has a definite physical
A great number of studies have been performed on the ductile
fracture of materials using a representative volume element [12,13],
which is composed of a void and numbers of finite elements that sur-
round the void. Although the void coalescence is evaluated using a
criterion which has a definite physical meaning microscopically, the
number of voids is usually only one in the representative volume ele-
ment. A material which is subjected to metal-forming operations gen-
erally contains a large number of voids. Therefore, it is unrealistic to
predict the ductile fracture of a material which has a large number of
voids using a large number of representative volume elements due to
the required computational time.
In metal-forming processes, it is well known that localized de-
formation occurs and that plane-strain deformation appears irrelevant
to the prior deformation mode, immediately before ductile fracture
occurs. For instance, during the uniaxial tensile test of a sheet metal, the
angle between the length direction of the fractured surface and the
tensile direction is approximately equal to 55 degrees when the sheet
metal is isotropic [14]. Hill [15] performed the analysis on the localized
necking of a biaxially stretched sheet metal, in which the sheet metal in
the region of the localized necking was assumed to neither elongate nor
contract in the length direction of the region of the localized necking. In
other words, plane-strain deformation in the plane perpendicular to the

E-mail address: komori@daido-it.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102636
Received 14 February 2020; Received in revised form 29 April 2020; Accepted 29 April 2020
Available online 12 May 2020
0167-8442/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Komori
Nomenclature
a, b major diameter of void, minor diameter of void
A0 material constant defined in Eqs. (3) and (5)
A1 material constant defined in Eqs. (4) and (5)
B1 material constant defined in Eqs. (4) and (5)
C material constant defined in Eq. (15)
c carbon content of material in percentage
C2 material constant defined in Eq. (18)
C3 material constant defined in Eq. (19)
di diameter of bar without prestrain before multipass bar
drawing
do diameter of bar at cylinder upsetting after multipass bar
drawing
E ratio of energy dissipation rate of internal necking to en-
ergy dissipation rate of homogeneous deformation
f void volume fraction of material
hb height of specimen before upsetting
hf height of specimen after upsetting
k shear yield stress of matrix
L , L' length of rectangle in x'-direction, length of rectangle in
y'-direction
2l1, 2l2 lengths of velocity discontinuity lines
n material constant defined in Eq. (15)
p distance between two neighboring voids before forming
R (x ) ramp function
length direction of the region of the localized necking was assumed.
During the uniaxial tensile test of a sheet metal, the angle between the
length direction of the region of the localized necking and the tensile
direction was analyzed to be approximately equal to 55 degrees. Hence,
it is appropriate to assume that, in the uniaxial tensile test of a sheet
metal, plane-strain deformation occurs in the plane perpendicular to
the length direction of the fractured surface. During the upsetting of a
cylinder, Kuhn and Lee [16] experimentally demonstrated that plane-
strain deformation appeared immediately before ductile fracture oc-
curred.
A number of studies, which are introduced in several review papers
[17–20], have been performed recently on the simulation of ductile
fracture from a microscopic viewpoint. However, while void growth
and void coalescence are dealt with in these studies, void nucleation is
scarcely dealt with. Void nucleation is the primary phenomenon in
ductile fracture [3], and the following points on void nucleation should
be assumed to perform the simulation of ductile fracture from a mi-
croscopic viewpoint.
* the criteria for the void nucleation
* the void shape and void configuration at the void nucleation
The simulation of ductile fracture in metal forming processes from a
microscopic viewpoint cannot be performed if the aforementioned
points on void nucleation are not assumed. To the best of the author’s
knowledge, the aforementioned points on void nucleation as well as
certain points on void growth and void coalescence have not been as-
sumed in the research other than the research conducted by the current
author.
While a number of analytical or numerical models for void coales-
cence have been proposed from a microscopic viewpoint, an axisym-
metric void and the axisymmetric deformation of a matrix have been
assumed in most analytical or numerical models [21–25]. In other
words, an ellipsoidal void and the plane-strain deformation of a matrix
have not been assumed in the most analytical or numerical models.
However, the plane-strain deformation of the material appears irrele-
vant to the prior deformation mode, immediately before ductile frac-
ture occurs.
In the numerical model for void coalescence [21], in which finite-
2
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
rb radius of bar before single pass bar drawing
rf radius of bar after single pass bar drawing
v , v' material velocity in y'-direction, material velocity in
x'-direction
v1 , v 2 amounts of velocity discontinuity
Z, z initial coordinate in axial direction, deformed coordinate
in axial direction
die semiangle
¯ equivalent strain rate
0 material constant defined in Eq. (15)
M strain of matrix
, initial coordinate in circumferential direction, deformed
coordinate in circumferential direction
1, 2 angles between direction of maximum principal stress and
velocity discontinuity lines
¯ equivalent stress
0 material constant defined in Eq. (15)
M tensile yield stress of matrix
, '
original Gurson yield function, approximated Gurson yield
function
angle between coordinate axis in upsetting direction and
line connecting two neighboring voids
d range of in which ratio E for two neighboring voids after
forming is less than unity
element simulation is performed using the representative volume ele-
ment, it is easy to assume an ellipsoidal void and the plane-strain de-
formation of a matrix. However, it is inappropriate to use the numerical
model for void coalescence in the simulation of ductile fracture in
metal-forming processes, in which a large number of voids should be
assumed, because of the required computational time. In the analytical
models for void coalescence [22–25], in which an axisymmetric void
and the axisymmetric deformation of a matrix are assumed, it is im-
possible to assume an ellipsoidal void and the plane-strain deformation
of a matrix because of the assumption of the analytical models for void
coalescence.
Therefore, it is not possible to predict ductile fracture in metal-
forming processes, in which void nucleation as well as void growth and
void coalescence occurs, and in which plane-strain deformation appears
immediately before ductile fracture occurs, from a microscopic view-
point using these analytical or numerical models [21–25].
Recently, the author has attempted to predict ductile fracture during
hole expansion test [26,27], bar drawing [28] and tensile test using
notched specimens [29,30] from a microscopic viewpoint using a model
which has a definite physical meaning: an ellipsoidal void model. The
author’s proposed model of void coalescence is based on the two-di-
mensional void model proposed by Thomason [31] and the two-di-
mensional void model proposed by Melander and Ståhlberg [32], which
are also derived from a microscopic viewpoint and have a definite
physical meaning. In the Thomason model, the Melander and Ståhlberg
model, and the author’s model, plane-strain deformation is assumed to
occur at void coalescence, and void coalescence is assumed to occur
when the energy dissipated in the internal necking deformation mode is
smaller than the energy dissipated in the homogeneous deformation
mode.
Both the Thomason model [31] and the Melander and Ståhlberg
model [32] assume that the void is rectangular and that the direction of
the major axis of the void coincides with the direction of the maximum
principal stress. However, the void is not rectangular in reality and the
direction of the major axis of the void in general does not coincide with
the direction of the maximum principal stress in metal-forming pro-
cesses. Hence, the author’s proposed model assumes that the void is
K. Komori
ellipsoidal and that the direction of the major axis of the void does not
coincide with the direction of the maximum principle stress. Therefore,
although both the Thomason model and the Melander and Ståhlberg
model cannot be used for simulating metal-forming processes, the au-
thor’s model can be used for simulating metal-forming processes.
In the author’s proposed model, as well as the Thomason model [31]
and the Melander and Ståhlberg model [32], the deformation gradient
of the matrix is implicitly assumed to be identical to the deformation
gradient of the void. Hence, the effect of prestrain on void coalescence
is naturally incorporated into the author’s model without any addi-
tional assumptions. This natural incorporation is one of the character-
istics of the author’s model.
This study investigates the impact of non-proportional loading on
fracture from a microscopic viewpoint, whereas the role of non-pro-
portional loading has also been investigated from the perspectives of
formability in forming limit curves [33] as well as phenomenological
characterization of fracture [34].
Although a number of numerical studies are performed on the effect
of prestrain on ductile fracture, most of these studies [33–37] are per-
formed from a macroscopic viewpoint, using variables such as stress
and strain. Although a few numerical studies [38,39] are performed
from a microscopic viewpoint on the effect of prestrain on void coa-
lescence, the application of these studies to the simulations of metal-
forming processes is not straightforward, because these studies use fi-
nite elements to discretize voids.
Surface cracking in cylinder upsetting is a representative ductile
fracture phenomenon in metal-forming processes [40]. A number of
studies have been performed on the surface cracking in cylinder up-
setting experimentally [41,42,43,16,44,45,46] and numerically
[1,47–55].
Kudo and Aoi [41] performed the cylinder upsetting of an annealed
medium carbon steel and obtained the following three types of cracks:
the longitudinal crack, the oblique crack, and the mixed crack, which is
a mixture of the longitudinal crack and the oblique crack. Kuhn and Lee
[16] performed the cylinder upsetting of an as-drawn medium carbon
steel and an annealed medium carbon steel and observed localized
strain instability prior to ductile fracture, during which plane-strain
deformation appeared. Because plane-strain deformation is assumed to
occur at void coalescence in the author’s proposed model, the author’s
model is appropriate to predict surface cracking in cylinder upsetting.
In several studies [48,51,55], models for the surface cracking in cy-
linder upsetting were proposed. However, in most of these numerical
studies, simulations were performed using the finite-element method
and various ductile fracture criteria [4,5,6,7,56] were evaluated by the
comparisons of the experimental results and the simulation results.
In these numerical studies, the effect of prestrain on the surface
cracking in cylinder upsetting was not addressed. Although there was a
study which dealt with the effect of prestrain on the surface cracking in
cylinder upsetting [57], the maximum prestrain was smaller than 0.5,
which was not sufficiently large.
In this study, surface cracking in cylinder upsetting is predicted
using the author’s proposed void model. First, a specimen for the plane-
strain tensile test obtained from a bar is proposed to obtain a material
constant on ductile fracture. Next, the experiment and simulation of
multipass bar drawing of five types of carbon steels are performed, and
the effect of prestrain on the surface cracking in cylinder upsetting is
demonstrated.
2. Simulation method
The simulation method used in this study, which is the same as the
simulation method used in the author’s previous studies [28–30] and is
explained in detail in Komori [40], is described only briefly. Voids
nucleate due to either the separation of inclusions from the matrix or
the cracking of inclusions [3]. The separation of inclusions from the
matrix is assumed in Komori [29,30], whereas the cracking of
3
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
Fig. 1. Overview of entire simulation procedure at each time step.
inclusions is assumed in Komori [28] and in this study.
2.1. Outline
Fig. 1 shows the overview of the entire simulation procedure at each
time step. Macroscopic simulation and microscopic simulation are al-
ternately performed. In the macroscopic simulation, the deformation of
the material is simulated by the conventional rigid-plastic finite-ele-
ment method. The displacement gradient rate and the void volume
fraction rate of the material in each finite element, which are calculated
in the macroscopic simulation, are used in the subsequent microscopic
simulation. The fracture of the material in each finite element is eval-
uated by the ellipsoidal void model in the microscopic simulation. The
information whether the material fractures in each finite element is
used in the macroscopic simulation of the next time step.
The macroscopic simulation is performed to obtain the material
deformation, whereas the microscopic simulation is performed to
evaluate the material fracture. As described in the introduction, plane-
strain deformation appears irrelevant to the prior deformation mode,
immediately before ductile fracture occurs. Hence, although three-di-
mensional deformation can be assumed in the macroscopic simulation,
plane-strain deformation should be assumed in the microscopic simu-
lation.
The macroscopic simulation and the microscopic simulation are
uncoupled, because the information transferred from the macroscopic
simulation scheme to the microscopic simulation scheme differs from
the information transferred from the microscopic simulation scheme to
the macroscopic simulation scheme. As explained in Section 2.2, the
yield function proposed by Gurson [8] is used in the macroscopic si-
mulation, whereas the conventional Mises yield function is used in the
microscopic simulation. Although a spherical void is assumed in the
Gurson yield function, the assumption of an ellipsoidal void in the
microscopic simulation is justified since the macroscopic simulation
and the microscopic simulation are uncoupled.
The material has to be rigid-plastic in the macroscopic simulation
for consistency, because the material is assumed to be rigid-plastic in
the ellipsoidal void model used in the microscopic simulation. The
macroscopic simulation, as well as the microscopic simulation, is per-
formed using an in-house computer software, which is developed with
reference to a specialized book [58].
2.2. Outline of macroscopic simulation
The deformation of the material is simulated using the conventional
rigid-plastic finite-element method [58]. Axisymmetric state is assumed
during the simulation of the cylinder upsetting of a bar and during the
simulation of the uniaxial tensile test of a bar, whereas plane-strain
state is assumed during the simulation of the plane-strain tensile test of
a bar.
The yield function proposed by Gurson [8] is adopted:
3 ij ij kk
= · + 2f cosh 1 f 2 = 0,
(1)
2
2 M 2 M
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

where M is the tensile yield stress of the matrix, and f is the void Maximum
volume fraction of the material. Although the Gurson yield function shear stress
was modified by Tvergaard [13], this modification was not made the-
oretically but made practically; several parameters were introduced in
the Gurson yield fuction so that in a bifurcation simulation the simu-
lation results calculated using the modified Gurson yield function do
not differ considerably from the simulation results calculated using the
representative volume element. Moreover, the relationship between the
initial void volume fraction and the nominal fracture strain calculated
using the ellipsoidal void model incorporated into the Gurson yield
fuction agrees well with the relationship calculated using the ellipsoidal Before forming
void model incorporated into the modified Gurson yield function [59].
Pearlite nodule
Hence, the original Gurson yield function is used.
Because the yield function is not a function of the second power of Ferrite matrix After forming
stress, the rigid-plastic simulation is not easily performed using Eq. (1). Fig. 2. Void configuration and void shape.
Hence, coshx is approximated to be 1 + x 2 /2 [60]. Therefore, the ap-
proximated yield function ' used in this study is
the void configuration and the void shape are calculated. Third, as
2 explained in Section 2.5, the ratio of the energy dissipation rate of in-
' 3 ij ij f kk
= · 2
+ · 2
(1 f ) 2 = 0. ternal necking to the energy dissipation rate of homogeneous de-
2 M 4 M (2) formation E is calculated, and whether the material fractures is de-
In metal-forming processes, the maximum stress triaxiality in the termined.
material without a crack is low, whereas the maximum stress triaxiality Whether the material fractures is determined using the void volume
in the material with a crack is high. Here, the simulation of crack in- fraction f and the deformation gradient x / X , which are non-dimen-
itiation in the material without a crack is performed, and the simulation sional values. Hence, the void size is not specified. In other words, the
of crack propagation in the material with a crack is not performed. size of a void is assumed to be much smaller than the size of a finite
Hence, the accuracy of the approximation of hyperbolic cosine by the element such that the voids are distributed uniformly throughout the
Maclaurin expansion is high due to the low maximum stress triaxiality. finite element.
The following three types of evolution equations, which denote the
change in the void volume fraction, are assumed: 2.4. Void configuration and void shape

f = (1 f) kk + A0 ¯, (3) Fig. 2 shows the void configuration and the void shape. The black
part denotes the pearlite nodule, the gray part denotes the ferrite ma-
kk
f = (1 f) kk + A1 R B1 ¯, trix, and the white part denotes the void. Pearlite nodules are assumed
3¯ (4)
to be uniformly distributed in the material. Before forming, the pearlite
and nodule configuration is assumed to be the centroid of a hexagonal grid,
and the pearlite nodule shape is assumed to be a circle. When the area
f = (1 f) kk + A0 ¯ + A1 R kk
B1 ¯, of a hexagonal grid is assumed to be unity, the area of a pearlite nodule
3¯ (5)
is equal to (c 0.02)/0.75 [62], where c denotes the carbon content of
where ¯ is the equivalent stress, ¯ is the equivalent strain rate, and A0 , the material in percentage, whereas the area of a void is equal to the
A1, and B1 are the material constants. The function R (x ) in Eqs. (4) and void volume fraction f .
(5) denotes the ramp function, that is, R (x ) = x when x is positive and For carbon steels, the direction of the major axis of the crack at
R (x ) = 0 when x is negative. The first terms on the right-hand sides of crack initiation in the pearlite nodule is known to coincide with the
Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) denote void growth, whereas the second and third direction of the maximum shear stress of the material [63]. Although a
terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) denote void nu- crack appears in the pearlite nodule, an ellipsoidal void is assumed in
cleation, which is caused by the cracking of perlites. the ellipsoidal void model. Hence, the following assumptions are made
Eq. (5) is derived by combining Eqs. (3) and (4). When the material on the void shape before forming.
is specified, any one of Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) can be used. The choice of *The void volume fraction before forming is specified to be the in-
either one of Eqs. (3), (4), or (5) is discussed in Section 4.1. itial void volume fraction.
The physical meanings of the evolution equations of Eqs. (3), (4), *The void shape before forming is an ellipsoid whose flattening is
and (5) are described in detail in the author’s previous study [30]. equal to 0.9.
The evolution equations of Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) are assumed using *The direction of the major axis of the void before forming is
macroscopic stress and strain. It is desirable that the evolution equa- identical to the direction of the maximum shear stress of the material.
tions are assumed using microscopic stress and strain such as the stress A hexagonal grid embedded in the material before forming becomes
and strain inside the inclusion and the stress and strain on the interface a deformed hexagonal grid after forming. The deformation gradient
between the matrix and the inclusion. However, the evolution equa- ( x / X ) material before forming is defined as the deformation gradient of the
tions are assumed using macroscopic stress and strain, because it is not deformed hexagonal grid, and is calculated in the macroscopic simu-
easy to predict microscopic stress and strain [61] in the macroscopic lation. The deformation gradients of the pearlite nodule configuration,
simulation. the pearlite nodule shape, the void configuration, and the void shape,
are used in the microscopic simulation, are assumed in the following
2.3. Outline of microscopic simulation relationships.
x x
In each time step, the following microscopic simulation is per- =
X pearlite nodule configuration X pearlite nodule shape
formed in each finite element. First, the void volume fraction f and the
x
deformation gradient x / X are calculated in the macroscopic rigid- =
plastic finite-element simulation. Second, as explained in Section 2.4,
X material before forming (6)

4
K. Komori
x x x l1sin 2 + l2sin 1
= =
X void configuration X void shape X material before forming (7)
The void shape is basically determined by Eq. (7). However, because
a crack appears in the pearlite nodule in reality, the void shape is
modified; the major diameter of the void and the minor diameter of the
void are modified in order that the flattening of the ellipsoidal void is
equal to 0.9, under the condition that the void volume fraction does not
change due to the modification. Hence, the major diameter of void a
and the minor diameter of void b are calculated from
10f f The ratio of the energy dissipation rate of internal necking to the
a= , and b =
(8)
10
For carbon steels, a void remains in the pearlite nodule and does not
penetrate into the ferrite matrix until the internal necking between two
neighboring voids appears [64]. However, in the microscopic simula-
tion, because insufficient restrictions are made on the void shape, the
void may break the inclusion into two parts and penetrate into the
matrix. Hence, the following restriction is made on the void shape.
Fig. 3 shows the void shape in the hexagonal grid. When the void
penetrates into the matrix, the void shape is modified in order that the
void does not penetrate into the matrix, under the condition that the
void volume fraction does not change due to the modification. Hence,
the flattening of the ellipsoidal void becomes smaller than 0.9 after the
modification. After the inclusion is broken into two parts, a void is not
assumed to nucleate because the inclusion does not fracture further-
more, in other words, the material constants A0 and A1 in Eqs. (3), (4),
and (5) are assumed to be zero.
2.5. Determination of material fracture
Fig. 4 shows the velocity field. First, the material is assumed to
deform homogeneously and the void coalescence is not assumed to
occur. Fig. 4(a) shows the velocity field for homogeneous deformation.
The y'-direction is made to coincide with the direction of the maximum
principal stress, and the x'-direction is made to coincide with the di-
rection of the minimum principal stress.
The rectangle indicated by the dotted lines is considered. The length
of the rectangle in the x'-direction is L , which is assumed to be the
distance between two neighboring voids, and the length of the rec-
tangle in the y'-direction is L'. The material velocity in the y'-direction is
v , and the material velocity in the x'-direction is v', which is equal to
(L / L') v because of the incompressibility condition, since no void
growth is assumed at each time step in the microscopic simulation.
Hence, considering the conventional Mises yield criteria and the
void volume fraction f , the energy dissipation rate in the material due
to homogeneous deformation is expressed by
(1 f )(2vL max + 2v'L' min ) = (1 f )4kvL (9)
where k denotes the shear yield stress of the matrix.
Next, the material between two neighboring voids is assumed to
neck and the void coalescence is assumed to occur. Fig. 4(b) shows the
velocity field for internal necking. The velocity discontinuity line,
which is indicated by dotted lines, is not necessarily assumed to coin-
cide with the tangent of the two neighboring voids, because the location
of the velocity discontinuity line is optimized so that the energy dis-
sipation rate on the velocity discontinuity line due to internal necking
defined below is minimized. In Fig. 4(b), 1 and 2 denote the angles
between the direction of the maximum principal stress and the velocity
discontinuity lines, whereas 2l1 and 2l2 denote the lengths of the velocity
discontinuity lines. The velocity field is shown as a hodograph. More-
over, v1 and v2 denote the amounts of velocity discontinuity.
Using the law of sines, the energy dissipation rate on the velocity
discontinuity line due to internal necking is expressed by
5
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
k· v1·2l2 + k · v2·2l1 = 4kv .
sin( 1 + 2 ) (10)
With reference to the Thomason model [31] and the Melander and
Ståhlberg model [32], void coalescence is assumed to occur when the
energy dissipation rate of internal necking is less than the energy dis-
sipation rate of homogeneous deformation. Hence, using Eqs. (9) and
(10), the criterion of void coalescence is expressed by
l1sin 2 + l2sin 1
(1 f )L .
sin( 1 + 2 ) (11)
energy dissipation rate of homogeneous deformation E is defined as
l1sin 2 + l2 sin 1
E= .
(1 f ) L ·sin( 1 + 2 ) (12)
The criterion of void coalescence is satisfied when E is less than
unity.
When l2 is equal to l1 and 2 is equal to 1, the following inequality,
which is the criterion of void coalescence, is obtained from Eq. (11).
l1
(1 f )L
cos 1 (13)
Fig. 5 shows the schematic representation of the criterion of void
coalescence. Since the initial shape of an ellipsoidal void is a circle, a
circular void is shown for convenience. Eq. (13) indicates that the cri-
terion of void coalescence is satisfied when the length of (1 f ) L is
larger than the length of l1/cos 1 in Fig. 5.
Although the criterion of void coalescence is microscopically sa-
tisfied for a specified angle between the coordinate axis in the upsetting
direction and the line connecting two neighboring voids, the material
does not necessarily fracture macroscopically. The criterion of micro-
scopic void coalescence is related to the macroscopic material fracture
in the followings.
Fig. 6 shows the two neighboring voids and the void coalescence
region. The non-dimensional distance between two neighboring voids
before forming is p , which is equal to 4 4/3 [59]. Variable is defined
as the angle between the coordinate axis in the upsetting direction and
the line connecting two neighboring voids. is an arbitrary value be-
tween 0 and 2 , and the probability density function of becomes
constant regardless of the value of , since the void configuration is
assumed to be macroscopically isotropic before forming. When is
specified, the ratio E can be calculated for two neighboring voids after
forming. d is defined as the range of in which the ratio E for two
neighboring voids after forming is less than unity. The void coalescence
region is defined as a sector whose central angle is d .
Six voids surround the central void, as shown in Fig. 2. When d is
Pearlite nodule
Ferrite matrix
Before After
modification modification
Fig. 3. Void shape in hexagonal grid.
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

Fig. 4. Velocity field.

13 mm, were used because of these steel bars’ availability and wide
usage: JIS SS400, JIS S15C, JIS S55C, JIS SCM415, and JIS SCM435. JIS
SS400 is a rolled steel for general structures. JIS S15C and JIS S55C are
carbon steels for machine structural use and are equivalent to ISO
C15E4, and ISO C55E4, respectively. JIS SCM415 and JIS SCM435 are
l1
low-alloyed steels for machine structural use and are equivalent to ISO
cosθ1 18CrMo4, and ISO 34CrMo4, respectively. Table 1 shows the chemical
composition of steel bars.
θ1 θ1 We used as-rolled bars of SS400 and S55C which were not annealed,
because these as-rolled bars are assumed to have no prestrain. We used
cold drawn bars of S15C, SCM415, and SCM435 which were annealed
l1 L l1 at 1153 K (880 °C), 1153 K (880 °C), and 1103 K (830 °C), respec-
tively, for an hour and then cooled in a vacuum chamber to remove
prestrain, because these cold drawn bars are assumed to have large
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of criterion of void coalescence.
prestrain.
Fig. 7 shows the stress–strain relationships of the steel bars. The
Void coalescence region steel bars had yield point elongations. A uniaxial tensile test, in which
the specimen was a bar, was performed, and the stress–strain re-
lationship of the bar was obtained and subsequently approximated
d using the following equation:
p
M = max( 0, C ·( M 0)
n),
(15)

Before forming After forming
Fig. 6. Two neighboring voids and void coalescence region.
/6(=(2 /6)/2) , the probability that the ratio E is less than unity for a
specified is half. Hence, the macroscopic probability of void coales-
cence is half, which is assumed to be a reasonable criterion for mac-
roscopic material fracture. Therefore, when the following equation is
satisfied, the material is assumed to fracture macroscopically:
d = .
6 (14)
where M is the strain of the matrix, and 0 , C , 0 , and n are the material
constants. Five specimens were used for each steel bar in the uniaxial
tensile test, and the averaged experimental results were demonstrated.
Table 2 shows the material constants in the stress–strain relationship.
These material constants were used in the simulation in Section 4. The
stress–strain relationships of the steel bars calculated using Eq. (15) are
also shown in Fig. 7, and agree with the stress–strain relationships of
the steel bars obtained experimentally. To obtain the material constants
in the evolution equations, the diameter of the specimen at rupture in
the uniaxial tensile test was measured. The initial diameter of the
Table 1
Chemical composition of steel bars (unit: mass%).
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Cu Ni

3. Experimental results SS400 0.14 0.20 0.50 0.014 0.023 0.10

S15C 0.16 0.19 0.40 0.018 0.021 0.05 0.01 0.02
S55C 0.54 0.18 0.70 0.011 0.023 0.09 0.10 0.05
3.1. Tensile test experiments
SCM415 0.16 0.21 0.69 0.017 0.009 0.95 0.15 0.16 0.09
SCM435 0.36 0.24 0.78 0.016 0.009 1.10 0.16 0.18 0.16
The following five types of steel bars, whose initial diameters were

6
K. Komori
SS400 (Exp.) SS400 (Sim.)
S15C (Exp.) S15C (Sim.)
S55C (Exp.) S55C (Sim.)
SCM415 (Exp.) SCM415 (Sim.)
SCM435 (Exp.) SCM435 (Sim.)
1000
Actual stress (MPa)
800
600
400
200
0 formed to introduce prestrain in the bar. The prestrain is defined as
0.0 0.1 0.2
Logalithmic strain
Fig. 7. Stress–strain relationships of steel bars.
Table 2
Material constants in stress–strain relationship.
0 (GPa) C (GPa)
SS400 0.35 0.78
S15C 0.27 0.67
S55C 0.54 1.14
SCM415 0.34 0.81
SCM435 0.40 0.97
specimen was equal to 13 mm.
Plane-strain tensile test, as well as the uniaxial tensile test, was
performed using a bar, because multipass drawing and cylinder upset-
ting were performed using a bar. Since there were no specimens for the
plane-strain tensile test obtained from a bar, the following specimen for
the plane-strain tensile test, which was obtained from a bar, was pro-
posed with reference to the specimen for the plane-strain tensile test
obtained from a plate [65].
Fig. 8 shows the specimen for the plane-strain tensile test. Because
the bar parts of the specimen whose initial diameters were equal to
13 mm scarcely deform in the plane-strain tensile test, plane-strain
deformation is obtained approximately at the center in the width di-
rection of the plate part of the specimen whose initial width, initial
length, and initial thickness were equal to 13 mm, 5 mm, and 2 mm,
respectively. Since, according to the observation using a video camera,
fracture initiation occurred at the center in the width direction of the
plate part of the specimen, the thickness of the plate part of the spe-
cimen at rupture in the plane-strain tensile test was measured at the
center in the width direction. Five specimens were used for each steel
bar in the plane-strain tensile test, and the averaged experimental re-
sults were demonstrated. Table 3 shows the diameter of the specimen at
rupture in the uniaxial tensile test and the thickness of the specimen at
rupture in the plane-strain tensile test.
Fig. 9 shows the micrographs on the longitudinal sections of the
specimens without prestrain. Because the micrographs of SS400, S15C,
and S55C, in which ferrite-pearlite microstructure was observed and
pearlite was uniformly distributed, were shown in the author’s previous
study [30], only the micrographs of SCM415 and SCM435 were shown
in this study. The horizontal direction coincides with the axial direction
of the specimen. The specimens of SCM415 and SCM435 were etched
using nital. As expected [66], ferrite-pearlite microstructure was ob-
served. Although ferrite-pearlite banding [67] was slightly observed in
the micrographs of SCM415 and SCM435, pearlite was rather uniformly
distributed. Hence, all the materials were used to evaluate the validity
of the simulation method described in Section 2.
Fig. 10 shows the micrographs of the fractured surfaces of the
specimens without prestrain. Because the micrographs of SS400, S15C,
and S55C, in which dimples that were yielded from voids were
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
observed and the size of the void was much smaller than the size of the
specimen, were shown in the author’s previous study [30], only the
micrographs of SCM415 and SCM435 were shown in this study. The
micrographs of SCM415 and SCM435 indicated that dimples that were
yielded from voids were observed and that the size of the void was
much smaller than the size of the specimen. Hence, the simulation
method described in Section 2 was confirmed to be applicable to all the
materials.
3.2. Experiments of drawing and upsetting
Prior to cylinder upsetting, multipass drawing of a bar was per-
0.3 2ln(di /d o) , where di denotes the diameter of the bar without prestrain
before multipass bar drawing, and do denotes the diameter of the bar at
cylinder upsetting after multipass bar drawing.
Fig. 11 shows the coordinates and the notations used in single pass
bar drawing. rb denotes the radius of the bar before single pass bar
drawing, rf denotes the radius of the bar after single pass bar drawing,
and denotes the die semiangle. The diameter of the bar without
0 n prestrain before multipass bar drawing was equal to 13 mm. For SS400,
S15C, S55C, and SCM415, the reduction in area in each die (rb2 r f2)/ rb2
0.02 0.18 was equal to 15%, the die angle 2 was equal to 15 degrees, and the
0.015 0.21
0.02 0.10
cylinder upsetting was performed after each two-pass bar drawing until
0.015 0.19 the diameter of the bar became smaller than 5 mm. For SCM435, the
0.02 0.14 reduction in area in each die (rb2 r f2)/ rb2 was equal to 20%, the die
angle 2 was equal to 15 degrees, and the cylinder upsetting was per-
formed after each pass bar drawing until the diameter of the bar be-
came smaller than the critical diameter at which the inner fracture
defect appeared in the bar. Conventional machine oil was used between
the die and the bar for lubrication.
In cylinder upsetting, a pair of flat dies were used and no lubricants
were used between the die and the specimen. Five kinds of specimens,
whose initial height/diameter ratios were 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5,
were used. First, square grids, in which the distance between two
neighboring lines was equal to 147 µm, were embedded on the side
surface of the specimen. Herein, two video cameras connected to two
monitors were used to observe the side surface of the specimen. Next,
the upsetting of the specimen was performed until the side surface of
the specimen fractured. The coordinates of the vertices of a deformed
square grid that was next to a fractured square grid were then measured
using an optical microscope, and the deformation gradient of the de-
formed square grid was subsequently calculated.
Given that sufficient preliminary experiments were performed in
bar drawing and cylinder upsetting, one specimen was used for each
experimental condition in cylinder upsetting. However, for each ex-
perimental condition, the coordinates of the vertices of a total of five
deformed square grids that were next to a total of five fractured square
grids were measured using an optical microscope, and the averaged
experimental results were demonstrated.
Fig. 12 shows the side surfaces of the specimens fractured for S55C.
The figures in the caption indicate the diameters of the bars at cylinder
upsetting after multipass bar drawing, which are related to prestrain.
Longitudinal cracks were observed in these specimens.
Since the non-diagonal component of the deformation gradient of
the square grid next to the fractured square grid was negligibly small,
the non-diagonal component of the deformation gradient of the square
grid was assumed to be zero. Because the deformation gradient at
5
13
2
Fig. 8. Specimen for plane-strain tensile test.
7
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

Table 3 thickness direction in the plane-strain tensile test were assumed to be

Diameter of specimen at rupture in uniaxial tensile test and thickness of spe- equal to ten.
cimen at rupture in plane-strain tensile test. A cup and cone fracture was observed in the experiment of the
Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) uniaxial tensile test, whereas a flat and slant fracture [68] was observed
in the experiment of the plane-strain tensile test. Hence, line symmetry
SS400 6.8 1.0 with respect to the central cross section was observed in neither the
S15C 7.4 1.1
experiment of the uniaxial tensile test nor the experiment of the plane-
S55C 9.6 1.5
SCM415 7.6 1.1 strain tensile test. However, it is not easy to perform simulations of the
SCM435 9.6 1.5 cup and cone fracture and the flat and slant fracture when the direction
of the crack propagation is not determined beforehand. Moreover, the
cup and cone fracture and the flat and slant fracture exhibited some
fracture initiation was equal to the product of the deformation gradient degree of line symmetry. Thus, for simplicity, line symmetry with re-
of the square grid and the deformation gradient due to prestrain, the spect to the central cross section was assumed in both the simulation of
axial strain at fracture initiation, ln(( z / Z ) fracture) , and the circumfer- the uniaxial tensile test and the simulation of the plane-strain tensile
ential strain at fracture initiation, ln(( / ) fracture) , were calculated as test.
follows. The simulation was performed using the node separation method
until the specimen ruptures [69]. When one or more finite elements
z z z
ln = ln + ln fractures in the nth time step, the displacement of the tool was modified
Z fracture Z squaregrid Z prestrain (16) such that only one finite element fractures in the nth time step. Then,
the restriction of the displacement of the node in the axial direction was
released such that the finite element fractures. The initial notched
ln = ln + ln
fracture squaregrid prestrain (17) depth of the specimen was assumed to be 10 µm so that necking occurs
on the axis of line symmetry with respect to the central cross section.
Fig. 13 shows the relationship between the axial strain at fracture The initial void volume fraction was assumed to be 0.001 with re-
initiation and the circumferential strain at fracture initiation for all the ference to the initial void volume fraction of aluminum-killed steel in
materials. The experimental results are plotted using solid symbols or Schmitt and Jalinier [70].
bold symbols. The figures in the legend indicate the diameters of the The simulation was performed using any one of Eqs. (3), (4), and
bars at cylinder upsetting after multipass bar drawing, which are re- (5). For simplicity, B1 = 0 was assumed in Eqs. (4) and (5), whereas
lated to prestrain. Because the effect of the initial height/diameter ratio A0 = A1 was assumed in Eq. (5). In other words, in this study, Eqs. (4),
of the specimen on the axial strain at fracture initiation and the cir- and (5) were replaced with Eqs. (4)′, and (5)′, respectively:
cumferential strain at fracture initiation was not large, the initial
height/diameter ratio of the specimen was not shown in the legend. For
f = (1 f ) kk + A1 R 3kk¯ ¯,( ) (4)′
and
all the materials, with decreasing the diameter of the bar at cylinder
upsetting after multipass bar drawing, that is, with increasing the
f = (1 f) kk (
+ A0 1 + R ( ) ) ¯.
kk
3¯
(5)′
prestrain, the axial strain at fracture initiation monotonically increases, Hence, only one material constant in an evolution equation, that is,
whereas the circumferential strain at fracture initiation monotonically A0 in Eq. (3), A1 in Eq. (4)′, and A0 in Eq. (5)′, is required to be iden-
decreases. tified. The material constants A0 and A1 were determined such that the
diameter of the specimen at rupture in the uniaxial tensile test or the
thickness of the specimen at rupture in the plane-strain tensile test
4. Simulation results
calculated from the simulation agrees with the diameter of the spe-
cimen at rupture or the thickness of the specimen at rupture obtained in
4.1. Simulations of tensile test
the experiment, respectively.
Table 4 shows the material constants in the evolution equations
The simulation of the uniaxial tensile test of a bar and the simula-
obtained in the simulation of the uniaxial tensile test of a bar or in the
tion of the plane-strain tensile test using a bar were performed using the
simulation of the plane-strain tensile test using a bar. When the material
conventional rigid-plastic finite-element method [58]. In the simulation
is specified, the material constant in the plane-strain tensile test is
of the uniaxial tensile test, the linear rectangular element was used and
larger than the material constant in the uniaxial tensile test. It is a well-
axisymmetric deformation was assumed, whereas in the simulation of
known experimental fact [2] that the strain to fracture decreases with
the plane-strain tensile test, the linear rectangular element was used
increasing the mean normal stress and that the strain to fracture de-
and plane-strain deformation was assumed. The number of finite ele-
creases with decreasing the magnitude of the Lode parameter. The
ments both in the radial direction in the uniaxial tensile test and in the

100μm 100μm

(a) SCM415 (b) SCM435

Fig. 9. Micrographs on longitudinal sections of specimens without prestrain.

8
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

(a) SCM415 (b) SCM435

Fig. 10. Micrographs of fractured surfaces of specimens without prestrain.

r φ13.0mm (Exp.)
φ11.1mm (Exp.)
φ13.0mm (Simu.)
φ11.1mm (Simu.)
φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Simu.)
φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Simu.)
φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Simu.)
φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Simu.)
φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Simu.)
rb rf axial strain
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
z
0

circumferential strain
0.5
Fig. 11. Coordinates and notations used in single pass bar drawing. 0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
(a) SS400

φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Simu.) φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Simu.)

φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Simu.) φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Simu.)
φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Simu.) φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Simu.)
φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Simu.) φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Simu.)
φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Simu.) φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Simu.)
φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Simu.) φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Simu.)
φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Simu.) φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Simu.)
axial strain axial strain
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0 1.0
circumferential strain
circumferential strain

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

(a) φ=13.0mm, initial height/diameter ratio=1 -0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
(b) S15C (c) S55C

(b) φ=8.1mm, initial height/diameter ratio=1

Fig. 12. Side surfaces of specimens fractured for S55C.

Fig. 13. Relationship between axial strain at fracture initiation and cir-
simulation result that the material constant in the plane-strain tensile cumferential strain at fracture initiation for all materials.
test is larger than the material constant in the uniaxial tensile test is
inferred from the well-known experimental fact.

9
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

Table 4 In practical terms, the material constant A0 or A1 should be obtained

Material constants in evolution equations. in the simulation of the uniaxial tensile test or the plane-strain tensile
A0 A 0 (=A1)
test and the obtained material constant should then be used in the si-
mulations of multipass bar drawing and cylinder upsetting. However, in
Uniaxial Plane- Upsetting Uniaxial Plane- Upsetting this study, the material constant A0 or A1 was obtained in the simula-
strain strain tion of cylinder upsetting and the obtained material constant was
SS400 0.016 0.046 0.13 – – –
subsequently used in the simulations of multipass bar drawing and
S15C 0.022 0.066 0.13 – – – cylinder upsetting. The method for obtaining the material constant A0
S55C – – – 0.039 0.052 0.06 or A1 should therefore be improved in the future research.
SCM415 0.024 0.063 0.10 – – – Table 4 shows the material constants in the evolution equations
SCM435 – – – 0.040 0.053 0.045
obtained in the simulation of cylinder upsetting using the specimen
without prestrain. The material constants obtained in the simulation of
cylinder upsetting substantially agreed with the material constants
In the author’s previous study [30], by the comparison of the si-
obtained in the simulation of plane-strain tensile test for S55C and
mulation results and the experimental results, Eq. (3) was shown to be
SCM435. However, the material constants obtained in the simulation of
more appropriate than Eq. (4) in low carbon steels, whereas Eq. (4) was
cylinder upsetting were approximately twice the material constants
shown to be more appropriate than Eq. (3) in medium carbon steels.
obtained in the simulation of plane-strain tensile test for SS400, S15C,
Hence, Eq. (3) was used for SS400, S15C, and SCM415, whereas Eq. (4)’
and SCM415.
was used for S55C and SCM435. However, Eq. (4)’ was shown to be
The material constants obtained in the simulation of cylinder up-
inappropriate for S55C, because the void volume fraction on the axis of
setting did not considerably differ from the material constants obtained
the bar became larger than 0.5 after multipass bar drawing which was
in the simulation of uniaxial tensile test for S55C and SCM435.
performed in Section 4.2. Hence, Eq. (5)’, which is the combination of
However, the material constants obtained in the simulation of cylinder
Eqs. (3) and (4)’, was used not only for S55C but also for SCM435,
upsetting were approximately six times the material constants obtained
because the carbon content of SCM435 is smaller than the carbon
in the simulation of uniaxial tensile test for SS400, S15C, and SCM415.
content of S55C.
Hence, for all the materials, the differences between the material
constants obtained in the simulation of cylinder upsetting and the
4.2. Simulations of drawing and upsetting material constants obtained in the simulation of plane-strain tensile test
were much smaller than the differences between the material constants
The simulation of multipass bar drawing and the simulation of cy- obtained in the simulation of cylinder upsetting and the material con-
linder upsetting were performed using the conventional rigid-plastic stants obtained in the simulation of uniaxial tensile test. Therefore,
finite-element method [58]. In the simulations of both multipass bar obtaining material constants by the simulation of plane-strain tensile
drawing and cylinder upsetting, the linear rectangular element was test was proved to be more appropriate than obtaining material con-
used and axisymmetric deformation was assumed. Line symmetry with stants by the simulation of uniaxial tensile test, to use the material
respect to the central cross section was assumed in the simulation of constants in the simulation of cylinder upsetting.
cylinder upsetting. Because conventional machine oil was used between Fig. 14 shows the initial finite-element meshes and finite-element
the die and the bar for lubrication, the friction between the die and the meshes at fracture initiation for SS400 without prestrain. Simulation
bar was assumed to obey the Coulomb’s law, and the coefficient of results hardly differed from the simulation results calculated using the
friction in multipass bar drawing was assumed to be 0.1. Since no lu- finite elements the number of which was larger than the number of
bricants were used between the die and the specimen, the friction be-
tween the specimen and the die was assumed to obey the Coulomb’s
law, and the coefficient of friction in cylinder upsetting was assumed to
be 0.3 with reference to Kobayashi and Lee [47].
The number of finite elements in the radial direction in cylinder
upsetting was made to coincide with the number of finite elements in
the radial direction in multipass bar drawing to easily transfer in- Fracture
formation such as the void volume fraction from the simulation scheme initiation
in multipass bar drawing to the simulation scheme in cylinder upset- (a) Initial height/diameter ratio=1
ting.
When the simulation of cylinder upsetting using the specimen
without prestrain was performed using the material constant A0 or A1
obtained in the simulation of the uniaxial tensile test or the plane-strain
tensile test, the circumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation
calculated from the simulation did not necessarily agree with the cir-
cumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation obtained experi-
mentally. When the simulations of multipass bar drawing and cylinder
upsetting are performed using the material constant A0 or A1 obtained
in the simulation of the uniaxial tensile test or the plane-strain tensile
test, it is not clear whether the effect of the prestrain on the cir-
cumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation would be evaluated
correctly. Hence, the material constant A0 or A1 was determined such
that the circumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation for the Fracture
specimen without prestrain calculated from the simulation agree with initiation
the circumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation for the spe- (b) Initial height/diameter ratio=2
cimen without prestrain obtained experimentally, to accurately eval-
uate the effect of the prestrain on the circumferential and axial strains Fig. 14. Initial finite-element meshes and finite-element meshes at fracture
at fracture initiation. initiation for SS400 without prestrain.

10
K. Komori
finite elements in Fig. 14. Hence, the number of finite elements in
Fig. 14 was considered to be sufficient. The diameter was largest at the
center in the height direction regardless of the initial height/diameter
ratio of the specimen because of the friction between the specimen and
the die. Fracture initiation occurred at the surface of the center in the
height direction, at which the mean normal stress was largest, regard-
less of the initial height/diameter ratio of the specimen.
Fig. 13 shows the relationship between the axial strain at fracture
initiation and the circumferential strain at fracture initiation for all the
materials. The simulation results are plotted using open symbols or fine
symbols. The figures in the legend indicate the diameters of the bars at
cylinder upsetting after multipass bar drawing, which are related to
prestrain. Although the axial strain at fracture initiation decreases with
increasing the initial height/diameter ratio of the specimen, the initial
height/diameter ratio of the specimen is not shown in the legend to
reduce the complexity of the legend. For all the materials, with de-
creasing the diameter of the bar at cylinder upsetting after multipass
bar drawing, that is, with increasing the prestrain, the axial strain at
fracture initiation monotonically increases, whereas the circumferential
strain at fracture initiation monotonically decreases. The circumfer-
ential and axial strains at fracture initiation calculated from the simu-
lation are substantially coincident with the circumferential and axial
strains at fracture initiation obtained in the experiment.
Fig. 15 shows the relationship between the axial strain and the
circumferential strain calculated from the simulation from the onset of
deformation to fracture initiation for SCM415. The initial height/dia-
meter ratio of the specimen is equal to one. The figures in the legend
indicate the diameters of the bars at cylinder upsetting after multipass
bar drawing, which are related to prestrain. The axial strain increases
and the circumferential strain decreases in multipass bar drawing,
whereas the axial strain decreases and the circumferential strain in-
creases in cylinder upsetting.
Fig. 16 shows the relationship between the axial strain at fracture
initiation and the circumferential strain at fracture initiation in various
evolution equations for SCM435. The simulation results are plotted
using open symbols or fine symbols, whereas the experimental results
are plotted using solid symbols or bold symbols. The figures in the le-
gend indicate the diameters of the bars at cylinder upsetting after
multipass bar drawing, which are related to prestrain. A0 was assumed
to be 0.045 when Eq. (3) was used , whereas A1 was assumed to be 0.8
when Eq. (4)’ was used. With reference to Fig. 13(e) and 16, when both
the prestrain and the initial height/diameter ratio of the specimen were
specified, with increasing A1, both the circumferential strain at fracture
initiation and the axial strain at fracture initiation slightly increase for
large prestrain. However, the circumferential and axial strains at frac-
ture initiation calculated from the simulation are almost coincident
with the circumferential and axial strains at fracture initiation obtained
in the experiment, that is, the circumferential and axial strains at
fracture initiation calculated from the simulation scarcely depend on
the type of the evolution equation used.
4.3. Simulations using conventional ductile fracture criteria
The simulations were performed using conventional ductile fracture
criteria. The conventional Mises yield function is used in this section in
place of the approximated yield function ' . The conventional rigid-
plastic finite-element method [58] was also used, in which the in-
compressibility condition was satisfied by the penalty method.
It is generally recognized that the simulation result on ductile
fracture approaches the experimental result on ductile fracture with
increasing the number of material constants on ductile fracture. Hence,
it is meaningless to compare the simulation result on ductile fracture
using the simulation method in which the number of material constants
on ductile fracture is one with the simulation result on ductile fracture
using the simulation method in which the number of material constants
on ductile fracture is two. Because only one material constant in an
11
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
evolution equation is required to be identified in Section 4.1, the
number of material constants on ductile fracture is only one in Section
4.2. Therefore, ductile fracture criteria in which the number of material
constants on ductile fracture is only one should be used for comparison
so that the number of material constants on ductile fracture coincides
with the number of material constants on ductile fracture in Section 4.2.
Hence, the ductile fracture criterion proposed by Cockcroft and Latham
[5] and the ductile fracture criterion proposed by Brozzo et al. [6],
which were used in the author’s previous studies [29,30], were also
used in this study.
The non-dimensional Cockcroft and Latham fracture criterion [5]
can be expressed by the following equation
max
¯dt C2
¯ (18)
where C2 is the material constant. The Brozzo et al. fracture criterion
[6] can be expressed by the following equation
2 max
¯dt C3
3( max kk /3) (19)
where C3 is the material constant.
Table 5 shows the material constants used in the conventional
ductile fracture criteria. The material constants C2 and C3 were de-
termined such that the circumferential and axial strains at fracture in-
itiation for the specimen without prestrain calculated from the simu-
lation agree with the circumferential and axial strains at fracture
initiation for the specimen without prestrain obtained in the experi-
ment.
Since it is not necessarily required to compare the simulation results
calculated using the conventional ductile fracture criteria with the ex-
perimental results obtained in the experiment for all the materials, the
comparison was made for the following two materials: SS400 and S55C.
SS400 is a low carbon steel, in which the evolution equation of Eq. (3) is
used, whereas S55C is a medium carbon steel, in which the evolution
equation of Eq. (5)’ is used.
Figs. 17 and 18 show the relationships between the axial strain at
fracture initiation and the circumferential strain at fracture initiation
for the two materials calculated using the Cockcroft and Latham frac-
ture criterion [5], and calculated using the Brozzo et al. fracture cri-
terion [6], respectively. The simulation results are plotted using open
symbols or fine symbols, whereas the experimental results are plotted
using solid symbols or bold symbols. The figures in the legend indicate
the diameters of the bars at cylinder upsetting after multipass bar
drawing, which are related to prestrain. For both the ductile fracture
criteria and for both the materials, with decreasing the diameter of the
bar at cylinder upsetting after multipass bar drawing, that is, with in-
creasing the prestrain, the axial strain at fracture initiation mono-
tonically increases, whereas the circumferential strain at fracture in-
itiation monotonically decreases. However, for both the ductile fracture
φ13.0mm (Simu.) φ11.1mm (Simu.)
φ9.5mm (Simu.) φ8.1mm (Simu.)
φ6.9mm (Simu.) φ5.9mm (Simu.)
φ5.0mm (Simu.)
axial strain
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
circumferential strain
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fig. 15. Relationship between axial strain and circumferential strain calculated
from simulation from onset of deformation to fracture initiation for SCM415.
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Simu.) φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Simu.)

φ11.7mm (Exp.) φ11.7mm (Simu.) φ11.7mm (Exp.) φ11.7mm (Simu.)
φ10.5mm (Exp.) φ10.5mm (Simu.) φ10.5mm (Exp.) φ10.5mm (Simu.)
φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Simu.) φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Simu.)
φ8.5mm (Exp.) φ8.5mm (Simu.) φ8.5mm (Exp.) φ8.5mm (Simu.)
axial strain axial strain
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
1.0 1.0
circumferential strain

circumferential strain
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5 Fig. 19. Relationship between prestrain and reduction in height at fracture
(a) Equation (3) (b) Equation (4)
initiation for two materials.
Fig. 16. Relationship between axial strain at fracture initiation and cir-
cumferential strain at fracture initiation in various evolution equations for criteria and for both the materials, the axial and circumferential strains
SCM435. at fracture initiation calculated from the simulation considerably differ
from the axial and circumferential strains at fracture initiation obtained
Table 5 in the experiment, especially for large prestrain.
Material constants used in conventional ductile fracture criteria. Fig. 19 shows the relationship between the prestrain and the re-
C2 C3
duction in height at fracture initiation for the two materials. The si-
mulation results calculated in the simulation in Section 4.2 and the
SS400 0.25 0.3 experimental results obtained in the experiment in Section 3.2, as well
S55C 0.25 0.3 as the simulation results calculated using the conventional ductile
fracture criteria, are shown. The simulation results are plotted using
φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Cock.) φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Cock.)
open symbols, whereas the experimental results are plotted using solid
φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Cock.) φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Cock.) symbols. The initial height/diameter ratio of the specimen is equal to
φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Cock.) φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Cock.)
φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Cock.) φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Cock.) 1.5. The reduction in height is defined as (hb hf )/ hb , where hb denotes
φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Cock.) φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Cock.) the height of the specimen before cylinder upsetting, and hf denotes the
φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Cock.) φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Cock.)
φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Cock.) φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Cock.) height of the specimen after cylinder upsetting.
axial strain axial strain With increasing the reduction in height in cylinder upsetting, a
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
damage value at the surface of the center in the height direction, at
1.0 1.0
which the specimen fractured, increased monotonically [49], in other
circumferential strain

circumferential strain

0.5
0.5 words, residual ductility at the surface of the center in the height di-
0.0 rection decreased monotonically. Hence, the reduction in height in
0.0 cylinder upsetting could be used as a measure for evaluating residual
-0.5 ductility. For both the materials, with increasing the prestrain, the re-
-0.5 ductions in height at fracture initiation both calculated in the simula-
-1.0
tion in Section 4.2 and obtained in the experiment in Section 3.2 de-
-1.5 -1.0
(a) SS400 (b) S55C crease, whereas the reductions in height at fracture initiation calculated
using the conventional ductile fracture criteria increase. Hence, for both
Fig. 17. Relationship between axial strain at fracture initiation and cir- the materials, with increasing the prestrain, the residual ductility both
cumferential strain at fracture initiation for two materials calculated using
calculated using the ellipsoidal void model and obtained experimen-
Cockcroft and Latham fracture criterion.
tally decreased, whereas the residual ductility calculated using the
conventional ductile fracture criteria increased.
φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Brozzo) φ13.0mm (Exp.) φ13.0mm (Brozzo) The maximum prestrain in a preceding study on the effect of the
φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Brozzo) φ11.1mm (Exp.) φ11.1mm (Brozzo)
φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Brozzo) φ9.5mm (Exp.) φ9.5mm (Brozzo) prestrain on the reduction in height at fracture initiation in cylinder
φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Brozzo) φ8.1mm (Exp.) φ8.1mm (Brozzo) upsetting [57] was smaller than 0.5, whereas the maximum prestrain in
φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Brozzo) φ6.9mm (Exp.) φ6.9mm (Brozzo)
φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Brozzo) φ5.9mm (Exp.) φ5.9mm (Brozzo) this study is approximately equal to two. Because the effect of the
φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Brozzo) φ5.0mm (Exp.) φ5.0mm (Brozzo)
axial strain axial strain prestrain on the reduction in height at fracture initiation is not ne-
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 cessarily clear in Fig. 19 when the prestrain is below 0.5, the study on
1.0 1.0 the effect of the prestrain on the reduction in height at fracture initia-
tion in the preceding study [57] was confirmed to be insufficient.
circumferential strain

circumferential strain

0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0 5. Conclusions
-0.5

-1.0
-0.5 Surface cracking in cylinder upsetting for five types of ferrous bars
was predicted using the ellipsoidal void model proposed by the author,
-1.5 -1.0 which is able to evaluate ductile fracture in the simulation of metal-
(a) SS400 (b) S55C
forming processes. The following results were obtained:
Fig. 18. Relationship between axial strain at fracture initiation and cir-
cumferential strain at fracture initiation for two materials calculated using (1) A specimen for the plane-strain tensile test obtained from a bar was
Brozzo et al. fracture criterion.
proposed to obtain a material constant on ductile fracture.
(2) Both in the simulation and in the experiment, with increasing the
prestrain, the axial strain at fracture initiation monotonically in-
creased, whereas the circumferential strain at fracture initiation

12
K. Komori
monotonically decreased.
(3) The effect of prestrain on the circumferential and axial strains at
fracture initiation calculated using the ellipsoidal void model sub-
stantially agrees with that obtained experimentally.
(4) The effect of prestrain on the circumferential and axial strains at
fracture initiation calculated using conventional ductile fracture
criteria considerably differs from that obtained experimentally.
Hence, the validity of the ellipsoidal void model was confirmed.
This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kazutake Komori: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal ana-
lysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project admin-
istration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S.E. Clift, P. Hartley, C.E.N. Sturgess, G.W. Rowe, Fracture prediction in plastic
deformation processes, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 32 (1) (1990) 1–17.
[2] T. Wierzbicki, Y. Bao, Y.W. Lee, Y. Bai, Calibration and evaluation of seven fracture
models, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 47 (4–5) (2005) 719–743.
[3] B. Dodd, Y. Bai, Ductile Fracture and Ductility, Academic Press, London, 1987.
[4] A.M. Freudenthal, The Inelastic Behavior of Engineering Materials and Structures,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950.
[5] M.G. Cockcroft, D.J. Latham, Ductility and the workability of metals, J. Inst. Met.
96 (1968) 33–39.
[6] P. Brozzo, B. De Luca, R. Rendina, A new method for the prediction of the form-
ability limits of metal sheets, A new method for the prediction of the formability
limits of metal sheets, Research Group, 1972.
[7] M. Oyane, Criteria of ductile fracture strain, Bull. JSME 15 (90) (1972) 1507–1513.
[8] A.L. Gurson, Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth:
Part I-Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media, Trans. ASME J. Eng.
Mater. Technol. 99 (1) (1977) 2–15.
[9] V. Tvergaard, A. Needleman, Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile
bar, Acta Metall. 32 (1) (1984) 157–169.
[10] Z.L. Zhang, E. Niemi, Studies on the ductility predictions by different local failure
criteria, Eng. Fract. Mech. 48 (4) (1994) 529–540.
[11] Z.L. Zhang, E. Niemi, Analyzing ductile fracture using dual dilational constitutive
equations, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 17 (6) (1994) 695–707.
[12] A. Needleman, A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding,
Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 54 (3) (1987) 525–531.
[13] V. Tvergaard, Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain
conditions, Int. J. Fract. 17 (4) (1981) 389–407.
[14] V.K. Barnwal, S.Y. Lee, J.H. Kim, F. Barlat, Failure characteristics of advanced high
strength steels at macro and micro scales, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 754 (2019) 411–427.
[15] R. Hill, On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference to localized necking
in thin sheets, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1 (1) (1952) 19–30.
[16] H.A. Kuhn, P.W. Lee, Strain instability and fracture at the surface of upset cylinders,
Metall. Trans. 2 (11) (1971) 3197–3202.
[17] J. Besson, Continuum models of ductile fracture: a review, Int. J. Damage Mech. 19
(1) (2010) 3–52.
[18] A.A. Benzerga, J.B. Leblond, Ductile fracture by void growth to coalescence, Adv.
Appl. Mech. 44 (2010) 169–305.
[19] A.A. Benzerga, J.B. Leblond, A. Needleman, V. Tvergaard, Ductile failure modeling,
Int. J. Fract. 201 (1) (2016) 29–80.
[20] A. Pineau, A.A. Benzerga, T. Pardoen, Failure of metals I: Brittle and ductile frac-
ture, Acta Mater. 107 (2016) 424–483.
[21] T. Pardoen, J.W. Hutchinson, An extended model for void growth and coalescence,
J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (12) (2000) 2467–2512.
[22] M. Gologanu, J.B. Leblond, G. Perrin, J. Devaux, Theoretical models for void coa-
lescence in porous ductile solids. I. Coalescence in layers, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38
(2001) (32–33), 5581–5594.
[23] M. Gologanu, J.B. Leblond, J. Devaux, Theoretical models for void coalescence in
porous ductile solids. II. Coalescence in columns, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (2001)
(32–33), 5595–5604.
[24] A.A. Benzerga, J.B. Leblond, Effective yield criterion accounting for microvoid
coalescence, Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 81 (3) (2014) 031009.
13
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636
[25] L. Morin, J.B. Leblond, A.A. Benzerga, Coalescence of voids by internal necking:
Thoretical estimates and numerical results, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 75 (2015)
140–158.
[26] K. Komori, An ellipsoidal void model for the evaluation of ductile fracture in sheet
metal forming, Comput. Mater. Sci. 67 (2013) 408–416.
[27] K. Komori, Evaluation of ductile fracture in sheet metal forming using the ellip-
soidal void model, Mech. Mater. 77 (2014) 67–79.
[28] K. Komori, Proposal and use of a void model for inclusion cracking for simulating
inner fracture defects in drawing of ferrite-pearlite steels, Mech. Mater. 77 (2014)
98–109.
[29] K. Komori, Predicting ductile fracture in pure metals and alloys using notched
tensile specimens by an ellipsoidal void model, Eng. Fract. Mech. 151 (2016)
51–69.
[30] K. Komori, Predicting ductile fracture in ferrous materials during tensile tests using
an ellipsoidal void model, Mech. Mater. 113 (2017) 24–43.
[31] P.F. Thomason, A theory for ductile fracture by internal necking of cavities, J. Inst.
Met. 68 (1968) 360–365.
[32] A. Melander, U. Ståhlberg, The effect of void size and distribution on ductile frac-
ture, Int. J. Fract. 16 (5) (1980) 431–439.
[33] T.B. Stoughton, A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 42 (2000) 1–27.
[34] A. Abedini, C. Butcher, M.J. Worswick, Experimental fracture characterisation of an
anisotropic magnesium alloy sheet in proportional and non-proportional loading
conditions, Int. J. Solids Struct. 144–145 (2018) 1–19.
[35] A. Barata da Rocha, J.M. Jalinier, Plastic instability of sheet metals under simple
and complex strain paths, Trans. Iron Steel Inst. Japan 24 (1984) 132–140.
[36] K. Enami, The effects of compressive and tensile prestrain on ductile fracture in-
itiation in steels, Eng. Fract. Mech. 72 (2005) 1089–1105.
[37] Y. Bai, T. Wierzbicki, Forming severity concept for predicting sheet necking under
complex loading histories, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 50 (2008) 1012–1022.
[38] D. Chae, J.P. Bandstra, D.A. Koss, The effect of pre-strain and strain-path changes
on ductile fracture: experiment and computational modeling, Mater. Sci. Eng., A
285 (2000) 165–171.
[39] Y. Alinaghian, M. Asadi, A. Weck, Effect of pre-strain and work hardening rate on
void growth and coalescence in AA5052, Int. J. Plast. 53 (2014) 193–205.
[40] K. Komori, Ductile Fracture in Metal Forming – Modeling and Simulation, Academic
Press, London, 2019.
[41] H. Kudo, K. Aoi, Effect of compression test condition upon fracturing of a medium
carbon steel, J. Japan Soc. Technol. Plasticity 8 (72) (1967) 17–27 (in Japanese).
[42] P.F. Thomason, The free surface ductility of uniaxial compression specimens with
longitudinal surface defects, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 11 (1) (1969) 65–73.
[43] S. Kobayashi, Deformation characteristics and ductile fracture of 1040 steel in
simple upsetting of solid cylinders and rings, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Indus. 92 (2)
(1970) 391–399.
[44] P.W. Lee, H.A. Kuhn, Fracture in cold upset forging - A criterion and model, Metall.
Trans. 4 (4) (1973) 969–974.
[45] S.I. Oh, S. Kobayashi, Workability of aluminum alloy 7075–T6 in upsetting and
rolling, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Indus. 98 (3) (1976) 800–806.
[46] R. Sowerby, I. O’Reilly, N. Chandrasekaran, N.L. Dung, Materials testing for cold
forging, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 106 (1) (1984) 101–106.
[47] S. Kobayashi, C.H. Lee, Deformation mechanics and workability in upsetting solid
circular cylinders, in: Proceedings of the First North American Metalworking
Research Conference, (1973) pp. 185–204.
[48] A. Jenner, Y. Bai, B. Dodd, A thermo-plastic shear instability criterion applied to
surface cracking in upsetting and related processes, J. Strain Anal. 16 (3) (1981)
159–164.
[49] R. Sowerby, N. Chandrasekaran, N.L. Dung, O. Mahrenholtz, The prediction of
damage accumulation during upsetting tests based on McClintock's model, Forsch.
Ingenieurwes. 51 (5) (1985) 147–150.
[50] N. Bontcheva, R. Iankov, Numerical investigation of the damage process in metal
forming, Eng. Fract. Mech. 40 (2) (1991) 387–393.
[51] H. Moritoki, Free surface ductility in upsetting, Int. J. Plast. 9 (4) (1993) 507–523.
[52] B.P.P.A. Gouveia, J.M.C. Rodrigues, P.A.F. Martins, Fracture predicting in bulk
metal forming, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 38 (4) (1996) 361–372.
[53] H.S. Kim, Y.T. Im, M. Geiger, Prediction of ductile fracture in cold forging of alu-
minum alloy, Trans. ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 121 (3) (1999) 336–344.
[54] H.P. Gänser, A.G. Atkins, O. Kolednik, F.D. Fischer, O. Richard, Upsetting of cy-
linders: a comparison of two different damage indicators, Trans. ASME J. Eng.
Mater. Technol. 123 (1) (2001) 94–99.
[55] A.R. Ragab, Fracture limit curve in upset forging of cylinders, Mater. Sci. Eng., A
334 (1–2) (2002) 114–119.
[56] F.A. McClintock, A criterion for ductile fracture by the growth of holes, Trans.
ASME J. Appl. Mech. 35 (2) (1968) 363–371.
[57] Y. Neishi, S. Watanabe, Y. Haruhata, T. Kuboki, K. Kuroda, Influence of pre-
deformation on the workability limit in cold upsetting, J. JSTP 43 (496) (2002)
401–405 (in Japanese).
[58] S. Kobayashi, S.I. Oh, T. Altan, Metal Forming and the Finite-Element Method,
Oxford, New York (1989).
[59] K. Komori, An ellipsoidal void model for simulating ductile fracture behavior,
Mech. Mater. 60 (2013) 36–54.
[60] Y. Tomita, Numerical Elasticity and Plasticity, Yokendo, Tokyo, 1990 (in Japanese).
[61] F.M. Beremin, Cavity formation from inclusions in ductile fracture of A508 steel,
Metall. Trans. A 12 (5) (1981) 723–731.
[62] W.D. Callister, Material Science and Engineering An Introduction, sixth edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2003.
[63] L.E. Miller, G.C. Smith, Tensile fracture in carbon steels, J. Iron Steel Inst. 208 (11)
K. Komori Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 108 (2020) 102636

(1970) 998–1005.
[64] T. Inoue, S. Kinoshita, Three stages of ductile fracture process and criteria of void
inititation in spheroidized and ferrite/pearlite steels, Trans. ISIJ 17 (9) (1977)
523–531.
[65] D.P. Clausing, Effect of plastic strain state on ductility and toughness, Int. J. Fract.
Mech. 6 (1) (1970) 71–85.
[66] T. Sato, Micrographs of Steels and Their Explanations, second edition, Maruzen,
Tokyo, 1968 (in Japanese).
[67] L.E. Samuels, Optical Microscopy of Carbon Steels, American Society for Metals,
Ohio, 1980.
[68] J. Besson, D. Steglich, W. Brocks, Modeling of crack growth in round bars and plane
strain specimens, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (46–47) (2001) 8259–8284.
[69] K. Komori, Simulation of tensile test by node separation method, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 125–126 (2002) 608–612.
[70] J.H. Schmitt, J.M. Jalinier, Damage in sheet metal forming-I Physical behavior, Acta
Metallurgica 30 (9) (1982) 1789–1798.

14