Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-6lqsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T08:49:13.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Void Shape and Distribution Effects on Coalescence in Elastic-Plastic Solids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

T. Pardoen  and
J.W. Hutchinson
T. Pardoen
Affiliation:
Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Pierce Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.
J.W. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
alsoUniversité catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences des Matériaux et Procédés, PCIM, Bátiment Réaumur, 2 Place Sainte Barbe, 1400 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

An extended Gurson model incorporating the effects of the void shape and distribution on the growth and coalescence is proposed. The emphasis is placed on void coalescence, which is modeled as a transition from diffuse plasticity around the void to transverse localized plastic yielding in the intervoid ligament. Selected results showing the importance of correctly accounting for the void coalescence stage, as well as for the void shape and distribution effects, are presented and discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 578: Symposia A/C – Multiscale Phenomena in Materials - Experiments in Modeling , 1999 , 327
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Mudry, F., di Rienzo, F., and Pineau, A., in Non-Linear Fracture Mechanics: Volume II -Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 995, edited by Landes, J.D., Saxena, A. and Merkle, J.G. (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1989) pp. 24–39.Google Scholar
2. Xia, L., Shih, C.F., and Hutchinson, J.W., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 43, 389–413 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Brocks, W., Klingbeil, D., Kunecke, G., and Sun, D.-Z., in Constraint Effects in Fracture Theory and Applications: Second Volume, ASTM STP 1244, edited by Kirk, M. and Bakker, A. (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995) pp. 232–252.Google Scholar
4. Ruggieri, C., Panontin, T.L., and Dodds, R.H. Jr. , Int. J. Fract. 82, 67–95 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Gao, X., Faleskog, J., and Shih, C.F., Int. J. Fract. 89, 374–386, (1998).Google Scholar
6. Gurson, A.L., J. Engng. Mater. Tech. 99, 2–15 (1977).Google Scholar
7. Tvergaard, V., Int, J. Fract. 17, 389–407 (1981).Google Scholar
8. Needleman, A. and Tvergaard, V., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 32, 461–490 (1984).Google Scholar
9. Pardoen, T. and Hutchinson, J.W., Harvard Report MECH 356, 1999.Google Scholar
10. Gologanu, M., Leblond, J.-B., Perrin, G., and Devaux, J., in Continuum Micromechanics, edited by Suquet, P. (Springer-Verlag, 1995).Google Scholar
11. Thomason, P.F., Ductile Fracture of Metals (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar
12. Koplik, J. and Needleman, A., Int. J. Solids Struct. 24, 835–853 (1988).Google Scholar
13. Zhang, Z. L. and Niemi, E., Engng. Fract. Mech. 48, 529–540 (1994).Google Scholar