金属材料失效分析的新方法

周琳; 文鹤鸣

doi:10.11858/gywlxb.20180613

A New Approach for the Failure of Metallic Materials

doi: 10.11858/gywlxb.20180613

ZHOU Lin,
WEN Heming^{*
, ,}

CAS Key Laboratory for Mechanical Behavior and Design of Materials, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230027, China

More Information

Author Bio:
ZHOU Lin (1988—), female, doctoral student, major in impact dynamics. E-mail: zlxzh@mail.ustc.edu.cn

Corresponding author: WEN Heming(1965—), male, Ph.D, professor, major in impact dynamics. E-mail: hmwen@ustc.edu.cn

摘要

摘要: 提出了一种预测金属材料失效的新方法，该失效准则考虑了应力三轴度和Lode角参数的影响。将金属材料分为 ē_f>e_f 和 ē_f≤e_f 两类，其中 ē_f 和 e_f 分别定义为应力三轴度η=1/3、Lode角参数ξ=1（轴对称应力状态）和应力三轴度η=1/3、Lode角参数ξ=0（平面应变状态）时的真实应变。另外只需要两个常见的实验（光滑圆杆拉伸试验和纯剪试验）数据就可以确定失效准则的参数值。将该新失效准则与文献中报道的诸多材料在不同加载条件下的实验数据进行对比，结果吻合较好。
- 失效准则 /
- 金属材料 /
- 应力三轴度 /
- Lode角参数 /
- 光滑圆杆拉伸试验 /
- 纯剪试验
Abstract: A new approach is presented herein to predict the failure of metallic materials. A failure criterion that caters for the effects of stress triaxiality and Lode parameter is proposed and it is applicable not only to metals with ē_f > e_f but also to metals with ē_f ≤ e_f , here ē_f and e_f are the two parameters defined as the true strains at stress triaxiality of η = 1/3 for Lode parameters of ξ = 1 (axisymmetric stress state) and ξ = 0 (plane strain state) respectively. Furthermore, only two laboratory tests such as smooth bar tension test and pure shear test are needed to calibrate the failure criterion. The present failure criterion is proved in good agreement with the test data for various metals under different loading conditions.
- failure criterion /
- metallic material /
- stress triaxiality /
- Lode parameter /
- smooth bar tension test /
- pure shear test

HTML全文

Figure 1. Definition of parameters in the space of ε_f and η

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of the failure loci for metallic materials in the space of ε_f and ξ for η=1/3

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Definition of the stress triaxiality corresponding to the true fracture strain in a smooth bar tension test

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with the test data for Armco iron (Johnson and Cook^[2]) in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with the test data for OFHC copper (Johnson and Cook^[2]) in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with test data for 1045 steel (Bai et al.^[15]) in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; green lines: model proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki^[6]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 8. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with the test data for 2024-T351 aluminum alloy (Wierzbicki et al.^[6]; Bao^[14]) in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; green lines: the model proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki^[6]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with the test data for 4340 steel (Johnson and Cook^[2]) in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 9. Comparison of the newly developed failure criterion with the test data for Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy in the space of ε_f and η. Red line: Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2]; green lines: the model proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki^[6]; black lines: the present model (Eq.(8))

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Values of constants in the Johnson-Cook failure criterion^[2] and the model proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki^[6]

Materials	Johnson-Cook failure criterion			Model proposed by Xue and Wierzbicki
Materials	D₁	D₂	D₃	c₁	c₂	c₃	c₄
4340 steel	0.05^[2]	3.44^[2]	–2.12^[2]
Armco iron	–2.20^[2]	5.43^[2]	–0.47^[2]
OFHC copper	0.54^[2]	4.89^[2]	–3.03^[2]
1045 steel	0.06	1.72	–2.58	1.511 0	2.110 2	0.480 0	1.738 8
2024-T351	0.13^[6]	0.13^[6]	–1.50^[6]	1.466 0	2.394 0	0.210 0	0.005 0
Inconel 718^[16]	0.04^[16]	0.75^[16]	–1.45^[16]	0.525 1	1.010 9	1.100 0	1.188 7
Inconel 718^[18]	0.04	1.54	–1.60

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(18)

[1]	JOHNSON G R, COOK W H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures [C]//Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, 1983, 21: 541-547.
[2]	JOHNSON G R, COOK W H. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1985, 21(1): 31–48. doi: 10.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9
[3]	ALVES M, JONES N. Influence of hydrostatic stress on failure of axisymmetric notched specimens [J]. Journal of the Mechanics & Physics of Solids, 1999, 47(3): 643–667.
[4]	BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, BERSTAD T. On the influence of stress triaxiality and strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel. Part II. numerical study [J]. European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, 2003, 22(1): 15–32. doi: 10.1016/S0997-7538(02)00005-0
[5]	BAO Y, WIERZBICKI T. On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality space [J]. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2004, 46(1): 81–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.02.006
[6]	WIERZBICKI T, BAO Y, LEE Y W. Calibration and evaluation of seven fracture models [J]. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2005, 47(4): 719–743.
[7]	XUE L. Damage accumulation and fracture initiation in uncracked ductile solids subject to triaxial loading [J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2007, 44(16): 5163–5181. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.12.026
[8]	BAI Y, WIERZBICKI T. A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and Lode dependence [J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2008, 24(6): 1071–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.09.004
[9]	BAI Y, WIERZBICKI T. Application of extended Mohr-Coulomb criterion to ductile fracture [J]. International Journal of Fracture, 2010, 161(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10704-009-9422-8
[10]	CHOCRON S, ERICE B, ANDERSON C E. A new plasticity and failure model for ballistic application [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(8): 755–764.
[11]	BRÜNIG M, CHYRA O, ALBRECHT D. A ductile damage criterion at various stress triaxialities [J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2008, 24: 1731–1755. doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.12.001
[12]	MALCHER L, PIRES F M A, SÁ J M A C D. An extended GTN model for ductile fracture under high and low stress triaxiality [J]. International Journal of Plasticity, 2014, 54(2): 193–228.
[13]	RICE J R, TRACEY D. On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields [J]. Journal of the Mechanics & Physics of Solids, 1969, 17(3): 201–217.
[14]	BAO Y. Prediction of ductile crack formation in uncracked bodies [D]. Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.
[15]	BAI Y, TENG X, WIERZBICKI T. On the application of stress triaxiality formula for plane strain fracture testing [J]. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 2009, 131(2): 021002. doi: 10.1115/1.3078390
[16]	ERICE B, GÁLVEZ F. A coupled elastoplastic-damage constitutive model with Lode angle dependent failure criterion [J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2014, 51(1): 93–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.09.015
[17]	ERICE B, PÉREZ-MARTÍN M, GÁLVEZ F. An experimental and numerical study of ductile failure under quasi-static and impact loadings of Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 69: 11–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.02.007
[18]	ALGARNI M, BAI Y, YOUNGSIK C. A study of Inconel 718 dependency on stress triaxiality and Lode angle in plastic deformation and ductile fracture [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2015, 147: 140–157. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.08.007