Contents

1 . Introduction: .............................................................................................. 1
2 . Ductile damage mechanisms: .................................................................... 1
2. 1. Mechanisms dominating at positive stress triaxiality: ............................................. 2
2. 1. 1. Void nucleation: ............................................................................................... 2
2. 1. 2. Void growth: ..................................................................................................... 2
2. 1. 3. Void coalescence: ............................................................................................. 2
2. 2. Mechanisms dominating at negative and low stress triaxiality: .............................. 3
3 . Damage modelling approaches: ................................................................ 3
3. 1. Overview of existing approaches: ............................................................................ 4
3. 1. 1. Phenomenological criteria ................................................................................ 4
3. 1. 2. Continuum damage mechanics CDM: .............................................................. 4
3. 1. 3. Microscopic Models: ........................................................................................ 4
3. 2. Damage Models: ...................................................................................................... 5
3. 2. 1. Xue and Widerzbicki: ....................................................................................... 5
3. 2. 2. Mae and Widerzbicki:....................................................................................... 6
3. 2. 3. Bai and widerzbicki: ......................................................................................... 6
3. 2. 4. Johnson-Cook model: ....................................................................................... 8
3. 2. 5. Lode dependent enhanced Lemaitre (LEL) model: .......................................... 8
3. 2. 6. GTN model: ...................................................................................................... 9
4 . Pressure sensitivity and lode parameter dependence: ............................. 9
5 . Experiments and models calibration: ..................................................... 12
5. 1. Tests for negative stress triaxialities: [-1/3, 0] ....................................................... 13
5. 1. 1. Upsetting test: ................................................................................................. 13
5. 1. 2. New compression test: .................................................................................... 13
5. 2. Tests for low positive stress triaxialities : ................................................ 14
5. 2. 1. Pure shear test: ................................................................................................ 14
5. 2. 2. Combined shear and tension loading: ............................................................. 15
5. 2. 1. Tensile test: ..................................................................................................... 15
5. 3. Tests for high stress triaxialities: ........................................................................... 16
5. 3. 1. Smooth and notched round bars tensile tests: ................................................. 16
5. 3. 2. Flat grooves plate tensile tests: ....................................................................... 17
5. 4. Calibration of fracture models: .............................................................................. 17
5. 5. The fracture locus 2D:............................................................................................ 18
 5. 6. The fracture locus 3D:............................................................................................ 20
6 . Numerical simulation and models calibration: ...................................... 20
6. 1. Coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models: ............................................. 21
6. 2. Micromechanics based models: ............................................................................. 21
7 . Application: Fracture prediction in forming process: ........................... 22
8 . Conclusions: ............................................................................................. 22
 List of Figures
Figure 1: The processes of voids: a) void nucleation ; b) void growth and c) void
coalescence[4] ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Ductile damage steps following tensile and shear tests[7] ........................................ 3
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the Bao, Mae and Wierzbicki fracture locus[15] ......... 7
Figure 4 : Conceptual representation of initial stress states on the plane of : a) Equivalent
strain to fracture- stress triaxialities and b) stress triaxialities- lode angle parameter[16]....... 12
Figure 5 :A shematic sketch of upsetting tests: a) test setup ; b) plastic deformation shows the
barrelling effect and c) cracks occur on peripheral surface[19] ............................................... 13
Figure 6: a) Deformed specimens with different rations showing shear fracture and b)
Evolution stress triaxiality-displacement curves[2] ................................................................. 13
Figure 7: a) deformed specimens showing shear fracture and b) Evolution Stress triaxiality-
Displacement curves[2] [8] ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: A butterfly specimen of pure shear test: a) undeformed specimen and b) fractured
specimen[2] .............................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 9: A butterfly specimen of combined shear and tension test: a) undeformed specimen
and b) fractured specimen[8] [2] .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 10:Initial and final deformed specimen[8] ................................................................... 16
Figure 11 : Fractured tensile specimens : a) smooth ; b) R= 12 mm and c) R=4 mm[2] ........ 16
Figure 12: Flat grooves plate[16,14] ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Fracture locus 2D[3] .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 14 : Comparison of the present and Johnson-Cook fracture locus [3]......................... 19
Figure 15 : Fracture locus 3D [16] .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Damage at steady state of second drawing pass for six damage models: a ) Bai &
Wierzbicki ,b) Xue , c)Lemaitre, d )LEL , e) GTN and f ) modified GTN by Xue [12] ......... 22
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

Abstract:
Ductile damage and fracture prediction represent an important challenge in many engineering
applications, especially in forming processes. So, the objective of the present paper is to
present some fracture criteria that are included in libraries of material models, ductile damage
mechanisms dominating at wide range of the stress triaxiality and a detailed calibration
procedure of each models.

1 . Introduction:
Various studies have shown that stress triaxiality is the most important factor that controls
initiation of ductile fracture. In fact, the fracture of ductile metals occurs after micro voids or
shear bands develop in the metal matrix, around inclusions or other discontinuities. In this
study, a series of tests including tensile tests, upsetting tests and shear tests was carried out at
both low and high stress triaxiality to predict the ductile fracture. Recently, many authors such
as Mc Clintock and Rice-Tracey [1], Bao and Wierzbicki[2] have studied the damage
mechanisms, the relation between the equivalent strain fracture versus the stress triaxiality in
the three distinct branches ; For negative triaxiality stress, fracture is governed by shear mode.
For large triaxiality stress, damage is governed by void nucleation, growth and coalescence
mechanisms. And for low triaxiality stress (between the two previous regimes), fracture is
governed by shear and void growth modes relying on combined experimental-numerical and
different approaches namely: uncoupled phenomenological model, coupled phenomenological
model and micromechanics-based models.
Physical mechanisms of the onset damage and fracture must be captured, models have to be
suitable for numerical implementation and models parameters should be convenient for
identification for massive applications are the three simple folds in industrial application to
develop robust damage models.
Our study is organized as follows;
 Section 1:“Ductile damage mechanisms” summarizes the mechanisms of ductile
damage
 Section 2: “Damage models”
 Section 3: “Models calibration”

2 . Ductile damage mechanisms:

Microscopically, Ductile metals damage occurs due to void formation, porosities, inclusions
voids, when the cavity radius would reach a critical value, which is in the range of high stress
triaxialities or shear band formation under negative stress triaxialities. Macroscopically,
ductile damage is represented as the progressive degradation of a material, which exhibits a
decrease in material proprieties (material stiffness, material strength.).
In this context, McClintock and others authors [3] proposed a fracture criterion for studying
the growth and coalescence of pre-existing cylindrical holes, as well as Rice and Tracey [1,3]
studied the evolution of spherical voids to predict fracture damage and to capture all features
of crack formation in different stress triaxialities states.
Based on the recent study, authors have shown that ductile fracture of metals are strongly
dependent on stress triaxiality:

Page | 1
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

2. 1. Mechanisms dominating at positive stress triaxiality:

In the high stress triaxiality regime, damage is associated with voids nucleation, growth
and coalescence in an elastic or elastoplastic matrix (Fig. 1) . In this studies, the
interaction between micro voids and the coalescence process were neglected.

a) b) c)

Figure 1: The processes of voids: a) void nucleation ; b) void growth and c) void coalescence[4]

2. 1. 1. Void nucleation:
The process of void nucleation is strongly dependent on the particle size, shape and strength.
Generally, voids nucleated either by matrix- particle decohesion or by particle cracking. In
this studies, Gurland and Plateau [5] ([2]) proposed an energetic criterion which was
composed by elastic strain energy and crack energy to study and analysis the void nucleation
caused by the cracking particle. Others criterion are based on critical stress, such as, Berg,
Budiansky and others [5] who proposed a phenomenological criterion based on a continuum
plasticity approach. So, the void nucleation process depends on materials microstructure.
2. 1. 2. Void growth:
After void nucleation, the cavity and voids will grow gradually by hydrostatic stress and
plastic deformation. This step of process is dependent on loading conditions and materials
microstructure (cavity size and shape). In fact, Thomason and others [5] have shown, under
high stress triaxiality, that ductile fracture is due to the nucleation and large range of plastic
strain.
2. 1. 3. Void coalescence:
Void coalescence is the final stage of damage and ductile fracture. In this stage, three modes
of damage were observed:

Page | 2
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

 Necking mode (inter-distance between two voids)

 Reduction of the inter-distance between two particles
 Coalescence
For further work, the results were obtained by Pardoen and Al [6], showed that coalescence
phase depends not only on the voids volume fraction but also on the inter-distance between
two voids. When the damage process starts immediately after void nucleation, the materials is
less ductile.
This figure shows the different ductile damage steps following mechanical tests: Tensile tests
and shear tests, indicate the influence of loading conditions:

Figure 2: Ductile damage steps following tensile and shear tests[7]

2. 2. Mechanisms dominating at negative and low stress triaxiality:

Based on recent approaches and researches, Bao and Wierzbicki [8] carried out a series of
upsetting tests to predict the damage process and crack formation. In contrast to low stress
triaxiality regime, damage is due to two mechanisms; (1) the development of voids
nucleation, the interaction between cavity which leads to the development of hydrostatic
stress and (2) the “shear decohesive fracture”, cracks are formed when the maximum shear
stress and strain reaches certain critical values.In addition, the “shear fracture” through the
matrix and dimple fracture due to void nucleation at inclusions and growth were observed in
upsetting tests and tensile tests, respectively. For negative stress triaxiality cases, the ductile
fracture process due to the development of shear growth mode. More recently, authors such as
Johnson and cook [8] carried out a series of compression tests in order to capture the fracture
initiation and to predict the dependence of fracture ductility.

3 . Damage modelling approaches:

The damage models are generally based on three approaches:

Page | 3
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

3. 1. Overview of existing approaches:

3. 1. 1. Phenomenological criteria
In this approach, failure was occurred when the damage variable reaches a critical value. This
criterion is the most useful especially for industrial application thanks to its simplicity. The
macroscopically phenomenological criteria were developed to predict the ductile crack
initiation, are based on pressure and deviatoric stress state dependence. Thus, the equivalent
fracture strain is dependent both on the stress triaxiality and on lode parameter. In this
context, Xue and widerzbicki [9] proposed model with dependence on hydrostatic pressure
and lode angle parameter to describe the phenomenon of fracture and to quantify the damage
associated with material deformation.
So, Macroscopic models are based on the macroscopic field variables such as the stress and
strain tensors…In addition, fracture occurs when the damage indicator D (it is a relationship
between the damage indicator and equivalent fracture strain) reaches a critical value. This
parameter ranges from 0 to 1 (D=0: Virgin material without any damage and D= 1: material
reaches failure stage).
3. 1. 2. Continuum damage mechanics CDM:
Generally, CDM is based on the macroscopic observation of solid materials. This approach
was first initiated by Nahson K., and others authors [7] and is based on:
 A consistent thermodynamic framework, it was developed by Lemaitre model [10]
which allows to define the damage variable D (is used to describe the impact of
damage).
 In this approach, the mechanical damage is limited to void volume fraction, is
proposed by Gurson model [11] (which proposed a coupling between the behaviour
and the damage).
Lemaitre and Gurson models was modified by others authors such as Cao and Al[12] , Xue
and wierzibicki[9]. Cao and Al[12] proposed a lode dependent enhanced Lemaitre model
(LEL) by according for the following modifications:
 The damage variable could be modified to account for the lode parameter
 The damage threshold could be modified to account for the influence of stress
triaxiality
This model was applied to predict the ductile fracture for different range of stress triaxiality at
different mechanical tests and loading configurations.
3. 1. 3. Microscopic Models:
The objective of all this approaches is to find a generic model for the fracture prediction and
the damage evolution. The damage accumulation process is very complex phenomenon. So,
many models are based on the microscopic mechanism of voids:
 Gurson Model: The Gurson model [11] is used the CDM approach to analyse the
ductile fracture process (nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids), Gurson
included two parameters to adjust model prediction. These parameters are dependent
on the triaxiality of stress field or on the material proprieties. In further work, this
model is modified by Gurson- Tvegaard- Needlman GTN [11][7], GTN model was

Page | 4
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

applied to improve the influence of the stress triaxiality on the nucleation process and
the prediction accuracy by accounting for interaction and final coalescence of voids.
 Nonlinear homogenization based approach (this approach is based on
microstructure considerations or micromechanical tests to calibrate models and to
predict fracture ductile.
3. 2. Damage Models:
A number of damage models have been proposed to describe the ductile fracture materials
and to calibrate fracture locus at wide range of the stress triaxiality:
3. 2. 1. Xue and Widerzbicki:[9][13]
Xue and Widerzbicki proposed a fracture model to determine the influence of pressure and
the third deviatoric stress invariant (or the Lode angle parameter) on metal plasticity and
fracture locus. They carried out a series of mechanical tests at different mean stresses and lode
angle, have shown that fracture is postulated to occur when the equivalent plastic strain, the
stress triaxiality and the deviatoric parameter reaches a critical value.
Xue and widerzbicki[13] showed that the fracture strain is always bounded by two lines
corresponding to the axisymmetric stress state and the plane strain state:
- Axisymmetric stress state: (where the superscript ‘‘axi’’ means axisymmetric)[14]

= (1)

- Plane strain state: (superscript ‘‘ps’’ means plane strain)[14]

= (2)

With: et
 :Stress triaxiality,
 deviatoric state variable
 third invariant of the stress deviator
 equivalent stress
 effective plastic strain to fracture
 hydrostatic stress
 are the principal stresses
Wierzbicki and Xue[13], assumed that the drop of material ductility due to the deviatoric
state parameter can be described by a family of elliptic functions[8]:

(3)

In which m is the even integer closest to 1=n where n is the hardening exponent and

Page | 5
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

, the final expression for the function F( becomes[14,8]:

F( = (4)

four parameters need to be determined:

 Two axisymmetric tests: Notched round bars tensile tests ( small and
large notch)
 Pure shear and Transverse plane strain ( Flat dog-bone tests and Flat
goovred tests)
3. 2. 2. Mae and Widerzbicki:[15]
Using a combined experimental-numerical approach, Mae and widerzbicki have shown that
fracture occurs due to two failure mechanisms: At high positive stress triaxiality, the internal
neking of matrix (there exist micro cavity, nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids) and
at negative stress triaxiality, void sheeting due to shear. They indicated that the difference in
the material microstructure leads to various plastic deformation and failure response (they
studied the compression of ductile fracture proprieties of aluminium castings: sand mold vs.
metal mold).
Mae and Widerzbicki applied a total 12 tests, to calibrate and identify the damage
paramaters,including:
 6 tensile tests on notched and unotched round bars
 6 biaxial loading tests on the flat butterfly specimens, they used the butterfly
specimens with many orientation mounted in the Universal Biaxial Testing
Device( UBTD)
Bao, Mae and Widerzbcki suggested that a fracture locus consist of three branches in the
whole range of the stress triaxiality rather than a monotonic curve, were proposed three
different function of equivalent strain to fracture as:
- In the range dominated by compression, Wierzbicki et al. proposed that the fracture
strain can be expressed by a hyperbolic function of the negative stress triaxiality[15]:

(5)

-In the range of high positive stress triaxialities, an exponential function is widely used
to describe the effective plastic strain to fracture[15]:

F( = (6)

- In the intermediate range, a linear relationship between the effective fracture strain and
the stress triaxiality is simply defined[15]:

, (7)

Page | 6
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

With:
 the effective fracture strain under uniaxial tension;
 the effective fracture strains under pure shear;
 For the Bao–Wierzbicki[8] fracture locus, the round bar tensile tests
were used to calibrate the three coefficients of the first branch , (this three
parameters cannot be obtained at the same time, since only one type of tensile tests
was performed); the combined compression and shear tests and the pure shear tests
were applied to determine the value of

Figure 3: Schematic representation of the Bao, Mae and Wierzbicki fracture locus[15]

3. 2. 3. Bai and widerzbicki:[16]

Bai an widerzbichi are used a new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and
lode dependence, they assumed that the hydrostatic stress has no effect or negligible effect on
the material strain hardening, and that both the pressure effect and the effect of lode angle
parameter should be included in the metal plasticity. Based on an extensive experimental
study, Bai and Wierzbicki postulated the asymmetric fracture envelope, not symmetric with
respect to the normalized Lode angle.
Based on the theory of McClintock and Rice and Tracey[1,2] on void growth, the exponential
function for the effect of stress triaxiality on fracture strain is used. Regarding the effect of h
on fracture locus, a parabolic function is proposed. Hence, the following form of the fracture
locus is postulated [14]:

(8)

There are three limiting cases in the fracture locus: (corresponding to axial symmetry in
deviatoric compression, 1), (corresponding to plastic plane strain or generalized
shear, 0), and (corresponding to axial symmetry in deviatoric tension, ).

With:

Page | 7
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

, it was shown by Wiederzbicki and Xue [9] (with stress plane condition
, relates the parameters , will be called the lode angle parameter
hereinafter.
After that, Bai and widerzbicki[15] studied the dependence of the stress triaxialities and the
lode angle parameter, the equivalent strain to fracture will be:

The term gives the limit of the fracture locus, , gives the limit
of the fracture locus, and gives the limit of the fracture locus[14];

, ,

(9)

need to be calibrated.
To determinate those parameters, Bai and widerzbicki[16] used two methods of calibration:

 One is based on classical specimens ( round and flat specimens)

 The other one is based on butterfly specimens
Generally, Bai and wierzbicki 2008 used the average value for the triaxiality stress and the
lode parameter, the main reason for using the average values is because an evolutionary
process controlled by the stress triaxiality and lode parameter leads to fracture initiation (Bai
and wierzbicki 2009). Therefore the average value of stress state was used to:
 Predict fracture under complex loading as well as monotonic loading
3. 2. 4. Johnson-Cook model:
Johnson and cook [8] postulated that the equivalent fracture strain is a monotonic function of
the stress triaxiality. The calibration of parameters was determined from tensile tests, shear
tests and torsion tests, in fact, J-C have shown that the fracture strain increases when the
hydrostatic pressure increases.
The equivalent fracture strain is shown by Johnson cook[8] that is a monotonic function of
stress triaxialities:

(10)

were determined from tensile tests on the smooth or notched round bars.
The is an asymptotic value of the equivalent fracture strain as the stress triaxialities goes to
infinity. So, to directly identify the three parameters a new optimization procedure is
proposed, it is based on an error minimization technique (the MAT-LAB optimization was
used);

Page | 8
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

The objective function is[17]:

, x=[ ] and i=1..4 correspond to the smooth bar and notched bars with
R= 4mm, 2 mm and 0.8 mm respectively and is :

(11)

where the function of fi is numerically integrated using the trapezoidal method. A short
MATLAB code was programmed and gives the optimized set of the fracture constants.
3. 2. 5. Lode dependent enhanced Lemaitre (LEL) model:
This model is used more in shear dominated, complex forming processes, LEL model [10]
improved the influence of the third stress invariant represented by the lode parameter at low
positive stress triaxiality, under shear dominated loading. It is based on phenomenological
approach, might be used to inaccurate damage localisation prediction at high and low stress
triaxialities.
3. 2. 6. GTN model:
According to Gurson, Tvergaard and Needleman[7], the damage ductile occurs due to
nucleation, growth and coalescence of voids inside the material and the interaction between
voids, which were developed progressively leads to the failure.
The GTN damage potential[7] is:

-1 (12)

The inequality Φ ≤ 0 defines all the admissible stress states of the sheet metal. More precisely;
- Φ<0 : in elastic states
- Φ=0: in elastoplastic states

 : the total effective void volume fraction introduced by Tvegarrd and

Needleman to account for the gradual loss of stress carrying capability of the
material due to void colescence.
 : are three calibration coefficients introduced by Tvegarrd and
Needlman ( normally [18,19]
 :the yield stress of the matrix material defined as a function of the equivalent
plastic strain by means of Swift’s hardening low[18]:

: Mechanical properties, obtained from stress strain curve of plain

specimen from tensile test
is the function of the void volume fraction , has been introduced and modified by
Tvegarrd and Needlman[7,18]:

Page | 9
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

(13)

If the material is undamaged

 : the critical void volume fraction at which void coalescence first occurs
 : the void volume fraction at final failure

The change of the void volume fraction is caused by ; the growth of the initial void volume
fraction and the nucleation of new voids at the limits of the second phase particles and
inclusion[7]:

(14)

Where:

(15)

(16)

 : the total evolution rate of void volume fraction is contributed by both the growth of
existing voids and the nucleation of new voids
 : the nucleation rate of void volume fraction
 : denotes the volume fraction of void nucleating particles
 : is the mean plastic strain value at void nucleation
 : is the corresponding standard deviation

For determine all of these parameters; and , an identification

procdure was used. Most of researches used the values proposed by Needleman and Tvegarrd
for and parameters [18] (
and =0.1)
So, only the remaining parameters should be found. For their determination,
the authors used the identification procedure based on the response surface methodology
(RSM)[19].
The response surface methodology (RSM)[19] is based on the comparison material response
in different loading states in numerical simulation with that of experimental measurements;
There are two methods to determine the constants of the damage models; Polynomial
Regression method (PRM) and kriging method (KM)[19] (we based only on PRM)
- Polynomial Regression Method PRM[19]:
The objective function is approximated by a polynomial of second order as below:

Page | 10
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

(y) (17)

n: the number of constants of GTN model

From literature, ( and =0.1)[17], four parameters
remain
So, n=4. The remain of parameters determinate by the smooth and notched bars on tensile
tests, the constants of the damage model were determined in a way that the resultats of the
numerical simulation and the experimental tests for elongation and diameter reduction of the
specimen after fracture. The difference between the experimental and the numerical
prediction defined the objective function[19];

(18)

The polynomial of second order for four variable has 15 coefficients, so 15 equations needed
to be solved to obtain the coefficients and 15 numerical simulations of tensile test using GTN
damage model[19].

And we have: ; ; ; ;

The system of equations can be written in matrices as shown below[19];

4 . Pressure sensitivity and lode parameter dependence:

The model incorporates dependence on the porosity micro-cracks and the nucleation, growth
and coalescence of voids, whose evolution is sensitive to the stress triaxiality and Lode
parameter as a result of the applied loading conditions.
Thus, while no void collapse is observed at low triaxiality for axisymmetric tension L = 1, the
ductility of the material drops sharply with decreasing values of the Lode parameter, and is

Page | 11
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

smallest for biaxial tension with axisymmetric compression L= -1. In addition, the model
predicts a sharp transition from the low-triaxiality regime, with increasing ductility, to the
high-triaxiality regime, with decreasing ductility, as the failure mechanism switches from void
collapse to void growth, and is in qualitative agreement with recent experimental work. (Fig
4)

a) b)
a)

Figure 4 : Conceptual representation of initial stress states on the plane of : a) Equivalent strain to
fracture- stress triaxialities and b) stress triaxialities- lode angle parameter[16]

5 . Experiments and models calibration:

A series of fracture tests using the classical or butterfly specimen was carried out to obtain the
fracture locus in the equivalent fracture strain- stress triaxiality space (locus fracture 2D) or in
the equivalent fracture strain- stress triaxiality- lode parameter space (locus fracture 3D) for a
wide range of stress triaxialities. The objective of models calibration is to determinate the
damage parameter model and to capture the ductile crack formation. In this studies, Rice and
Tracey[1,2] proposed a stress triaxiality function for describing the growth of voids , the
stress triaxiality is defined : where is the equivalent stress (Von Mises stress) and is
the hydrostatic stress. To validate and calibrate the model, four types of tests are required;
 The first test is the smooth round bar tensile test
 The second test is notched round bars tensile test
 The third test is the tensile test of flat grooved plates
 The fourth test is the upsetting test
In addition, authors such as Wilson, Xue and Wiederzbicki [9,20] ... are often used the Three-
point bending test, Compact tension test ... to study both Lode angle dependence and material
weakening effect and to predict fracture modes.
In fact, a series of tests were performed to predict the dependence of fracture ductility in a
wide range of the stress triaxiality[8,15,2]:

Page | 12
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

5. 1. Tests for negative stress triaxialities: [-1/3, 0]

5. 1. 1. Upsetting test:
The loading condition of cylindrical specimens in upsetting test is : and (lode
parameter). For studying fracture, one of used tests is the uniaxial compression of short
cylindrical specimens (upsetting tests). Fig 5.

Figure 5 :A shematic sketch of upsetting tests: a) test setup ; b) plastic deformation shows the
barrelling effect and c) cracks occur on peripheral surface[20]

Bai and wierzbicki [16] carried out a group compressive tests on different specimens, the
diameters of the cylindrical specimens were fixed with ratios of initial diameter to initial
height D/H : 0.5; 0.8; 1 and 1.5. the final deformed specimens are illustrated in Fig 6, agree
with the experimental results.

a) b)

Figure 6: a) Deformed specimens with different rations showing shear fracture and b) Evolution
stress triaxiality-displacement curves[2]

Fig 5. Shows that the fracture initiation was observed in the equatorial area for all tests,
Comparaisons of the stress triaxiality-displacement curves, it is found that, the evolution
stress triaxiality depends on the height of the specimen.
5. 1. 2. New compression test:
The friction coefficient between specimens and the platform of the testing machine is
responsible for the fracture and the barrel effect in conventional upsetting tests, so, for
removing the undesirable effect of friction, a new configuration specimen was designed,
performed to predict the ductile fracture and shown in Fig 7.

Page | 13
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

Fig. 7 (Deformed specimens showing shear fracture) shows that, the deformation fracture is
localized in the gauge section and fracture initiation occurred at the equatorial area, in
addition, friction does not play a role in the test.

a) b)

Figure 7: a) deformed specimens showing shear fracture and b) Evolution Stress triaxiality-
Displacement curves[2] [8]

5. 2. Tests for low positive stress triaxialities :

In this section, to characterize fracture properties, to predict crack formation and to describe
material ductility at low stress triaxiality, a series of tests were conducted including:
 Pure shear test
 Combined shear and tension loading
 Tensile test on plates with circular hole
5. 2. 1. Pure shear test:
To characterize metals proprieties in shear and to determinate damage parameter, many
researchers have introduced various geometries, in a search for the best shear test, a new
configuration was developed using the design of a “butterfly” gauge section. (shown in Fig
7.a) This new type of flat specimens was first developed by Bao et al. [8] and was
successfully used to calibrate fracture properties of A710 steel and 2024-T351 Aluminum
alloy. The advantage of using this new configuration is: the specimen could be mounted in the
UBTD[12] (Universal Biaxial Testing Device). With UBTD, researchers could be able to
change the orientation of specimen with respecting the loading direction at different range of
stress triaxialities, could be able to construct the locus fracture by one type of specimen. In
fact, Bao and Wierzbicki[3] calibrated with butterfly specimens the fracture locus in stress
triaxiality and lode parameter space, the butterfly specimens were tested under five different
loading direction from -10° to 60° (shown in Fig8.a).

Page | 14
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

Deformed specimens, for the pure shear test, is shown in Fig 8.b The fracture is localized in
the gauge section. However, it was observed that crack grows very rapidly during the test due
to combination of shear and void growth modes.

a) b)
Figure 8: A butterfly specimen of pure shear test: a) undeformed specimen and b) fractured
specimen[2]

5. 2. 2. Combined shear and tension loading:

In this test, a butterfly specimen is often used to predict ductile fracture under low stress
triaxiality, Serval authors changed the shape of the gauge section of this specimen used under
pure shear test (shown in Fig9.). More recently, for this test, authors determined first location
of fracture initiation and the displacement to fracture and calculated the evolution of
equivalent strain and stress triaxialily. Fractured specimen is indicated in Fig 9., fracture
occurred in the gauge section due to two mechanisms: void nucleation, growth and
coalescence and shear mode.

a) b)

Figure 9: A butterfly specimen of combined shear and tension test: a) undeformed specimen and b)
fractured specimen[8] [2]

5. 2. 1. Tensile test:
There are also other experimental tests, that are used to calibrate parameter model. In this
study, Y.Bao, T.Wierzbicki[2] are suggested to choose the tensile test carried out on plates or
flat rectangular bars with a circular hole (shown in Fig 10.). In fact, Wierzbicki and others
authors found that fracture, shown in Fig 10. initiated at the middle of circumferential surface
of the cut-out perpendicular to the load.

Page | 15
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

Figure 10:Initial and final deformed specimen[8]

5. 3. Tests for high stress triaxialities:

5. 3. 1. Smooth and notched round bars tensile tests:
In the high stress triaxiality, tensile tests were used to calibrate the stress- strain curve. This
type of tests was carried out on smooth and notched round specimens to obtain the fracture
locus. In this context, H.Mae and Al.[15], Y Bao and T Wierzbicki[2] performed three type of
round bars including one smooth and two notched specimens with R=4 mm and R=12 mm
(Fig 11.). these tests illustrated:
 The fracture is not distinct in all the specimen
 The fracture initiated at centre of specimen and occurred when the equivalent strain
and stress triaxiality reaches critical values.
So, Bao and Wierzbicki [2] indicated this cast aluminium alloy has a low ductility under
tension

a) b) c)

Figure 11 : Fractured tensile specimens : a) smooth ; b) R= 12 mm and c) R=4 mm[2]

Fig 10. Shows that the evolution stress triaxiality and displacement depend on notched radius.
In the cup-cone fracture mode, a crack initiated at the center of specimen due to the void
growth.

Page | 16
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

5. 3. 2. Flat grooves plate tensile tests:

This type of test has a same range of stress tiaxiality with that of Smooth and notched round
bars tensile tests. Generally, these tests used to see the effect of lode parameter and
hydrostatic pressure on metal ductility.

Figure 12: Flat grooves plate[16,14]

5. 4. Calibration of fracture models:

Many fracture models require a different number of tests to calibrate models, to determinate
the parameters, to obtain the fracture locus, to predict crack formation… at wide range of the
stress triaxiality:
Table 1:Calibration of fracture models

Models Parameters Tests

Xue and Wierzbicki[9,13]
Johnson-Cook[8]
Wilkins model[8]
Crash FEM[8]
4 2 parameters: Two axisymmetric tests (Tensile
tests / Round specimen /large and small notch (for
example; R=0.5 and R=2); Lode parameter=1(no
loss of ductility)
2 parameters: pure shear test and Flat grooved
tensile test; Lode parameter=0(maximum loss of
ductility)
3 Tensile tests: Round specimen / smooth, small
and large notch
4 3 parameters: Tensile tests: Round specimen /
smooth, small and large notch
1 parameter: pure shear
3 2 parameters: Tensile tests: Round specimen /
smooth, small notch
1 parameter: Flat grooved tensile test

Cockcroft- Lathan model[8] 1 Upsetting test with d/h=1

Bai and wierzbicki[16] 6 Round and flat specimens on tensile tests
Butterfly specimens combined tests
GTN model[10,11] 9 Smooth and notched round bars on tensile tests
Bao and wierzbicki[2,3] 4 Notched and round bars tensile tests
Flat dog bone tests and flat goovred tests
Mae and wierzbicki[15] 4 12 tests: tensile tests, combined compession and
shear tests, pure shear tests…
In addition, Bao, wierzbicki, Xue[3] [8] and others authors calculated the analytical
expression of the lode parameter and the stress triaxiality in the plane stress (Table 2.) and
determinate the relationship between those factor (Fig 4.):

Page | 17
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

Table 2: Expression for the stress triaxiality and the lode parameter[16]

The value of the stress triaxialities and the lode parameter were calculated from the theoretical
equations proposed by Bai and Al. 2009
5. 5. The fracture locus 2D:
By combining the fracture tests at wide range of stress triaxialities, Bao and wiezbicki
indicated that a fracture locus consisted of three branches, formulated in the space of the
plastic strain to fracture and the stress triaxiality. Bao and Wierzbicki obtained that material
ductility decreases with the increasing stress triaxialities, the evolution of plastic strain to
fracture is not monotonic function.(Fig 13.)

Figure 13: Fracture locus 2D[3]

The results show that the effect of stress triaxiality on ductile fracture initiation and on
fracture strain, in fact, three states were observed:

Page | 18
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

 In the range of negative stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture decreases
with the stress triaxialitiy and shear fracture dominates in the upsetting tests.
 In the range of low stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture increases with the
stress triaxiality and fracture occurs due to a combination of shear and void growth
modes.
 In the range of high stress triaxiality, the equivalent strain to fracture decreases with
the stress triaxiality and fracture occurs due to void growth mode and coalescence
mechanism.
According to Johnson and cook[8]; Halton and Al[8], in the three range of stress triaxility, the
equivalent strain to fracture decreases. Jahnson and cook carried out tensile tests on notched
and smooth specimens in the range of high stress triaxiality, torsion tests in the range of low
and negative stress triaxiality for seven different materials to compare the equivalent strain to
fracture and to determinate the fracture locus.
Compared to Johnson-cook and Bao-Wierzbicki[2] fracture locus, the results obtained shown
in Fig 14. Indicate that:
 In both negative and high stress triaxiality for the both model, the authors observed the
same strain-stress curves, the strain to fracture decreased with the increase of the stress
triaxility.
 In the intermediate stress range, Johnson and Halton obtained, with the same material,
a different fracture locus which shows a monotonic decrease of the strain to fracture
by using the torsion and tensile tests.
More recently, the difference between the two models can be explain by the difference
between the tests which were carried out. To remove this error, authors indicate:
 No stress concentration
 No geometric constraints
 The deformation must be accuracy measured in the three regimes

Figure 14 : Comparison of the present and Johnson-Cook fracture locus [3]

Page | 19
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

5. 6. The fracture locus 3D:

A series of tests including tensile tests, upsetting tests, shear tests…were carried out to show
the dependence of fracture ductility and equivalent strain to fracture on the parameter lode
and the stress triaxiality in a wide range of the two parameters. To calibrate the fracture
locus, two groups of tests were used:
 Fracture locus calibration using the classical specimens:
- The tests on smooth and notched round bars (parameter lode= 1)
- The tests on flat grooved specimens (parameter lode= 0, plane strain)
- Cylinders upsetting (parameter lode =-1)
 Fracture locus calibration using butterfly specimen(UBTD)
- Combined tests on butterfly specimen with double curvatures.
The evolution of stress triaxiality, lode parameter and equivalent strain to fracture
for the butterfly specimen is dependent on the loading direction (for example; For
the loading angle 10° compression, 0° and 10° tension tests…)

Figure 15 : Fracture locus 3D [16]

3D fracture locus was constructed in the space of ( , , ) by using:

 The Mohr-Coulomb criterion[16]

 Swift approach[18]
The Mohr-Coulomb criterion was generally used to determine the material properties,
including metal plasticity and fracture ductility.

6 . Numerical simulation and models calibration:

Generally, numerical simulation is used to verify and validate the proposed fracture model. In
addition, for studying the fracture formation or crack growth, authors indicated that the
coupled phenomenological or micro-mechanisms models are often chosen in order to capture
the crack path. Also, they proposed to use the uncoupled models to predict damage and
fracture in different forming process.

Page | 20
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

6. 1. Coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models:

Table 3: Comparison of coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models

Uncoupled phenomenological models Coupled phenomenological models

-In this criteria, the plastic flow and strain -In this criteria, the influence of damage is
hardening are unaffected by the damage. included in the equations of models
(identification of hardening law parameters and
identification of damage parameters)

-The uncoupled models employ an indicator -The damage is described by the growth rate of
variable to predict material failure when its the cavities.
critical value is reached.
-Serval recent studies demonstrated the importance of the stress triaxiality, the lode parameter and
in damage prediction.

-The identification of uncoupled models is carried out through the experimental fracture strains for
different loading path; Compression and tensile tests, ….

Uncoupled models: Coupled models:

- Cockcroft-Latham[8] - Lemaitre[10]
- Wilkins[8] - Gurson[11,7]
- Johnson-Cook[8] - Lemaitre and enhanced
- and Xue-Wierzbicki[9,13] Lemaitre[10]

In this studies, Authors compared the Lemaitre coupled damage model and uncoupled model
proposed by wierzbicki (2008 or 2010) [13]. To identify the damage model parameters, an
experimental- numerical analysis was carried out, based on the compression, torsion and
tensile tests on smooth round bars specimens. In fact, the results show: The both of models
give a good result to identify the damage parameters, but, the Lemaitre model gives in tensile
and compression tests the most accurate results in the range of high stress triaxiality but it
fails to predict fracture in torsion test, in addition, for the uncoupled models proposed by Bao
and wierzbicki[2, 3], the compression test is not suitable for the identification parameters.
6. 2. Micromechanics based models:
In addition to coupled and uncoupled phenomenological models, micromechanics based
models are used to predict ductile fracture and to obtain realistic parameter. Due to its
complexity, this type of models is not employed in the simulation of industrial forming
processes.
Gurson model[7,11]:
This approach is generally used in fracture prediction at low stress triaxiality, in forming
processes and shear dominated loadings. In this micromechanics based model, a variable
damage, is introduced to describe the material degradation due to the presence of void.
GTN model: (Gurson- Tvegaard –Needlman)[7,11]
Tvegaard and Needlman are modified the Gurson model, they indicated that fracture occurs
due to growth and coelesence of voids.

Page | 21
Bibliography Studies Nouira Meriem

7 . Application: Fracture prediction in forming process:

In this studies, Cao and Al[12] compared different fracture models ; Bai and wierzbicki[16],
Xue and wierzbicki[9], Lemaitre[10], LEL[10,21], GTN[11] and GTN modified by Xue[12]
in the three approaches; coupled phenomenological models, uncoupled phenomenological
models and micromechanics based models to predict the ductile fracture, to determinate the
instant of fracture. Fig 16. shows the results observed by Cao and Al:

Figure 16: Damage at steady state of second drawing pass for six damage models: a ) Bai &
Wierzbicki ,b) Xue , c)Lemaitre, d )LEL , e) GTN and f ) modified GTN by Xue [12]

 Except to GTN model modified by Xue, the others five models give a correct result,
the damage localisation was observed at the wire center, the phenomenological models
used in wire drawing and wire flat rolling processes by Lemaitre, Bai and wierzbicki,
Xue and wierzbicki and LEL provided a good prediction of maximum damage
location and failed to predict the instant of fracture. On the other hand, the GTN model
provided the correct instant of fracture, but, gave not a truth prediction of maximum
damage location. It was due to the fact that the original GTN model does not account
for the “shear” influence.

8 . Conclusions:
A coupled with the numerical simulations and experiments have shown that the fracture
ductility was strongly dependant on the stress triaxiality, the third deviatoric stress invariant
(lode angle parameter) and the equivalent strain to fracture. It was observed; in the range of
negative stress triaxialities, the shear fracture dominates in the upsetting tests, in the range of
high stress triaxialities, the fracture occurs due to the growth of voids in the tensile tests on
smooth and notched round specimens and a combination of shear mode and void growth
mechanism were observed in the range of low stress triaxialities. In addition, the fracture
models used three approaches to predict crack initiation and propagation; Uncoupled
phenomenological models (separate plastic response and ductile damage and failure), Coupled
phenomenological models (dependence plastic response on damage evolution) and CDM
models (damage in continuum mechanics).

Page | 22
References

References
[1] McClintock, F. A., 1968, ‘‘A Criterion of Ductile Fracture By the Growth of Holes,’’
ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35, pp. 363–371.
[2] Bao, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2004. On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress
triaxiality space. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 46 (1), 81–98
[3] Bao, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2004. A comparative study on various ductile crack formation
criteria. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 126 (3), 314–324
[4] Benoit Tanguy1, Jacques Besson, Endommagement Ductile Des Aciers :Identification Des
Modeles A Partir De L’experimentation, Service d’Etudes des Matériaux Irradiés,CEASaclay,
Centre des Matériaux, Mines ParisTech, UMR CNRS7633, Journée MECAMAT « Rupture
Ductile »,2012
[5] M. Zhou* And R. J. Cliftont, Dynamic Ductile Rupture Under Conditions Of Plane Strain,
Int. J. Impact Engng Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 189 206, 1997
[6] T. Pardoen, F. Scheyvaerts, A. Simar, K.L. Nielsen, V. Tvergaard, Void growth and
coalescence in ductile solids with physics based hardening laws, CANMET-Materials, May
10-11, 2011 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
[7] Mohamed ACHOURI, Caractérisation expérimentale et contribution à la modélisation
numérique de l'endommagement en cisaillement des aciers HLE. Applications au procédé de
poinçonnage, le 06 décembre 2012, l’École Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers
[8] Wierzbicki, T., Bao, Y., Lee, Y.-W., Bai, Y., 2005. Calibration and evaluation of seven
fracture models. International Journal ofMechanical Sciences 47 (4–5), 719–743
[9] Liang Xue , Tomasz Wierzbicki, Ductile fracture initiation and propagation modeling
using damage plasticity theory, 2007, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (2008) 3276–3293
[10] Junhe Lian*, Yuan Feng, Sebastian Münstermann, A modified Lemaitre damage model
phenomenologically accounting for the Lode angle effect on ductile fracture,2014, Procedia
Materials Science 3 ( 2014 ) 1841 – 1847
[11] Ridha Hambli, Comparison between Lemaitre and Gurson damage models in crack
growth simulation during blanking process, September 2000; International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences
[12] Trong Son Cao, Models for ductile damage and fracture prediction in cold bulk metal
forming processes: a review, 13 August 2015, Int J Mater Form DOI 10.1007/s12289-015-
1262-7
[13] Liang Xue *, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Numerical simulation of fracture mode transition in
ductile plates, 2008, International Journal of Solids and Structures 46 (2009) 1423–1435
[14] Matthew Weyer, An Experimental and Theoretical Study on the Effect of Strain Rate on
Ductile Damage, University of Cape Town, Blast Impact and Survivability Research Unit
Department of Mechanical Engineering, May 2016
References

[15] Mae, H., Teng, X., Bai, Y., Wierzbicki, T., 2007. Calibration of ductile fracture
properties of a cast aluminum alloy. Materials Science and Engineering A 459 (1–2), 156–166
[16] Yuanli Bai *, Tomasz Wierzbicki, A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with
pressure and Lode dependence, 2007, International Journal of Plasticity 24 (2008) 1071–1096
[17] Keyan Wang, B. Eng, Calibration Of The Johnson-Cook Failure Parameters As The Chip
Separation Criterion In The Modelling Of The Orthogonal Metal Cutting Process, McMaster
University, March 2016
[18] Abdolvahed KAMI, Bijan Mollaei Dariani, Application Of A Gtn Damage Model To
Predict The Fracture Of Metallic Sheets Subjected To Deep-Drawing, The Publishing House
Proceedings Of The Romanian Academy, Series A, Of The Romanian Academy, Volume 15,
Number 3/2014, Pp. 300–309
[19] Foad Rahimidehgolan, Gholamhossien Majzoobi, Determination of the Constants of
GTN Damage Model Using Experiment, Polynomial Regression and Kriging Methods,
Applied Sciences, MDPI, 2017
[20] Xue Liang, Ductile fracture modeling: theory, experimental investigation and numerical
verification, January 2009, Massachusetts Institue of technology
[21] T.-S. Cao , J.-M. Gachet, P. Montmitonnet, P.-O. Bouchard, A Lode-dependent enhanced
Lemaitre model for ductile fracture prediction at low stress triaxiality, 2014, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics