A Comparison of recent Damage and Failure Models

for Steel Materials in Crashworthiness Application in

LS-DYNA

Dr. André Haufe

Dynamore GmbH

Frieder Neukamm, Dr. Markus Feucht

Daimler AG

Paul DuBois
Consultant

Dr. Thomas Borvall

ERAB

1
Technological challenges in the automotive industry
Weight Composites
Safety requirements High strength steel
New materials
Light alloys
Polymers

New power train

technology

Cost effectiveness

Design to the point

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

2
Technological challenges in the automotive industry
Weight Composites
Safety requirements High strength steel
New materials
Light alloys
Polymers
Damage
E New power train
technology

σ σ

ε m ax Cost effectiveness

Anisotropy Design to the point

c
b
a

Fracture growth
Failure Debonding
η
E Plasticity
E (ε e )

σ σ σ σ
fail = true
σy

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

3
Motivation
Lightweight steel/aluminium design!
Can we predict failure modes (brittle, ductile, time delayed)?

22MnB5

CP800
TWIP

TRIP800

ZE340

Aural

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

4
Motivation
Material behavior dependent on local history of loading

Micro-alloyed steel Hot-formed steel

800 1800

700 1600

1400
600
1200
500
1000

stress
stress

400
800
300
600
200
400
100
200
0 0
0.00 0.10 strain 0.30
0.20 0.40 0.50 0,00 0,05strain 0,10 0,15

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

5
Material models along the process chain

Forming Simulation

Correct description of yield locus

Anisotropic yield locus:
Typical models: Barlat89, Barlat2000, Hill48, Yoshida, …

Plastic Strain
Transfer of Variables
Thickness
Damage

Crash Simulation

Energy absorption

Prediction of structural folding patterns

Strain rate dependent models (including damage)
Typical models: von Mises, Gurson, Gurson-JC, …

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

6
 Von Mises with damage

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

7
Von Mises plasticity with damage in LS-DYNA (MAT_81/82)
Enhancement of *MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY(#024) with damage.
Instead of abrupt failure (#024) continuous softening by damage formulation (#081/082)
Elasto - Visco - Plasticity with isotropic Hardening and Damage:
No regularisation & damage/failure independent of state of stress!!

Ad
D= with 0.0 ≤ D ≤ 1.0 ε p − EPPF
A0 p
D = D(ε ) = σ = (1 − D ) Cep : ε
EPPFR − EPPF
D = scalar (isotropic failure)

MAT_024: only abrupt failure MAT_081:damage, linear or nonlinear softening

nonlinear
softening
linear softening

FAIL EPPF EPPFR

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

8
 The Gurson model

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

9
The Gurson-model in LS-DYNA

The yield function is given as
σ e2  q trσ  2
Φ(σ,σ M , f ) = 2 + 2q1f * cosh  2  − 1 − ( q1f ) = 0
*

σM  2σ M 

The effective void volume fraction is defined
according to
 f f ≤ fc

f * (f ) =  1/ q1 − fc
f
c + (f − fc ) f > fc
 fF − f c

For the matrix material associative von Mises

plasticity is assumed for the undamaged state. Undamaged Gurson yield surface

Yield is NOT isochoric though!

q1 and q2 are free parameters of the model to fit
the yield surface to experimental data. σe = equivalent von Mises stress

fc is the critical void volume fraction above which σM = yield stress (matrix)
the voids start to combine and grow.
σ = stress tensor
1 fc = critical void volume fraction

Failure is being initiated at f * (fF ) =
q1

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

10
The Gurson-model in LS-DYNA
The growth of the void volume is f
= f
N + f
G
and can be considered as damage.

Nucleation of new voids intension: f
N = Aε
Mpl

fN  1  ε pl − ε 2 
where A = exp  −  M N
 
sN 2π  2  sN  
 
A
εN = mean nucleation strain

ε Mpl = eff. pl. strain (matrix) Damaged Gurson yield surface

(needs in hydrostatic loading)
εN ε Mpl sN = std. deviation

sN σ

Growth of existing voids: f
G = (1 − f )ε
kkpl

Vvoids
where f = ε
Vvoids + Vmatix Typical Gurson stress-strain curve

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

11
Gurson enhanced by JC-failure model

Void growth in the standard Gurson model is triggered by volumetric straining (see also
VGTYP for differences between tension and compression for nucleation of new voids).

Hence for pure shear loading softening and subsequent failure is not taking place. The
Johnson-Cook enhancement adds a failure criterion that is invoked between two defined
triaxiality values and triggers sudden failure via element erosion.
σ ii

The definition of triaxiality play a major role: λtri =
3 σ vM

Definition of failure strain ε f = D1 + D2 exp ( D3 λtri )  (1+ D4 ln ε
) Λ

where L1 < λtri < L2 with L1 and L2 being user defined lower and upper triaxiality bounds

and D1 – D4 are user defined Johnson-Cook failure parameters.

Λ is the user defined curve LCDAM that defines a
scalar value vs. element length and hence acts σ
a regularisation means.

Failure (i. e. element erosion) is initiated iff:

∆ε p < 1 no failure
Df = ∑  ε
ε f ≥ 1 failure (element erosion) Typical GJC stress-strain curve

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

12
The Gurson_JC-model
Interaction between submodels by definition of L1 and L2

Remember: L1 and L2 are triaxiality values.

Triaxilality is defined as
σ ii
λtri =
3 σ vM
Hence positive values define tension,
negative define compression. Gurson Gurson & JC Gurson

The following holds for the JC-corridor:

λtri < L2 Only Gurson is active

L2 ≤ λtri ≤ L1 Gurson and JC-criteria is active

L1 < λtri Only Gurson is active

λtri
L2 L1

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

13
 Produceability to Serviceability

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

14
Closing the process chain

Forming simulation Crash simulation

Hill based models
v. Mises or Gurson model

Anisotropiy of yield surface
Strain rate dependency

Kinematic/Isotropic hardening
Isotropic hardening

Failure by FLD
Damage evolution

(post-processing)
???
Failure models

No computation of damage (damage variable necessary!!)

σII σII

σ II
σI
σI
σIII

σIII σIII σI

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

15
Different ways to realize a consistent modeling

One Material Model for Forming Modular Concept for the

and Crash Simulation Description of Plasticity and

Requirements for Forming Failure
Simulations: Anisotropy, Exact
Plasticity and Failure Model are
Description of Yield Locus, treated separately
Kinematic Hardening, etc.
Existing Material Models are kept

Requirements for Crash unaltered
Simulation: Dynamic Material
Consistent modeling through the
Behavior, Failure Prediction, use of one damage model for
Energy Absorption, Robust forming and crash simulation
Formulation

Leads to very complex model
*MAT_ADD….(damage)

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

16
Produceability to Serviceability

Anisotropy
Damage

Yield locus
Dynamic effects

Forming simulation Mapping Crash simulation

Fortran-Program
σ , ε pl , t
Barlat σ 0 , ε pl,0 , t0 , f0 Gurson
σ , ε pl
f

Gurson
background

Incompatible Models:
Isochoric plastic behavior

Schmeing, Haufe & Feucht [2007]

Neukamm, Feucht & Haufe [2007]

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

17
Produceability to Serviceability: Modular Concept

Forming simulation Mapping Crash simulation

ε pl , t ε pl,0 , t0
Material model Material model
D D
σ , ε pl σ , ε pl
D D
Damage model Damage model

Modular Concept:
•Proven material models for both disciplines are retained
•Use of one continuous damage model for both

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

18
Produceability to Serviceability: Modular Concept
Current status in 971R5

Forming simulation Mapping Crash simulation

Fortran-Program
σ , ε pl , t σ 0 , ε pl,0 , t0
Barlat Mises
σ , ε pl
σ , ε pl
D D
GISSMO GISSMO

Ebelsheiser, Feucht & Neukamm [2008]

Neukamm, Feucht, DuBois & Haufe [2008-2010]

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

19
GISSMO – a short description
Effective stress concept (similiar to MAT_81/224 etc.)

J. Lemaitre, A Continuous Damage

Mechanics Model for Ductile Fracture

Measure of
Damage
Overall Section Area Reduced (“effective“)
containing micro-defects Section Area
S − Sˆ
D=
S Sˆ < S S

Reduction of effective cross-section leads to

reduction of tangential stiffness
σ * = σ (1 − D )
 Phenomenological description

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

20
GISSMO - a short description
Ductile damage and failure

Damage Evolution Failure Curve

Mises
Gurson
GISSMO
Crash
Forming
Damage overestimated
for linear damage
accumulation
triaxiality
Neukamm, Feucht, DuBois & Haufe [2008-2010]

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

21
 2
ψ
t
GISSMO – a short description 1
n
Engineering approach for instability failure

Evolution of Instability Material Instability

n (1− 1 n )
∆F = F ∆ε v
ε v ,loc

Mises

Tensile test specimen

Flachzugprobe DIN ENDIN EN 12001
12001 Gurson
0,50
0,45 Crash
0,40
0,35 Forming
0,30
0,25
0,20
Material Instability
0,15 Simulation
0,10 Versuch
0,05
0,00
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30
triaxiality
Neukamm, Feucht, DuBois & Haufe [2008-2010]

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

22
REMARK: Failure criterion for plane stress and 3D solids

Shells (2D) Solids (3D)

Bruchdehnung

Bruchdehnung
1
0.5 1
-1 0
-0.5 0.5
0 0.5 -0.5 -1
1 -1 Lode -0.5
0
Triaxialität Parameter 0 0.5 -0.5
1 -1 Lode
Triaxialität Parameter

For shells (2D with the assumption of plane stress ) triaxility

and Lode angle depend on each other.
Bruchdehnung

 fracture strain is a function of the triaxiality

For Solids (3D) both the Lode angle and triaxiality are
1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 independent
Triaxialität
 fracture strain is a function of triaxiality and Lode angle

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

23
GISSMO – a short description
Inherent mesh-size dependency of results in the post-critical region
Simulations of tensile test specimen with different mesh sizes

element size

0,4
Regularization of
mesh-size dependency
Influence of damage in
Engineering Stress

postcritical region

0,2 Experiment
0,5mm
1mm
2,5mm

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5

Engineering Strain

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

24
GISSMO – a short description
Generalized Incremental Stress State dependent damage MOdel

DMGTYP: Flag for coupling (Lemaitre) DCRIT, FADEXP: Post-critical behavior

  D − DCRIT 
FADEXP

σ = σ (1 − D )
*
σ = σ 1 − 
*
 
  1 − DCRIT  
 

True Stress
True Stress

m=2
m=5
m=8
GISSMO dmgtyp2

MAT_024

0 0
0
0
True Strain True Strain

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

25
GISSMO
Identification of damage parameters: Range of experiments and simulations

To be considered:
8 Specimen geometries
5 Discretisations

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

26
GISSMO
Equivalent plastic strain vs. triaxiality

εf 2,0

1,8
Element size 1mm
1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
-0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

triaxiality

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

27
GISSMO vs. Gurson vs. 24/81
Versuch
Comparison of experiments and simulations GISSMO
Gurson
constant (v. Mises)

Mini-Flachzugproben ungekerbt
Small tensile test specimen NotchedMini-Flachzugproben
tensile specimen,Kerbradius 1mm
notch radius 1mm Scherzugproben Kerbradius 1mm, 15°
Shear test, inclined 15°
0,60 0,6 0,50
0,50 0,5 0,40
0,40 0,4
0,30
0,30 0,3
0,20
0,20 0,2
0,10 0,1 0,10

0,00 0,0 0,00

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 -0,10 0,10 0,30 0,50 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20

Tensile specimenDIN
Flachzugproben DIN
ENEN 12001
10002 Shear test, straight
Scherzugproben Kerbradius 1mm, 0° Arcan
12
0,60 0,60

0,50 0,50 10

0,40 0,40 8

0,30 0,30 6

0,20 0,20 4

0,10 0,10 2

0,00 0,00 0
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

28
Gurson vs. GISSMO – “regularized”
Regularization of element size dependency

Gurson GISSMO

Resultant Failure Strain constant
Failure Strain constant

Failure energy depending on el. size
Fracture energy constant

Identification of damage parameters
Identification of Damage Parameters
is difficult is more straight-forward

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

29
Example: tension rod

GISSMO input

instability

damage

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

30
Example: Arcan shear test

damage

triaxiality

damage instability

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

31
GISSMO
Deep-draw simulation of cross-die using GISSMO

Constant failure criterion
GISSMO-Criterion
GISSMO-Criterion

Linear damage accumulation
Linear accumulation
Nonlinear damage

Failure not predicted correctly of damage accumulation

Possibly overestimated
Rupture predicted correctly
damage

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

32
Process chain with GISSMO
Forming simulation:
*MAT_36 (Barlat ´89)
*MAT_ADD_EROSION
(GISSMO)

Plast. strains Thickness distribution Damage

Mapping

Crash Simulation:
*MAT_24 (Mises)
*MAT_ADD_EROSION
(GISSMO)

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

33
Summary

Features of GISSMO:

The use of existing material models and respective parameters

The constitutive model and damage formulation are treated separately

Allows for the calculation of pre-damage for forming and crashworthiness
simulations

Characterization of materials requires a variety of tests

Automatic method for identification of parameters is to be developed

Offers features for a comprehensive treatment of damage
in forming simulations

Available in LS-DYNA V9.71 R5

Verification und validation of concept are under way

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

34
 Threepart failure concept

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

35
Damage and failure concept
New implementation of a threepart failure model

By using the basic software architecture available since the implementation of GISSMO
another client driven threepart failure and damage model has been implemented.

The model will be available in *MAT_ADD_EROSION starting with LS-DYNA V971 R5.

The concept allows (theoretically) the combination with any available constitutive model in
LS-DYNA. Hence the same idea for closing the gap between forming and crash simulations
apply.

The individual criteria deliver strain rate dependent failure accumulation that is being input
in tabulated from.

Using the accumulated data in subsequent simulations (multi-stage) simulations, the well
established method of using the DYNAIN-files is chosen. Hence
*INCLUDE_STAMPED_PART will be able to handle the new option.

Basis material model: e.g. MAT_24

σII σ II

Yield stress
ε

σI σIII σI
Plastic strain
σIII

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

36
Damage and failure concept

Three individual criteria may predict failure in thin sheet metal.

Post-critical behavior is defined by allowance of an additional
displacement in each element.

The element is deleted if a defined number of integrations
points is flagged as „failed“.

Ductile failure Shear failure Instability criteria

For the ductile initiation option a function For the shear initiation option a function
For the MSFLD initiation option a function
p p
ε = ε (η , ε
) p ε Dp = ε Dp (θ , ε
p ) ε Dp = ε Dp (α , ε
p )
D D
represents the plastic strain at onset of
represents the plastic strain at onset of damage (P1). This is a function of a shear represents the plastic strain at onset of
damage (P1). This is a function of stress function defined as damage. This is a function of the ratio of
stress triaxiality defined as principal plastic strain rates defined as
θ = (q + k S p) / τ p p
α = ε
minor / ε
major
η = −p / q with p being the pressure, q the von
Mises equivalent stress and τ the The MSFLD criterion is only relevant
with p being the pressure and q the
maximum shear stress defined as a for shells and the principal strains
von Mises equivalent stress.
function of the principal stress values should be interpreted as the in-plane
Optionally this can be defined as a
table with the second dependency τ = (σ major − σ minor ) / 2 principal strains. The damage initiation
history variable evolves according to:
being on the effective plastic strain Introduced here is also the pressure
p
rate ε
. influence parameter kS (P2).
εp
ω D = max t ≤T
Optionally this can be defined as a ε Dp
The damage initiation history table with the second dependency
variable evolves according to being on the effective plastic strain
p
εp
dε p rate ε
. The damage initiation
ωD = ∫ ε Dp
history variable evolves according to
εp
0 dε p
ωD = ∫
0
ε Dp

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

37
Failure mechanism in sheet metal deformation
Ductile failure criteria Shear failure criteria Instability failure criteria

ε DD ε SD ε ID

η θ α = ε2 ε
1
σ σ σ

ε fail ε rupt ε ε fail ε rupt ε ε fail ε rupt ε

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

38
 Thank you for your attention!

Dynamore GmbH
Industriestraße 2
70565 Stuttgart
Germany
http://www.dynamore.de

11th LS-DYNA Users Conference June 2010

39