Gurson Model
Gurson Model
net/publication/236677061
CITATIONS READS
3 994
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Solat Norozi on 15 May 2014.
ISME2013-1970
1
prediction coupled with a numerically robust
implementation.
900
800
700
Engineering Stress (Mpa)
600
500 - Experiment800 DP
Figure 4: The projection of a 3-D plane stress fracture locus 400
into the plane of the equivalent strain to fracture and the stress Gurson-Element size=1.5mm
300
triaxiality.
200 Gurson-Element size=0.5mm
One opportunity to regard this behavior is GISSMO
100
failure criteria presented by Neukamm et al. [8] and
0
Nahshon and Hutchinson [9] proposed an extension for 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
micromechanical Gurson model, which accumulates Engineering Strain
damage in state of shear stress in dependence of Lode figure 5: Engineering stress-strain curve
parameter.
In this study, the combination of two failure
criterion, Gurson and Johnson-cook damage model is
used in plane stress condition.
Material Characterization
The Docol DP800, a dual phase steel supplied by
Swedish Steel Ltd. (SSAB) with chemical composition
(in wt % - C: 0.12, Si: 0.20, Mn: 1.50, P: 0.015, S:
0.002, Nb: 0.015, Fe: bal.) with the sheet thickness of
1.5 mm was studied. V. Tarigopula and et al. have been
reported two different types of test results [10].
figure 6: Tensile test simulation- Gurson Model
Numerical Simulation
For prediction of damage modeling in dual-phase steel
Johnson-Cook model is an accumulated failure model in
and determining of Gurson model parameters tensile
which that failure strain is more depended to stress
test is simulated by FEM explicit software. In "Figure
triaxiality than the others parameters so it is more
4" the geometry of specimen are presented.
important to determine the three parameters D 1, D2 and
D3. For determining D4 one can use the strain rate-
figure 8: failure strain-triaxiality relation in Johnson-Cook Shear test simulation by using of Johnson-Cook
failure model
model are compared with test results founded in the
literatures [10]. It can be seen from "Figure 10" that
In "Table 2" the all parameter of Johnson-cook failure
there is a good agreement between them.
model are given.
References
[1] Gurson, A. L., “Continuum Theory of Ductile
Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth: Part I—
Yield Criteria and Flow Rules for Porous Ductile
Materials,” Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, vol. 99, pp. 2–15, 1977
[2] El-Magd, E, Gese, H, Tham, R, Hooputra, H and
Werner, H. ‘Fracture Criteria for Automobile
Crashworthiness Simulation of wrought Aluminum
Figure 13: Different positions for impactor Alloy Components’, Mat.-wiss u Werkstofftech,
2001 32 712–724.
Fracture occurs, sometimes, in roof rail of auto-body [3] Schmitt, W, Sun, D Z, Blauel, J G and Christlein, J.
and in the middle of pillar as illustrated in "Figure 14". ‘Improved Description of the Material Behaviour of
This means that in crashworthiness studying whenever Aluminum Automobile Components by the Gurson
the damage occurs, the energy absorption capacity is Model’, Proceeding of the 31st International
lost in the auto-body, but if a numerical simulation Symposium on Automotive Technology and
studying does not include the damage modeling, Automation, Düsseldorf, 1998.
perhaps we will have the wrong results and over [4] G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook. Fracture
estimations. characteristics of three metals subjected to various