Show simple item record

contributor authorYingbin Bao
contributor authorTomasz Wierzbicki
date accessioned2017-05-09T00:13:08Z
date available2017-05-09T00:13:08Z
date copyrightJuly, 2004
date issued2004
identifier issn0094-4289
identifier otherJEMTA8-27060#314_1.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/130119
description abstractVarious fracture criteria, based on different assumptions and different mechanical models, have been proposed in the past to predict ductile fracture. The objective of this study is to assess their effectiveness and accuracy in a wide range of process parameters. A series of tests on 2024-T351 aluminum alloy, including upsetting tests and tensile tests is carried out. It is found that none of the existing fracture criteria give consistent results. Two totally different fracture mechanisms are clearly observed from microfractographs of upsetting and tensile specimens. This observation confirms that it is impossible to capture all features of ductile crack formation in different stress states with a single criterion. It is shown that different functions are necessary to predict crack formation for different ranges of stress triaxiality. Weighting functions in a wide range of stress states can be obtained by determining the fracture locus in the space of equivalent strain to fracture and stress triaxiality.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleA Comparative Study on Various Ductile Crack Formation Criteria
typeJournal Paper
journal volume126
journal issue3
journal titleJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology
identifier doi10.1115/1.1755244
journal fristpage314
journal lastpage324
identifier eissn1528-8889
keywordsStress
keywordsFracture (Process)
keywordsDuctile fracture
keywordsComputer simulation AND Mechanisms
treeJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology:;2004:;volume( 126 ):;issue: 003
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record