A comparison of Gurson and Cocks–Ashby porosity kinetics and degradation functions

Effects of porosity play a key role in ductile fracture and many modern metals are less than fully dense with a finite porosity created either unintentionally (as in additively manufactured or powder processed materials) or intentionally (as in metallic meta-materials and foams). This study compares...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of fracture 2021-06, Vol.229 (2), p.253-268
Main Authors: Moore, John A., Frasca, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Automotive Engineering
Axial stress
Brief Note
Calibration
Characterization and Evaluation of Materials
Chemistry and Materials Science
Civil Engineering
Classical Mechanics
Degradation
Ductile fracture
Evolution
Foamed metals
Kinetics
Materials Science
Mechanical Engineering
Metamaterials
Model accuracy
Porosity
Simulation
Strain rate sensitivity
Unit cell
Yield strength
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Effects of porosity play a key role in ductile fracture and many modern metals are less than fully dense with a finite porosity created either unintentionally (as in additively manufactured or powder processed materials) or intentionally (as in metallic meta-materials and foams). This study compares the Gurson and Cocks–Ashby models’ predictions of porosity evolution (kinetics) and material degradation against unit cell simulations of a strain-rate dependent material under varying triaxiality. Previous comparisons do not address varying triaxiality and direct comparisons between the Gurson and Cocks–Ashby models are limited. This study also uses triaxiality, flow stress, strain rate, and strain-rate sensitivity from unit cell simulations as inputs to each model to give an accurate depiction of the models’ performance under complex evolving loading and material states. A fitting procedure for porosity evolution is also shown. This study shows the overall predictive power of the Gurson model over the Cocks–Ashby model. It also highlights the accuracy of the Cocks–Ashby porosity evolution model and Cocks–Ashby degradation function when each model is calibrated independently.
ISSN:0376-9429
1573-2673
DOI:10.1007/s10704-021-00539-6