2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A ductile damage criterion at various stress triaxialities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
104
0
9

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 277 publications
(113 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
104
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, it has a rather simple geometry that is easy to fabricate. Contrary to a number of shear sample geometries in the literature [17,18,20,21,26], it does not have a reduced thickness in the shear zone which avoids complications such as machining-induced surface defects and residual stresses that can initiate fracture.…”
Section: Quasi-static Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, it has a rather simple geometry that is easy to fabricate. Contrary to a number of shear sample geometries in the literature [17,18,20,21,26], it does not have a reduced thickness in the shear zone which avoids complications such as machining-induced surface defects and residual stresses that can initiate fracture.…”
Section: Quasi-static Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, a number of experimental studies have involved designing complex test geometries with the aid of finite element simulations where a tensile load is converted to a shear stress in the gauge area of the samples [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. The principal advantage of these geometries is that the shear tests can be readily performed using conventional tensile test frames.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The different damage and failure mechanisms are influenced by the stress state [3,4] which can be characterized by the stress intensity σ eq , the stress triaxiality η and the Lode parameter ω. To get more insight in these complex connections experiments with carefully designed specimens have been performed [1,2]. However, it is very difficult or nearly impossible to identify the damage and failure mechanisms on the microscale only by experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The damage variable is an internal variable related to the effective density of cracks or cavities at each point (for the isotropic case) or at each point and in each direction (anisotropic case), that is, to the microstructure. As for the GTN approach, while the CDM was initially developed considering a scalar damage variable, it has been extended to a tensor representation describing a damage-induced anisotropy (Voyiadjis et al, 2008;Desmorat and Otin, 2008;Brünig et al, 2008;Abu Al-Rub and Voyiadjis, 2003;Badreddine et al, 2010;Brodland et al, 2006;Dunand et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%