Research Papers

Nonlocal Modeling and Simulation of Ductile Damage and Failure in Metal Matrix Composites

[+] Author and Article Information
Frederick Reusch

 Beck-Arndt Engineering Pty Ltd., Australia ACN 113 083 060

Christian Hortig, Bob Svendsen

Chair of Mechanics, Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund, D-44227 Germany

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 130(2), 021009 (Mar 12, 2008) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2840967 History: Received August 14, 2007; Revised January 06, 2008; Published March 12, 2008

The purpose of the current work is the application of a recent nonlocal extension (Reusch, F., Svendsen, B., and Klingbeil, D., 2003, “Local and Non-Local Gurson-Based Ductile Damage and Failure Modelling at Large Deformation  ,” Eur. J. Mech. A∕Solids, 22, pp. 779–792; “A Non-Local Extension of Gurson-Based Ductile Damage Modeling  ,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 26, pp. 219–229) of the Gurson–Needleman–Tvergaard (GTN) model (Needleman, A., and Tvergaard, V., 1984, “An Analysis of Ductile Rupture in Notched Bars  ,” J. Mech Phys. Solids, 32, pp. 461–490) to the simulation of ductile damage and failure processes in metal matrix composites at the microstructural level. The extended model is based on the treatment of void coalescence as a nonlocal process. In particular, we compare the predictions of the local with GTN model with those of the nonlocal extension for ductile crack initiation in ideal and real Al–SiC metal matrix microstructures. As shown by the current results for metal matrix composites and as expected, the simulation results based on the local GTN model for both the structural response and predicted crack path at the microstructural level in metal matrix composites are strongly mesh-dependent. On the other hand, those based on the current nonlocal void-coalescence modeling approach are mesh-independent. This correlates with the fact that, in contrast to the local approach, the predictions of the nonlocal approach for the crack propagation path in the real Al–SiC metal matrix composite microstructure considered here agree well with the experimentally determined path.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Shape of the initial sharp crack front imposed by fatigue cracking for the CT specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Simulation of crack growth in an Al–SiC MMC using the local GTN ductile damage model for two different Meshes A (upper row) and B (lower row)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Force-displacement results for local GTN modeling of crack propagation for different mesh geometries and element densities as expressed by the element side length le

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Simulation of crack growth in an Al–SiC MMC using the current nonlocal GTN-based ductile damage model for two different Meshes A (upper row) and B (lower row)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Experimentally observed crack propagation in an Al–SiC MMC (left) and finite-element model of this structure (right) for the simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Simulation of crack growth in an Al–SiC MMC using the current local (upper row) and nonlocal (lower row) ductile damage models




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In