0
Research Papers

Plasticity and Fracture Modeling/Experimental Study of a Porous Metal Under Various Strain Rates, Temperatures, and Stress States

[+] Author and Article Information
P. G. Allison

US Army Engineer Research &
Development Center (ERDC),
Vicksburg, MS 39081;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS 39762

H. Grewal, M. F. Horstemeyer

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS 39762

Y. Hammi

Center for Advanced Vehicular
Systems (CAVS),
Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS 39762

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 29, 2011; final manuscript received August 1, 2013; published online September 19, 2013. Editor: Hussein Zbib.

This material is declared a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 135(4), 041008 (Sep 19, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: MATS-11-1288; doi: 10.1115/1.4025292 History: Received December 29, 2011; Revised August 01, 2013

A microstructure-based internal state variable (ISV) plasticity-damage model was used to model the mechanical behavior of a porous FC-0205 steel alloy that was procured via a powder metal (PM) process. Because the porosity was very high and the nearest neighbor distance (NND) for the pores was close, a new pore coalescence ISV equation was introduced that allows for enhanced pore growth from the concentrated pores. This coalescence equation effectively includes the local stress interaction within the interpore ligament distance between pores and is physically motivated with these highly porous powder metals. Monotonic tension, compression, and torsion tests were performed at various porosity levels and temperatures to obtain the set of plasticity and damage constants required for model calibration. Once the model calibration was achieved, then tension tests on two different notch radii Bridgman specimens were undertaken to study the damage-triaxiality dependence for model validation. Fracture surface analysis was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to quantify the pore sizes of the different specimens. The validated model was then used to predict the component performance of an automotive PM bearing cap. Although the microstructure-sensitive ISV model has been employed for this particular FC-0205 steel, the model is general enough to be applied to other metal alloys as well.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Hammi, Y., Stone, T. Y., and Horstemeyer, M. F., 2005, “Constitutive Modeling of Metal Powder Behavior During Compaction,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-01-0632. [CrossRef]
Davison, L., Stevens, A. L., and Kipp, M. E., 1977, “Theory of Spall Damage Accumulation in Ductile Metals,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 25(1), pp. 11–28. [CrossRef]
Gurson, A. L., 1977, “Continuum Theory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth: Part I—Yield Criteria and Flow Rules for Porous Ductile Media,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 99(1), pp. 2–15. [CrossRef]
Gurson, A. L., 1977, “Porous Rigid-Plastic Materials Containing Rigid Inclusions-Yield Function, Plastic Potential, and Void Nucleation,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Fracture (ICF4), Waterloo, Canada, June 19, Vol. 2A, D. M. R. Taplin, ed., University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, ON, Canada, pp. 357–364.
Leblond, J. B., Perrin, G., and Devaux, J., 1995, “An Improved Gurson-Type Model for Hardenable Ductile Metals,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 14(4), pp. 499–527.
Tvergaard, V., 1989, “Material Failure by Void Growth to Coalescence,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 27(1), pp. 83–151. [CrossRef]
Marin, E. B., and Mcdowell, D. L., 1996, “Associative Versus Non-Associative Porous Viscoplasticity Based on Internal State Variable Concepts,” Int. J. Plast., 12(5), pp. 629–669. [CrossRef]
Horstemeyer, M. F., Lathrop, J., Gokhale, A. M., and Dighe, M., 2000, “Modeling Stress State Dependent Damage Evolution in a Cast Al-Si-Mg Aluminum Alloy,” Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech., 33(1), pp. 31–47. [CrossRef]
Mähler, L., Ekh, M., and Runesson, K., 2001, “A Class of Thermo-Hyperelastic-Viscoplastic Models for Porous Materials: Theory and Numerics,” Int. J. Plast., 17(7), pp. 943–969. [CrossRef]
Bammann, D. J., 1984, “An Internal Variable Model of Viscoplasticity,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 22(8–10), pp. 1041–1053. [CrossRef]
Bammann, D. J., and Aifantis, E. C., 1989, “A Damage Model for Ductile Metals,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 116(3), pp. 355–362. [CrossRef]
Bammann, D. J., 1990, “Modeling Temperature and Strain Rate Dependent Large Deformations of Metals,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 43 5(Part 2), pp. 312–319. [CrossRef]
Bammann, D. J., Chiesa, M. L., Horstemeyer, M. F., and Weingarten, L. I., 1993, “Failure in Ductile Materials Using Finite Element Methods,” Structural Crashworthiness and Failure, N. Jones and T. Wierzbicki, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bammann, D. J., Chiesa, M. L., and Johnson, G. C., 1996, “Modeling Large Deformation and Failure in Manufacturing Processes,” Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, T.Tatsumi, E.Wannabe, and T.Kambe, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 359–376.
Horstemeyer, M. F., and Gokhale, A. M., 1999, “A Void-Crack Nucleation Model for Ductile Metals,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 36(33), pp. 5029–5055. [CrossRef]
McClintock, F. A., 1968, “A Criterion for Ductile Fracture by Void Growth of Holes,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35(1), pp. 363–371. [CrossRef]
Cocks, A. C. F., and Ashby, M. F., 1982, “On Creep Fracture by Void Growth,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 27(3–4), pp. 189–244. [CrossRef]
Lee, E. H., 1969, “Elastic-Plastic Deformation at Finite Strain,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 36(1), pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Horstemeyer, M. F., 2001, “From Atoms to Autos: A New Design Paradigm Using Microstructure-Property Modeling. Part 1: Monotonic Loading Conditions,” Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Technical Report No. SAND2000-8662.
Horstemeyer, M. F., Matalanis, M. M., Sieber, A. M., and Botos, M. L., 2000, “Micromechanical Finite Element Calculations of Temperature and Void Configuration Effects on Void Growth and Coalescence,” Int. J. Plast., 16(7–8), pp. 979–1015. [CrossRef]
Metaldyne, 2007, “Fc-0205 Powder Metal Production,” http://metaldyne.com
ASTM Standard E8, 2009, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. [CrossRef]
Allison, P. G., Horstemeyer, M. F., Hammi, Y., Brown, H. R., Tucker, M. T., and Hwang, Y.-K., 2011, “Microstructure-Property Relations of a Powder Metallurgy Steel (Fc-0205) Under Varying Temperatures, Strain Rates, and Stress States,” Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 529(25), pp. 335–344. [CrossRef]
German, R. M., 2005, Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials Processing, MPIF, Princeton, NJ.
Bridgman, P. W., 1923, “The Compressibility of Thirty Metals as a Function of Pressure and Temperature,” Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 58(5), pp. 165–242. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Coalescence enhancement as a function of strain portraying how an increasing coalescence exponential, ζ, increased the coalescence for pore growth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Coalescence enhancement as a function of strain portraying how a decreasing pore nearest neighbor distance, NND, increased the coalescence for pore growth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Coalescence enhancement as a function of strain portraying how an increasing pore diameter increased the coalescence for pore growth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Internal state variable plasticity-damage model calibration for mean monotonic stress–strain behavior under different stress states and temperatures with a relatively low initial porosity (9%); (a) shows long range transients of the stress–strain behavior up to 20% strain and (b) shows the short range transients up to 2% strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Internal state variable plasticity-damage model calibration for mean monotonic stress–strain behavior under different stress states and temperatures with a high initial porosity (19%): (a) shows long range transients of the stress–strain behavior up to 20% strain and (b) shows the short range transients up to 2% strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Internal state variable plasticity-damage model calibration for mean monotonic tension experimental data with an initial relatively low porosity (9%) and high porosity (19%)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Experimental and finite element model simulated stress–strain curves and the associated damage evolution for the uniaxial tension tests carried out at (a) 293 K and (b) 573 K

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Initial porosity optical micrograph of notch tensile specimens at 293 K for the relatively low porosity (9%) specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of (a) finite element model with (b) experimental results indicating crack initiation at point C and (c) the regions of maximum Von Mises stress with the (d) tabulated results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of the experimental data with the finite element model at two different locations of the main bearing cap (where the strain gage was located)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

SEM fracture surface images of Bridgman specimens with notch radii of (a) 0.38 cm and (b) 0.15 cm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Boundary conditions of the notch Bridgman specimens for finite element analysis with different states of stress triaxiality

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of failure location for the (a) R38 and (b) R15 notch Bridgman tensile speciments with failure denoted by the damage parameter in the qaurter space finite element simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Load–displacement comparison between the experimental results and the FEA results for notch tensile tests (R15 and R38 specimens)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Test fixture and loading application of the powder metal steel MBC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Plot of load–displacement results for the main bearing caps

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Finite element model for monotonically loaded test showing (a) the initial porosity solution (SDV28) of the main bearing cap transferred from the compaction model results and (b) the performance model configuration with applied boundary conditions.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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