International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

Impact failure of beams using damage mechanics:

Part IAnalytical model
Marc!lio Alvesa, Norman Jonesb,*
Department of Mechatronics and Mechanical Systems Engineering, University of Sao
* Paulo, Sao
* Paulo,
05508-900, Brazil
b
Department of Engineering (Mechanical), Impact Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill,
Liverpool L69 3GH, UK
a

Received 7 August 1999; received in revised form 24 October 2001; accepted 5 March 2002

Abstract
A simple theoretical method, which is based on ductile damage mechanics and which retains strain rate
effects, is presented for predicting the failure of beams made from a perfectly plastic material and subjected
to impact loads. For this class of materials, the strains can be estimated by dening a hinge length. The
denition adopted here leads to reasonable predictions for the plastic strains and the strain rate, as shown
by comparing the results with numerical calculations and experimental data. The equivalent strain and the
strain rate can be used in the damage model to predict the failure of beams, as shown in a companion paper
(Alves, Jones, Int J Impact Eng 2002;27(8):86390). r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The analysis of metallic structures, subjected to static and dynamic loads producing large
displacements and large plastic strains, is nowadays a routine task when using nite-element and
other numerical techniques as well as the rigid-plastic methods of analysis [1]. However, regardless
of the method used, the prediction of failure due to material rupture is fraught with difculty [2].
One approach to predict failure is based on the methods of micromechanics. However, in view
of the wide variety of void shapes and different mechanical properties for materials, it is difcult
to establish a procedure which is suitable for the prediction of failure in engineering practice.
Sophisticated micromechanic models for predicting ductile failure rely on several material
constants, as in Curran et al. [3], and intense computational effort is required [47].
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-151-794-4858; fax: +44-151-794-4848.
E-mail address: norman.jones@liv.ac.uk (N. Jones).
0734-743X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 3 4 - 7 4 3 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 9

838

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

Nomenclature
B
C; q; m;
% n%
D
Dd
Dd 0
Dd 0
Ds0
Ds
Ds0
DE 0
E
E0
f
G
h
H
H%
k
2L
L1 ; L2
lM1 ; lM2
lN1 ; lN2
lQ1 ; lQ2
m
M
M0
My
p
pD
Q
Q0
Qy
Rn
sf
S%
t
V0
w
w% f
W
Wf

beam breadth
coefcients in the CowperSymonds equation
damage
dynamic damage including strain hardening and strain rate effects
dynamic contribution to the total damage
dynamic damage based on the ow stress s0 ; without strain hardening
static damage based on the ow stress s0 ; without strain hardening
static damage based on the ow stress s0 ; with strain hardening
static damage based on the initial ow stress s00 ; without strain hardening
damage due to hardening
elastic modulus
hardening modulus
yield function
impact mass
H=L1
beam thickness
Heaviside function
dimensionless constant
beam length
distances dened in Fig. 2
bending hinge lengths
membrane hinge lengths
shear hinge lengths
mass per unit length of a beam
bending moment
collapse moment
yielding moment
accumulated plastic strain
accumulated threshold plastic strain
transverse shear force
collapse transverse shear force
yielding transverse shear force
dened by Eq. (6)
shape factor
damage strength parameter
time
impact velocity
W =H
Wf =L1
beam displacement at the loading point
nal value of W

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

839

Ws
indentation
nal indentation
Wsf
x; y and z rectangular coordinates
Greek symbols
g
shear strain
e
true strain
threshold strain
eD
true equivalent strain
eeq
bending strain
eM
membrane strain
eN
y
angle
k
curvature
l
plastic multiplier
n
Poissons ratio
L1 =H; L2 =H
n1 ; n2
x
L1 =L2
s
true stress
ow stress
s0
initial ow stress
s00
equivalent stress
seq
deviatoric stress component
s0ij
hydrostatic stress
sh
yield stress
sy
shear ow stress
t0
Subscripts
0
cr
d
eq
s

initial
critical
dynamic
equivalent
static

Superscript
:
time derivative
::
second time derivative
B
effective variable
p
plastic component of the strain tensor
t
true stress or strain
A global failure criterion is an alternative method which disregards any local detail. The
classical concept of a yield surface has been expanded to embrace fracture surfaces, giving rise to
techniques which predict failure based mainly on stress and strain parameters, as in Theocaris [8]

840

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

and Ukadgaonker and Awasare [9]. Failure theories have been developed as an extension of
plasticity theory [10], which use generalised stresses [11] and even fractal concepts [12]. These
methods are more arbitrary than micromechanics models, but are simpler to use and more
suitable for engineering design purposes.
A rigid-plastic analysis was used in Refs. [13,14] to predict the dynamic behaviour of a beam
which fails either by tensile tearing or by transverse shearing. The beam is subjected to a
uniformly distributed velocity over its entire span, as an idealisation of a blast loading, and the
threshold velocities, which cause failures known as mode II and III, have been determined. The
theoretical results are in reasonable agreement with experimental data available for beams which
are made from a non-strain rate sensitive material. For tensile tearing, a hinge length was dened
and the uniaxial rupture strain was used in the calculations to predict failure.
A similar procedure was used for a free-free beam [15], in order to determine a critical dynamic
pressure pulse which causes a tearing failure, and for a beam struck transversely by a mass [16].
It was assumed in Ref. [17] that rupture occurred in a rigid-plastic structure when the
absorption of plastic work per unit volume reached a critical value. To calculate the actual plastic
work in beams, a hinge length was estimated from experimental data obtained by Menkes and
Opat [18] on impulsively loaded aluminium beams.
This methodology was reviewed in Ref. [11] and has been used to predict the failure of clamped
beams [17] and plates [19] under impulsive loading and clamped beams struck by a mass [20]. The
method predicts reasonable values for the threshold impulses that produce tensile tearing and
transverse shearing failures in actual beams. Nevertheless, the failure of circular plates is not well
predicted. However, some slippage at the clamped boundaries of the plates during the experiments
might be responsible for the deviation and further study is required.
The rigid, perfectly plastic models for failure are, essentially, global approaches relying on
generalised stress elds so that any details related to void coalescence and interaction, triaxiality
and softening are disregarded.
This paper explores the value of Continuum Damage Mechanics, CDM, to predict analytically
material failure in simple structures. CDM idealises a material as a continuum using the usual
concepts of stress and strain. The presence of voids, small cracks or second phase particles are
catered for by a single damage variable so that the constitutive laws might be formulated
using continuous variables for materials exhibiting voids or small cracks. A simple ductile
damage model is explored for perfectly plastic and linear strain hardening materials, strain rate
effects being considered. The model requires strain and strain rate values, which are obtained
by dening a plastic hinge length. The procedure is employed in a companion paper [21] to
predict the static and dynamic failure of beams and comparisons are made with experimental
results.

2. CDM ductile model

Continuum Damage Mechanics offers a theoretical framework for the prediction of damage
evolution in a structure. An upper bound to the growth of damage is the initiation of a crack,
which occurs when a critical damage is attained in the continuum. The threshold between critical
damage and crack growth is taken as a failure criterion.

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

841

A basic CDM model is proposed by Lemaitre [2224], with the damage evolving according to
qFD
;
1
D l
qY
or
D

s* 2eq Rn
%
p H/p
 pD S;
2E S%

since

l=1
 D p;

%  D;
FD Y 2 =2S1

Y s* 2eq Rn =2E;

Rn 21 n=3 31  2nsh =seq 2 :

and
with
In Eqs. (2)(6), D is the damage, E is the original elastic modulus of a virgin material, n is
Poissons ratio, s* eq is the effective stress, dened by s* eq seq =1  D [25], seq and sh are the
equivalent and hydrostatic stresses, respectively. The Heaviside function H% indicates that D > 0
when the accumulated plastic strain, p > pD ; where pD is a function of the material and stress state.
The parameter S% in Eq. (2), the damage strength material parameter, is regarded as a material
constant [25,26], but can be seen as a material dependent, adjustable parameter, since its main
function is to bring the prediction of Eq. (2) closer
to experimental data. Eq. (3) comes from the
q
2 p p
denition of the accumulated plastic strain, p 3eij eij when using
3 s0ij 1
epij l qf =qsij l
;
2 seq 1  D
where s0ij sij  skk dij =3 [25].
Strain rate effects on the damage evolution are taken into account in the present work. By
assuming that the elastic modulus, Poissons ratio, S% and the triaxiality, sh =seq ; are strain rate
independent parameters, the strain rate only causes an increase in the ow stress, s0 ; as estimated
using the widely known CowperSymonds equation [1]
s0d s0s m
% en% ;

where
m
% s0s C 1=q

and n% q1 ;

with the subscripts s and d standing for static and dynamic, respectively, and C and q being
material constants.
Under these assumptions, it follows, when retaining strain rate effects according to Eq. (7), that
the dynamic damage evolution, D d ; is obtained by writing Eq. (2) in the form:
2
%
%
D d s0s m
 pDd S=2E S:
% en% Rn p H/p

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

842

3. Particular integration of the damage equation

For some special cases, the dynamic damage equation may be integrated, as reported here for
perfectly plastic and linear hardening materials. In the following integration, the triaxiality ratio,
sh =seq ; is assumed to remain constant for proportional loading, so that the factor Rn is invariant
with stress. The role of the triaxiality on the failure of beams will be explored in a companion
paper [21].
Consider rst an elastic, perfectly plastic material with a static ow stress s* eq s0 : According
to Lemaitre [25], the damage law, Eq. (2), may be integrated to give a static perfectly plastic
version of the damage,
D s20 Rn p  pD =2E S% for pXpD :

10

In the case of proportional loading, the accumulated plastic strain, p; equals the equivalent strain,
eeq ; and pD eD ; giving1
D s20 Rn eeq  eD =2E S% for eeq XeD ;

11

which is due to Lemaitre [25].

The material model can be improved by considering the linear hardening law
s* eq s00 E 0 eeq ;

12

where, E 0 is the hardening modulus and s00 is a initial ow stress, as shown in Fig. 1.
By inserting Eq. (12) into Eq. (2) and performing the integration for proportional loading, the
static damage evolves with the plastic strain according to
D s200 Rn eeq  eD =2E S% Rn E 0 eeq  eD eD E 0 eD 3s00
eeq E 0 eeq 3s00 E 0 eD eeq =6E S% for eeq XeD :

13

Consider now the integration of Eq. (2) when not only linear hardening but also strain rate
sensitivity (Eq. (7)) is taken into account according to the equation2
s* eqd s00 E 0 eeq m
% en% ;

14

which gives
Dd s200 Rn eeq  eD =2E S% Rn E 0 eeq  eD eD E 0 eD 3s00 eeq E 0 eeq 3s00
E 0 eD eeq =6E S% Rn m
% en% eeq  eD 2s00 E 0 eD eeq m
% en% =2E S% for eeq XeD : 15
Thus, the total damage, Dd ; consists of three parts Ds0 (static), DE 0 (hardening) and Dd0 (dynamic),
which correspond to the three terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (15), respectively.
1

The effective equivalent stress was set equal to the ow stress, so that damage is coupled to the plasticity criterion.
A static value, eD ; was used for the threshold dynamic plastic strain, eDd ; as suggested by the experimental data on a
mild steel in a companion paper [21].
2

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

843

eq
o
E'
oo

eq
Fig. 1. Denition of the ow stress.

For a perfectly plastic material with an initial static ow stress s00 s0 ; DE 0 0; so that
Eq. (15) becomes
2
%
Dd0 s0 m
% en% Rn eeq  eD =2E S;

16

when strain rate effects are retained.

Eqs. (11), (13), (15) and (16) can be used for the prediction of damage in a structure provided
the strains, and other parameters, are known. However, the stresses are not related uniquely to the
strains in a perfectly plastic material so that an approximate method for predicting the strains is
explored in the next section.

4. Strains in a perfectly plastic material

Strains might be evaluated approximately at a hinge in a perfectly plastic structure by choosing
a hinge length to distribute an otherwise innite curvature.
Nonaka [27] proposed a deection dependent hinge length for beams by using a theoretical
rigid-plastic analysis and a plane strain approximation. A similar approximation has been used in
Ref. [16] for beams, while Ref. [17] has analysed experimental data from Menkes and Opat [18]
and obtained a hinge length related to the beam thickness and to the plastic work dissipated in a
hinge. Wen et al. [28] have used a constant hinge length, equal to the beam thickness, for
evaluating the strains associated with bending deformations.
Another denition of hinge length is suggested here which allows the bending, membrane and
shear strains to be determined. The various hinge length denitions are tested against the
experimental results and numerical data which are available in the literature. Simple expressions
are then obtained for the equivalent strain and its rate.

844

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

4.1. Bending hinge length

Consider the elastic, perfectly plastic beam3 in Fig. 2 which is subjected to a concentrated load
at any position on the span, and which produces innitesimal displacements. The beam material is
fully plastic underneath the concentrated load where the moment achieves a peak value. Away
from this point, the inner elastic core of the beam cross-section increases in size until the entire
cross-section is elastic. This decrease of the plastic zone size is related directly to the decrease of
the bending moment. Thus, for small displacements of the beam, the bending hinge length may be
dened as
Bending hinge length, lM , is the distance along an elastic perfectly plastic beam between the two
points A and B, where jMA j M0 and jMB j My : My and M0 are the initial yield and fully
plastic collapse moments for the cross-section.
As an example, consider that portion of the simply supported beam in Fig. 2 which is on the
right-hand side of the concentrated load. From the relation4 M0 =L1 M0  My =lM1 ; the
bending hinge length is
lM1 L1 sf  1=sf L1 =3;

17

where the shape factor sf M0 =My 32 for a beam with a rectangular cross-section and a uniform
thickness H: A similar expression can be obtained for the left-hand side of the beam and results
for other beam congurations may be obtained, as summarised in Table 1.
It is assumed that the change of curvature, k1 ; of the centroidal axis on the right-hand side of
the load in Fig. 2 is
k1 y1 =lM1 ;

18

taken to be constant along the hinge length. Eq. (18) gives an axial strain e1 k1 z; where z is the
through-thickness co-ordinate. For moderate displacements, the angle y1 may be approximated as
y1 W =L1 ; inducing a bending strain at the outermost surface, z H=2;
eM1 3HW =2L21 :

19

A similar procedure can be developed for the left-hand side of the beam.
According to the above denition for the bending hinge length, it is evident that there is a
discontinuity of curvature and strain underneath an off-centre concentrated load. The nearer a
concentrated load is to a support, the stronger is the discontinuity in the curvature at the loading
point. In fact, a very sharp change of the curvature occurs in this region and data to be presented
later will conrm this observation. It should be emphasised that such a discontinuity violates the
general relationship between curvature and bending moment for elasto-plastic beams. This is an
intrinsic difculty of the present approach which sets out to determine large plastic strains in
beams made of perfectly-plastic materials.
3

The moment distribution is obtained for a perfectly plastic material. However, the hinge length concept adopted
here invokes the elastic core of the beam. Moreover, the damage is measured from the change of the elastic modulus.
Hence, the use of the term elastic.
4
It is assumed that L1 pL2 :

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

845

Fig. 2. (a) A beam loaded off-centre showing the bending hinge length denition. (b) Associated bending moment
distribution. The beam displacement is exaggerated.

Following a similar procedure, the change of curvature and bending strain can be calculated for
different loads and boundary conditions.
4.2. Dynamic bending hinge length
The previous denition of a bending hinge length was based on a static moment distribution,
which is strictly valid only for small displacements of a rigid, perfectly plastic beam. It is now
enquired whether or not the dynamic bending moment distribution occurring during the various
phases of a beam when loaded dynamically, would differ substantially from the static bending
distribution.
Consider a clamped beam struck at the mid-span by a mass, G; travelling with an initial
velocity, V0 ; as shown in Fig. 3. For a beam to tup mass ratio, 2mL=G; smaller than one,
approximately, the second phase of motion dominates the beam response [1,29] and the rst
transient phase of motion might be ignored. Moreover, a tensile failure would be more likely to
occur during the second phase when transverse shear effects are not considered.
After the rst phase of motion, when the travelling plastic hinges have propagated from the
centre towards the supports, the bending moment distribution along the beam is [1]
M M0 1  2b2 3a%  b=a% 2 3 2a%  6b=a% 3 2a% ;

0pbpa% ;

20

846

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

Table 1
Bending hinge lengths for various beam congurations. sf is the shape factor used in plasticity
Beam conguration

Bending hinge length

Rectangular cross-section

General cross-section

lM

L
3

lM 1  s1
f L

lM1

L1
3

lM1 1  s1
f L1

lM2

L2
3

lM2 1  s1
f L2

L
lM p
3

L
lM q
1  s1
f

lM

L
6

lM

sf  1
L
2sf

lM1

L1
6

lM 1

sf  1
L1
2sf

lM2

L2
6

lM 2

sf  1
L2
2sf

L
lM p
6

L
lM q
21  s1
f

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

847

Fig. 3. Clamped beam struck at the mid-span by a falling mass.

M/M0

0.5

2mL/G=5

static

2mL/G=1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.8

1
x/L

-0.5

-1
Fig. 4. Static and dynamic bending moment distributions during the second phase of motion, along the clamped beam
shown in Fig. 3 when struck by different masses. The horizontal thin line denes My =M0 23:

where b mx=G; a% mL=G and m is the mass per unit beam length. Eq. (20) is plotted in Fig. 4
for two different ratios of 2mL=G: It is clear that the bending moment distribution changes with
the tup mass; the smaller tup mass having a longer hinge length. Nevertheless, from an
engineering perspective, the dynamic moment distribution with 2mL=G51; is similar to the
corresponding static one [29].
Consider now a clamped beam loaded impulsively throughout its entire span with an initial
velocity V0 ; Fig. 5. The bending moment distribution during the second phase of motion with
stationary plastic hinges is [1]
M=M0 1 x=L3  3x=L2 :

21

A difference of only 5.3% is obtained between the values of x=L for which My =M0 23 in Eq. (21)
and the static moment distribution for a uniform pressure loading on a beam with a rectangular
shaped cross-section.

848

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

Fig. 5. A clamped beam loaded impulsively with a velocity V0 :

Further calculations for other beam congurations show that the difference between the static
and dynamic bending moment distributions is not signicant during the stationary hinge or modal
phase of motion. Accordingly, any possible increase in accuracy in the bending hinge length
according to the present denition when using a dynamic bending moment distribution is
overshadowed by the simplicity of the static moment expressions. Thus quasi-static methods of
analysis should be adequate for the present investigation with low impact velocities [29].
4.3. Shear hinge length
A transverse shear hinge length may be dened as
A transverse shear hinge length, lQ , is the distance along the length of a beam between two points A
and B, where jQA j Q0 and jQB j Qy : Qy and Q0 are the initial yield and the plastic collapse
transverse shear forces of the cross-section, respectively.
The evaluation of the shear hinge length is more involved than the hinge length associated with
bending, partly because transverse shear effects are potentially more signicant for dynamic loads,
particularly during the rst, or transient, phase of motion [1]. Thus, lQ must be obtained from an
analysis of the rst phase of motion for a dynamically loaded beam.
Consider the simply supported rigid, perfectly plastic beam in Fig. 6, which is subjected to a
uniformly distributed impulsive velocity of magnitude V0 : During the rst phase of motion, the
transverse shear force is [1]


x  x0 2
Q Q0
; x0 pxpL;
22
L  x0
when LX3H=2 and, from symmetry, only the right hand side of the beam in Fig. 6 is considered.
Here, Q0 Es0 BH=2 is the transverse shear force necessary to fully deform, plastically and
independently, a beam having a rectangular cross-section with dimensions B and H made from a
material with a ow stress s0 : x0 L  3H=2 denes the position of the stationary bending hinge
during the rst phase of motion.
Now, for beams with rectangular cross-sections, the transverse shear force which just causes the
material to yield at the beam centre is Qy BH23t0 ; whereas Q0 EBHt0 is the transverse shear
force which causes the entire cross section to become fully plastic. Hence, when using Qy =Q0 23;

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

849

Fig. 6. A simply supported beam loaded impulsively with a velocity V0 :

the denition of a transverse shear hinge length gives

p
lQ 3  6H=2 0:275H:

23

A similar procedure for clamped supports at both ends yields

p
lQ 3  6H 0:551H:

24

Ref. [30] has studied the case of a mass, G; impacting with an initial velocity, V0 ; at any position
on the span of the clamped beam in Fig. 7, which has a rectangular cross-section. It turns out that
the analysis consists of three cases: case i, 3on1 pn2 ; case ii, 1on1 p3 and 3on2 ; case iii,
0on1 p1 and 3on2 ; where n1 L1 =H and n2 L2 =H:
For case i, the shear force is symmetrical about the struck point and using the relations from
Ref. [30], it might be shown that
p
25
lQ 3  6H 0:551H;
where x0 3H [30]. Eq. (25) is identical to the case of a fully clamped beam loaded impulsively
throughout the span.
For case ii, with the further restriction5 1:5pn1 o3; it transpires that there are two different
hinge lengths because the shear force distribution on the left-hand side of the tup is different from
that on the right-hand side. In the rst phase of motion, it might be shown that
q
26
lQ1 L1 3H  L1 7L21  16HL1 9H 2 =3H  L1 
and
lQ2 3 

p
6H;

27

at the right- and left-hand sides of the tup, respectively.

For case iii, the impact load acts at a distance from the support which is smaller than the beam
thickness and gives the shear hinge lengths
lQ1 L1

28

For 1on1 o1:5; the time at the end of the rst phase of motion depends on the positions of the plastic hinges and is
given by Eqs. (32) or (35) in Ref. [30]. By substituting these equations into the transverse shear force expression, it turns
out that it is difcult to obtain a closed form expression for the shear hinge length, according to the present denition.
5

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

850

G
V0

x
L2

L1

Fig. 7. Clamped beam struck transversely by a mass G:

and
lQ2 3 

p
6H;

29

at the right- and left-hand sides of the tup, respectively.

It is observed from the above equations that the shear hinge length depends on the external
loading position, type of support and beam thickness, but not on the yield stress of a perfectly
plastic material. Also, it is rather small when compared with the bending hinge length.
4.4. Membrane hinge length
Large displacements in a broad class of engineering structures produce membrane forces,
which, in the case of beams, are constant along the length when disregarding axial inertia. This
suggests that the membrane strain spreads evenly along the beam length. In this work, membrane
hinge lengths
lN1 L1

and lN2 L2 ;

30

are adopted.
4.5. Equivalent strain
The following equations are deduced for the particular case of a clamped beam subjected to
either a static or a dynamic concentrated load acting at any position on the span.
The equivalent strain, based on the von Mises yield criterion, can be dened in cartesian
co-ordinates as
pq
31
eeq 2 exx  eyy 2 eyy  ezz 2 ezz  exx 2 6e2xy e2xz e2yz =3:
Now for a beam in the xz plane, it is assumed that exy eyz 0 and eyy ezz exx =2; so that
Eq. (31) reduces to
q
eeq e2xx g2xz =3;
32

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

851

where gxz 2exz is an engineering shear strain. The two strains in Eq. (32) are calculated in the
following two sections.
4.5.1. Membrane strain
The membrane strain, eN ; on the right-hand side of a fully-clamped beam, due to a normal force
N; becomes
q
eN1 DL1 =lN1 1 W =L1 2  1:
33
Eq. (33) can be averaged with a similar expression for the left-hand side of the beam, leading to
eN 1 x2 hw2 =4;
for W =L1 2 51 when dening
x L1 =L2 ; h H=L1 and w W =H:

34
35

This strain is assumed to be distributed evenly along the beam span and throughout the crosssection.
4.5.2. Shear strain
The shear strain, which is taken as constant along the shear hinge length, is evaluated
approximately as
36
gxz Ws =lQ1 =2;
where Ws measures the indentation of the load device on the beam. The factor 2 in Eq. (36) was
used in Refs. [28, 31], based on experimental results. The latter authors suggested that the factor 2
should be used for shear failure taking place at the proximal side of a beam, i.e., on the surface hit
by the drop mass. In the experimental programme reported in the companion paper [21], some of
the impacted specimens failed by shear, but it was not possible to detect the region where failure
started.
The results in Section 4.3 suggest an approximate value for the shear hinge length of
37
lQ1 lQ2 H=2
for a clamped beam, so that Eq. (36) gives
gxz 4Ws =H:

38

A shear hinge length of about one-half of the beam thickness was found experimentally by
measuring the angles of initially square grids on impacted beams [21]. Moreover, Ref. [32] arrived
at a value of lQ 0:433H based on the static equilibrium equations for a beam.
As far as the shear displacement, Ws ; is concerned, experimental data in Ref. [21], for a fully
clamped beam impacted by a mass, suggests the relation
39
Wsf kHWf =L1 ;
where Wsf is the nal indentation (transverse shear displacement), H is the beam thickness, Wf is
the nal transverse displacement of a beam (including Wsf ) and k is a constant. Also, numerical
investigations in Ref. [33], suggest that it is reasonable to assume
40
Ws Wsf W =Wf ;

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

852

or
Ws kHW =L1 ;

41

where W is the beam displacement.

From Eqs. (38) and (41), it follows that the transverse shear strain at the impact point of a
clamped beam is
gxz 4kW =L1 4khw:
42

4.5.3. Bending strain

The bending strain, at the point of the maximum beam displacement, is


1 W
W
z
z ;
eM
2 L1 lM1
L2 lM2

43

when taking an average value of the strains at the left- and right-hand sides of the load point. For
a clamped beam subjected to a concentrated load, the bending hinge lengths are
lM1 L1 =6 and lM2 L2 =6

44

and the interest here is concentrated at the point of maximum bending strain, i.e. z H=2:
Accordingly, the bending strain in Eq. (43) reduces to
eM 3h2 1 x2 w=2:

45

For the calculation of exx is should be noted that the bending strains dominate the response
up to wE1: For larger displacements, the axial strain is mainly due to membrane effects. It follows
that
exx eM 3=21 x2 h2 w for wp1

46

exx 1 x2 h2 w2 5=4

47

and
for w > 1;

where the last equation was obtained by imposing the requirement eM eN at w 1:

Eqs. (42), (46) and (47) can now be substituted into Eq. (32) to give an estimate for the
maximum equivalent strain in a clamped beam,
q
p
48
eeq 3=2h2 1 x2 w2 4khw= 32 for wp1;
and
eeq

q
p
h2 1 x2 w2 5=42 4khw= 32 for w > 1;

49

which occurs underneath the concentrated load.

A further simplication is possible by noting that, for beams hit close to a support, say x50:1;
it is expected that shear effects would dominate bending and membrane strains. Thus, the
engineering equivalent strain for impacts close to a support is
p
eeq 4khw= 3 for w51:
50

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

853

5. Strain rate
A rough estimate for the average strain rate, em ; in a clamped beam is [1]
p
em Wf V0 =3 2L2 ;

51

where Wf is the nal transverse displacement and V0 is the initial impact velocity of a mass at the
mid-span. This equation was obtained by Perrone and Bhadra [34], who studied a simple model of
a mass supported by two strain rate sensitive wires of equal length L: Wen et al. [28] estimated the
strain rate in beams loaded at any position, L1 ; from the supports, using Eq. (51) with L L1 :
Now, consider the strain rate variation underneath an aluminium alloy beam impacted on the
top surface at the one-quarter span position (H 7:62 mm, L1 25:4 mm, V0 5:34 m/s,
Wf 6:8 mm). The strain rate behaviour according to a numerical simulation of this problem in
Ref. [33], is shown in Fig. 8. The prediction according to Perrone and Bhadra [34], Eq. (51), is also
plotted in the same gure. The predicted strain rate underestimates the peak strain rate, in part
because the moment is disregarded in the model which is used to obtain Eq. (51), as well as the
neglect of material strain rate sensitivity.
The poor result given by Perrone and Bhadras equation (51), motivates the search for a more
accurate description of the strain rate in a clamped
beam.
p

The equivalent strain rate is dened as eeq 2eij eij =3; which reduces to
q
52
eeq e2xx g 2xz =3;
in the present analysis. Now, differentiating Eqs. (42) and (46) and substituting in Eq. (52), gives
an expression for the equivalent strain rate which is a function of the velocity of the beam and,
hence, changes continuously with time. A further simplication is possible using the observation

160
.
(1/s)

Yu&Jones [33]
eq. (53)

120

80

40
Perrone&Bhadra [34]

0
0

-40
t (ms)
Fig. 8. Strain rate vs. time underneath an aluminium beam impacted on the top surface at the one-quarter span
position. G 5 kg, V0 5:34 m/s, 2L 101:6; B 10:16 and H 7:62 mm. The thick line is the tensile strain rate on
the beam surface, according to the numerical simulation in Ref. [33]. The horizontal continuous lines are the predictions
according to Perrone and Bhadra [34], Eq. (51), and to Eq. (53).

854

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

p
V0 = 2 ;
of Perrone and Bhadra [34] that the maximum strain rate occurs when W
approximately, yielding a constant equivalent strain rate
q
V0
9=81 x2 2 h2 8k2 =3 for wp1:
53
eeq
L1
Moreover, for beams hit close to a support, only shear strains are assumed to be important (see
Eq. (50)), leading to a strain rate expression
p kV0
eeq 8=3
for w51:
54
L1
Observe that Eq. (46), valid for wo1; was used instead of Eq. (47), valid for w > 1; to obtain
Eq. (53). If Eq. (47) were to be used, it would be necessary to estimate the nal beam
displacement. Also, calculations show that the difference in the strain rate values using either
equation are not large. Finally, the comparison in Fig. 8 gives a good prediction for the strain rate
calculated using Eq. (53). The gure shows the strain rate underneath the clamped beam in Ref.
[33], which was struck at the one-quarter span position, x 13: The estimated strain rate of
eeq 116:2 s1 using Eq. (53) compares reasonably well with the nite-element results in Ref. [33].
This simple model does not capture the variation of the strain rate throughout the motion, but
it does provide a reasonable estimate for an average strain rate during the initial response.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of numerical and experimental data, it was not possible to further
compare the strain rate equations for beams loaded at other positions. However, it is well known
that although material strain rate effects are important for steel and other materials, their highly
nonlinear behaviour means that approximate estimates of the strain rate can give good estimates
for the ow stress.

6. Validation of the hinge length denitions

It is important to assess whether the approximate hinge lengths dened in Section 4 and the
associated strains have any experimental support.
6.1. Qualitative validation
Menkes and Opat [18] present experimental data for aluminium alloy beams loaded impulsively
along the entire span. For moderate impulses, when transverse shear effects are not dominant, one
can plot the deformed prole of the beam and mark the boundaries of the bending
hinge length
p
denition which, for a clamped beam and a uniformly distributed load, is L= 6 from Table 1. It
is observed in Fig. 9 that the hinge length, as here dened, predicts that most of the beam span has
a non-zero curvature, as observed in the test specimens.
Fig. 10 shows the permanent deformed proles of two mild steel beams impacted by a mass and
with the bending and shear hinge lengths marked in the gure. The bending hinge length for these
clamped beams is L=6 from Table 1, while the shear length varies according to the load position
but, as discussed in Section 4.5.2, is assumed to be one-half of the beam thickness, regardless of
the tup position.

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

855

Fig. 9. Displacement proles of fully clamped aluminium beams loaded impulsively throughout the span [18]. The
smaller distances between the vertical lines dene the regions where the curvature is zero, according to the bending
hinge length based on a static moment distribution.

Fig. 10. (a) Beam struck by a round tup at its mid-span by G 6:5 kg travelling at V0 14:9 m/s. (b) Beam struck by a
sharp tup at L1 =2L 15 by G 19:5 kg with V0 6:14 m/s. The regions between the set of vertical white lines mark the
(a) bending and (b) transverse shear hinge zones.

856

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

It is evident that the boundaries of the bending hinge length more or less coincide with the
regions where the curvature becomes zero. Moreover, the grids marked on the beam in Fig. 10(b)
show that the regions where transverse shear is present more or less coincide with the shear hinge
dimensions here dened.
6.2. Quantitative validation
A nite-element simulation was conducted in Ref. [33] for the impacted beam experiments
reported in Ref. [35]. These results are especially interesting in the present context because they
provide a detailed description of some eld variables.
Consider a fully clamped aluminium alloy beam with a length of 101.2 mm struck by a 5 kg
mass at the one-quarter span position and at a velocity of 5.34 m/s. The curvature prole given by
the numerical results is shown in Fig. 11 for the instant when the maximum deection of the beam
is reached. This gure also contains the theoretical predictions for the change in curvature (see
Eq. (18))
k1 W =L1 lM1 6W =L21

and k2 W =L2 lM2 6W =L22 ;

55

where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the right- and left-hand sides of the tup, respectively. It is
assumed that these are the maximum values which are constant up to the boundaries of the
hinges.
The good correlation in Fig. 11 for the change in curvature does not necessarily imply accurate
values for the strains. However, the theoretical predictions from Eq. (48) for x 13 when
transverse shear is neglected,
eeq 5h2 w=3;

56

0.08
(1/mm)
tup

0.04

x/L1
0

0.5

1
1.5

-0.04
prediction

-0.08

numerical

Fig. 11. Curvature prole across part of the span of a fully clamped aluminium beam (H 7:62 mm) struck by a falling
mass at the one-quarter span position (x=L1 0 is at the clamped support closer to the impact point and x=L1 1 is at
the impact point). Thin and thick lines represent the nite-element results [33] for W 7:4 mm at t 2:572 ms and
Eq. (55), respectively. The tup width is 5.08 mm.

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

857

0.3

x max

0.2

0.1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

W/H

Fig. 12. Maximum axial strain (no shear) on the bottom of the fully clamped aluminium beam underneath the load
point vs. the dimensionless displacement. The beam was struck by a falling mass at the one-quarter span position. Thin
and thick lines represent numerical results from Ref. [33] and the prediction of Eq. (56), respectively.

can be compared with the maximum axial strain (no shear) on the bottom surface underneath the
impact region reported in Ref. [33]. Fig. 12 shows a reasonable correlation between the numerical
values and the theoretical prediction of Eq. (56) for small displacements.
Consider now the transverse shear strains in an aluminium beam struck at the one-quarter span
position. Yu and Jones [33] calculated the transverse shear strains across the beam cross-section
immediately to the right- and left-hand sides of the tup, when the beam reaches the maximum
deection. An average value is about exz 0:05; or gxz 0:10; while from Eq. (36), the average
shear strain is
exz Ws =lQ 0:225=H=2 0:06 or gxz 0:12;

57

with H 7:62 mm and Ws 0:225 mm given in Ref. [33]. Thus, the method in Section 4 can
predict reasonable values for the strains in a clamped beam, at least for the above case.
The nite-element results in Ref. [36] have been compared with experimental data from tests on
fully clamped mild steel beams, struck at the mid-span by a sharp tup. The equivalent strain on
the lower surface of the beam, underneath the striker, evolves according to Ref. [36] with the
dimensionless displacement, as shown in Fig. 13. It is also shown in the same gure with a thick
line that Eqs. (48) and (49) with x 1 predicts the strain
q
p
58
eeq 3h2 w2 4khw= 32 for wp1
and
eeq

q
p
h2 w2 5=22 4khw= 32 for w > 1;

59

which are in reasonable agreement with the numerical data for displacements up to around twice
the beam thickness.

858

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

1.2
static
(FEM)

dynamic
(FEM)

eq

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

W/H

Fig. 13. Equivalent strain on the lower surface of a mild steel beam (2L 101:6; H 6:29; B 10:10 mm) immediately
underneath the striker vs. displacement. The beam is struck at the mid-span with a mass G 5 kg travelling with an
impact velocity V0 10:5 m/s. Thick line represents the engineering equivalent strain (Eqs. (58) and (59)). Thin lines are
the true equivalent strain calculated numerically in Ref. [36].

Eqs. (58) and (59) depend on the beam geometry and on the factor k: The factor k can be
considered as a material parameter with the experimental results for mild steel beams from Ref.
[21] giving k 0:26: It is not known whether k would change signicantly for other ductile metals.
The shear strains for a mild steel beam with length 2L struck at the mid-span have also been
evaluated in Ref. [36]. The maximum value quoted throughout the entire response is gxz 0:66:
This value is reduced to gxz 0:45 at the centre of the striker when the beam reaches its maximum
deection. For comparison, the present shear hinge denition yields a maximum shear strain
gxz Ws =lQ =2 Ws =H=2=2 2kWf =L=2 20:2621:81=50:5=2 0:45;

60

where Wf is the displacement at the impact point of beam SB09 in Ref. [36].

7. Final comments
The beams tested in the companion paper [21] were loaded by indenters with sharp and round
noses at various positions across the span. Ductile failure occurred for transverse displacements
up to three times the beam thickness. Due to the reasonable predictions for the equivalent strain
and its rate given by Eqs. (48)(50), (53) and (54), and bearing in mind their simplicity, they are
used in the companion paper to predict strains, strain rate and failure, when using the present
CDM model, for steel beams struck by masses at several positions across the span.
In the case of proportional loading and for perfectly plastic materials, the damage predicted by
Eq. (11), is proportional to the equivalent plastic strain which agrees with some theoretical
evidence. Ortiz and Molinari [37], for instance, studied the dynamic expansion of a spherical void

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

859

in an unbounded solid and concluded that a void expands linearly with time or, for proportional
loading, linearly with strain.
Although the dynamic damage evolution equation was integrated for perfectly plastic and
bilinear materials, it is possible to adopt other stressstrain laws but the integration could be
difcult, as it is evident from the complexity of Eq. (13) for the linear hardening model.
The strains for a perfectly plastic material can be estimated when assuming a nite length for
the regions where plastic ow takes place. Though some denitions for hinge length are available
in the literature, they have not always been compared directly with experimental results or niteelement calculations. New denitions for estimating the bending, membrane and shear hinge
lengths in the context of beam theory are developed, and explored, in order to obtain the
curvature, extensional, shear and equivalent strains for a perfectly plastic material. The proposed
hinge lengths give strains and curvatures which are in reasonable agreement with the
corresponding experimental results and numerical data for aluminium and mild steel beams
which were impacted at different positions along the span. However, it should be noted that
neither the theoretical model for the calculation of strains nor the numerical data in Ref. [33] take
damage into account.
It is evident that the various generalized stresses interact, as explored numerically in Ref. [20],
for example, but this phenomenon is not taken into account here. Such an interaction is important
and changes with time, from the initial dominance of transverse shear forces to the development
of a membrane state as motion progresses. However, to the authors knowledge, no analytical
solutions are available which cater for a single hinge having a variable length to reect all the
changes in the generalised stresses.
The equivalent strains along the span of a beam and across the thickness can now be used in
conjunction with the ductile strain rate-sensitive CDM model developed in this paper. Thus, the
failure of beams due to static and dynamic loads can be predicted and the results compared with
some new experimental data, as discussed in a companion paper [21].

Acknowledgements
The nancial support of CAPES, a Brazilian research funding agency, is greatly acknowledged,
as well as the Impact Research Centre at The University of Liverpool.

References
[1] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[2] Jones N, Wierzbicki T, editors. Structural crashworthiness and failure. Barking, Essex: Elsevier Science Publishers,
1993.
[3] Curran DR, Seaman L, Shockey DA. Dynamic failure of solids. Phys Rep 1987;147(5&6):253388.
[4] Bammann DJ, Chiesa ML, Horstemeyer MF, Weingarten LI. Failure in ductile materials using nite element
methods. In: Jones N, Wierzbicki T, editors. Structural crashworthiness and failure. Barking, Essex: Elsevier
Science Publishers, 1993. p. 154.
[5] Benson DJ. An analysis of void distribution effects on the dynamic growth and coalescence of voids in ductile
metals. J Mech Phys Solids 1993;41(8):1285308.

860

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

[6] Kussmaul K, Eisele U, Seidenfuss M. On the applicability of local approaches for the determination of the failure
behaviour of ductile steels. J Pressure Vessel Technol 1993;115:21420.
[7] Needleman A, Kushner AS. An analysis of void distribution effects on plastic ow in porous solids. Eur J Mech A
1990;9(3):193206.
[8] Theocaris PS. Failure criteria for isotropic bodies revisited. Eng Fract Mech 1995;51(2):23964.
[9] Ukadgaonker VG, Awasare PJ. A new criterion for fracture initiation. Eng Fract Mech 1995;51(2):26574.
!
[10] Szczepinski
W. Mechanics of ductile fracture treated as a problem of the theory of plasticity. Int J Plasticity
1990;6:1127.
[11] Jones N, Shen WQ. Criteria for the inelastic rupture of ductile metal beams subjected to large dynamic loads. In:
Jones N, Wierzbicki T, editors. Structural crashworthiness and failure. Barking, Essex: Elsevier Science Publisher,
Ltd., 1993. p. 95130.
[12] Cherepanov GP, Balankin AS, Ivanova VS. Fractal fracture mechanicsa review. Eng Fract Mech
1995;51(6):9971033.
[13] Jones N. Plastic failure of ductile beams loaded dynamically. J Eng Indus 1976;98(1):1316.
[14] Jones N. On the dynamic inelastic failure of beams. In: Wierzbicki T, Jones N, editors. Structural failure. New
York: Wiley Inc., 1989. p. 13359.
[15] Jones N, Wierzbicki T. Dynamic plastic failure of a free-free beam. Int J Impact Eng 1987;6(3):22540.
.
[16] Liu JH, Jones N. Plastic failure of a clamped beam struck transversely by a mass. In: Kleiber M, Konig
JA, editors.
Inelastic solids and structures. Swansea, UK: Pineridge Press, 1990. p. 36184.
[17] Shen WQ, Jones N. A failure criterion for beams under impulsive loading. Int J Impact Eng 1992;12(1):
10121.
[18] Menkes SB, Opat HJ. Broken beamstearing and shear failure in explosively loaded clamped beams.
Experimental Mechanics, November 1973, p. 4806.
[19] Shen WQ, Jones N. Dynamic response and failure of fully clamped circular plates under impulsive loading. Int J
Impact Eng 1993;13(2):25978.
[20] Shen WQ, Jones N. Dynamic plastic response and failure of a clamped beam struck transversely by a mass. Int J
Solids Struct 1993;30(12):163148.
[21] Alves M, Jones N. Impact failure of beams using damage mechanics: Part IIApplication. Int J Impact Eng
2002;27(8):86390.
[22] Lemaitre J. Coupled elasto-plasticity and damage constitutive equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
1985;51:3149.
[23] Lemaitre J. A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. J Mater Technol 1985;107:839.
[24] Lemaitre J. Local approach of fracture. Eng Fract Mech 1986;25(5/6):52337.
[25] Lemaitre J. A course on damage mechanics. Berlin: Springer, 1992.
[26] Lemaitre J, Chaboche J-L. Aspect ph!enom!enologique de la rupture par endommagement. J M!ec Appl
1978;2(3):31765.
[27] Nonaka T. Some interaction effects in a problem of plastic beam dynamics. Part 1: Interaction analysis of a rigid,
perfectly plastic beam. J Appl Mech 1967;34:62330.
[28] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR. Deformation and failure of clamped beams under low speed impact loading. Int J
Impact Eng 1995;16(3):43554.
[29] Jones N. Quasi-static analysis of structural impact damage. J Construct Steel Res 1995;33(3):15177.
[30] Liu JH, Jones N. Dynamic response of a rigid plastic clamped beam struck by a mass at any point on the span. Int
J Solids Struct 1988;24(3):25170.
[31] Jones N, Kim S-B, Li QM. Response and failure of ductile circular plates struck by a mass. ASME J Pressure
Vessel Technol 1997;119:33242.
[32] Li QM, Jones N. Formation of a shear localization in structural elements under transverse dynamic loads. Int J
Solids Struct 2000;37:6683704.
[33] Yu JL, Jones N. Numerical simulation of a clamped beam under impact loading. Comput Struct 1989;32(2):
28193.
[34] Perrone N, Bhadra P. A simplied method to account for plastic rate sensitivity with large deformations. J Appl
Mech 1979;46:8116.

M. Alves, N. Jones / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 837861

861

[35] Liu JH, Jones N. Experimental investigation of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass. Int J Impact Eng
1987;6(4):30335.
[36] Yu JL, Jones N. Numerical simulation of impact loaded steel beams and the failure criteria. Int J Solids Struct
1997;34(30):39774004.
[37] Ortiz M, Molinari A. Effect of strain hardening and rate sensitivity on the dynamic growth of a void in a plastic
material. J Appl Mech 1992;59:4853.