ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

A ductile fracture analysis using a local damage model

N. Benseddiqa,, A. Imadb
a
Laboratoire de Mécanique et de Rhéologie de Tours, Ecole Nationale d’Ingéniéurs du Val de Loire (ENIVL), Rue de la Chocolaterie,
41000 Blois Cedex, France
b
Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille (UMR CNRS 8107), USTL, Ecole Polytechnique Universitaire de Lille Cité Scientifique,
Avenue P. Langevin, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France
Received 26 July 2006; received in revised form 27 September 2007; accepted 27 September 2007

Abstract

In this study, the Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman (GTN) model is used to investigate ductile tearing. The sensitivity of the model
parameters has been examined from literature data. Three types of parameters have been reported: the ‘‘constitutive parameters’’ q1, q2
and q3, the ‘‘initial material and nucleation parameters’’ and the ‘‘critical and final failure parameters’’. Each parameter in this model has
been analysed in terms of various results in the literature.
Both experimental and numerical results have been obtained for notched round and CT specimens to characterize ductile failure in a
NiCr steel (12NC6) with a small initial void volume fraction f0 (f0 ¼ 0.001%). Ductile crack growth, defined by the J–Da curve, has been
correctly simulated using the numerical calculations by adjusting the different parameters of the GTN model in the calibration
procedure.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ductile tearing; Local damage; Numerical simulation

1. Introduction Secondly, coupled models are based upon continuum

It is well known that the ductile failure of materials is
controlled by three stages, i.e. micro-void nucleation,
growth and coalescence mechanisms. In order to describe
this damage and fracture process, several models using
local approaches have been proposed in the literature.
Globally, local approach modelling may be described by
two main families. Firstly, uncoupled models are based
upon void growth, such as McClintock [1], Thomason
[2,4], Rice and Tracey [3]. For these models, the material
failure stage is characterized by a critical void growth ratio
(R/R0)c, corresponding to crack initiation. This parameter
is considered as a material intrinsic property and it is
obtained by a combination of numerical results and
experimental data. Crack growth simulation is achieved
by a node release technique when the critical void growth
ratio is reached [5–8].
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nbensedd@polytech-lille.fr (N. Benseddiq).
damage mechanics such as Rousselier [9] and Gurson [10].
The use of these models is based upon a constitutive
equation introducing the material behaviour and a failure
criterion. In this type of model, the crack growth
simulation is automatically performed using the complete
deterioration of the element at the crack tip [6,11–14].
Among these models, the micro-mechanical model
proposed by Gurson is the most widely used for ductile
porous materials. The Gurson model employs equations to
describe the constitutive response of the metal [10]. These
expressions are based upon a continuum elastic–plastic
model that accounts for micro-void nucleation and growth.
Tvergaard and Needleman [15] have subsequently modified
this model introducing the following yield condition
(Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman (GTN) model):
 
s2eq  3 sm
Fðsy ; seq ; f Þ ¼ þ 2f q 1 cosh q
s2y 2 2 sy
 ð1 þ q3 ðf  Þ2 Þ ¼ 0, ð1Þ

0308-0161/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
220 N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227

Nomenclature f* modified damage parameter

f u ultimate value of damage parameter
J J-integral q1, q 2, q3 constitutive parameters
a crack length SN standard deviation
Da crack extension d accelerating factor
f void volume fraction sy yield stress of material
f0 initial void volume fraction seq equivalent stress
fc critical void volume fraction sm hydrostatic stress
fF void volume fraction at final failure E elastic modulus
fN volume fraction of void-forming particles

where q1 q2 and q3 are the constitutive parameters with
q3 ¼ (q1)2; sm is the mean normal stress defined by
sm ¼ skk/3, skk is the trace of the stress tensor; seq is the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi von Mises equivalent stress defined by seq ¼
conventional
ð3=2Þsij sij (sij is the stress deviator); sy is the yield stress;
f*(f) is a function of the void volume fraction f and
represents the modified damage parameter. This function is
defined by
8 "
>
<
f for f pf c ;

f ðf Þ ¼ f c þ dðf  f c Þ for f c pf pf F ; (2)
>
:f
u f Xf F :
The expression d ¼ ðf u  f c Þ=ðf F  f c Þ is considered as
an accelerating factor, which is introduced in order to
describe the final stage of ductile failure, where fc is the
critical void volume fraction corresponding to void
coalescence which at first occurs. This is considered as a
material intrinsic parameter, f u is the ultimate value of the
damage parameter which can be written as a function of q1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and q3 by f u ¼ ðq1 þ ðq1 Þ2  q3 Þ=q3 . If q3 ¼ (q1)2 the
ultimate void volume fraction f u equals (1/q1). fF is the
final void volume fraction. According to Eq. (2), f ¼ fF
corresponds to the failure stage, f  ¼ f u .
In general, the evolution equation for f consists of two
terms describing the nucleation and growth of voids:
df ¼ df nucleation þ df growth with f ðt0 Þ ¼ f 0 , (3)
where f0 is the initial void volume fraction.
Nucleation is considered to depend exclusively on the
effective strain of the matrix material:
df nucleation ¼ Adpeq þ Bðdseq þ cdsm Þ. (4)
The parameter ‘‘A’’ is chosen so that void nucleation
follows a normal distribution around a critical plastic
strain ep, which is estimated using the following expression:
"  #
fN 1 p  N 2
A¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  , (5)
SN 2p 2 SN
where fN is the volume fraction of void nucleating particles,
eN is the mean void nucleation strain and SN is the
corresponding standard deviation.
For strain-controlled void nucleation B ¼ 0. But in the
case of macroscopic ductility, the hydrostatic stress
dependence of void nucleation leads to a strong non-
normality in the plastic flow rule, which promotes early
flow localization. It is worth noting that a stress-controlled
nucleation criterion was found to be important in captur-
ing the effect of stress state on damage initiation. In this
case A ¼ 0 and
  #
fN 1 seq þ csm  sN 2
B¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  ,
S N 2p 2 SN
c is a constant parameter and can take values between 0.3
and 0.4.
The micro-void volume fraction rate due to growth is
given by
df growth ¼ ð1  f Þ dpkk , (6)
where ekkp is the plastic hydrostatic strain.
2. Scope of study
In the current paper, the GTN model is used to analyse
ductile tearing. The sensitivity of the model parameters is
analysed from literature data. Three types of parameters
have been reported: ‘‘the constitutive parameters’’ q1, q2
and q3, ‘‘the initial material and nucleation parameters’’
and ‘‘the critical and final failure parameters’’.
Both experimental and numerical results have been
obtained using notched round and CT specimens to
characterize rupture behaviour in a NiCr steel (12NC6)
with a small initial void volume fraction f0 (f0 ¼ 0.001%).
The parameters in this model are determined by a
calibration procedure using three types of mechanical tests:
classical tensile (true stress versus true strain), tensile with
an axisymmetric notched (AN) specimen AE (load versus
diameter reduction) and ductile tearing tests (J-parameter
versus crack growth Da). The results obtained by the GTN
model are discussed in the context of the extensive
literature on model parameters.
3. Analysis of GTN model parameters
Generally, the GTN model is used to predict the damage
of ductile materials [4–43]. To apply this model nine
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227 221

Table 1
GTN model parameter values from the literature

Ref. q1 f0 fc fF d fN eN SN Le (mm) Material sy (MPa) Rm (MPa) Specimen

[6] 1.5 0.002 0.004 – 23 – – – 0.2 0.5 C–Mn steel (at 300 1C) – – SENT25 CT22.5
[12] 1.47 0.00016 0.0005 – 2.8 – – – 0.8 A508 C13 A 471 593 AE2
1.47 0.0001 0.0003 – 4.3 – – – – A508 C13 B 470 608 AE2
[13] 1.5 0.0015 0.035 0.15 5.49 0.00085 0.3 0.1 0.1 E690 779 840 AE2 SENB (B ¼ 25)
[14] 1.5 0.001 0.02 1.141 67 0.04 0.3 0.1 0.1 20MnMoNi5 5
1.43 0.114 0.13 0.272 4 – – – – 366 – AE4
1.1 0.114 0.2 0.35 4.73 – – – – – –
[17] 1.1 0.114 0.3 0.44 4.35 – – – – GGG40 – –
1.2 0.114 0.19 0.235 14.3 – – – – – –
1.2 0.114 0.175 0.235 10.97 – – – – – –
[29] 1.25 0.00033 0.026 0.15 5.17 0.006 0.3 0.1 0.033 370 –
[31] 1.15 0.002 0.033 0.15 – 0.004 0.3 0.1 – 22NiMoCr37 – – –
[32] 1.5 0.077 0.12 0.2 6.8 – – – 0.2 GGG40 230 433 CT25 AE4
[33] 1.5 0.0023 0.004 3 – – – 0.5 CMn steel (300 1C) 190 500 AE2, 4 and 10
[34] – 0.001 0.003 – – 0.01 – 0.01 – AlMgSi alloy 260 – –
[35] 1.5 – 0.15 0.25 5.17 0.04 0.3 0.1 – – – – –
[36] 1.5 0.0 0.04 0.195 – 0.008 0.3 0.1 – – 366 – –
[37] 1.5 0.08 0.15 0.28 4 0 0 0 Composite
1.5 0 0.02 0.34 2 0.04 0.5 0.2 – Al-Al3Ti 54.7 80 .
1.5 0 0.2 0.32 4 0.4 0.05 0.02
1.5 0 0.15 0.28 4 0.08 0.025 0.025
[38] 1.5 0.00057 0.03 1.3 0.004 0.3 0.1 612 707 AE0.25 and 4 CT
[39] 1.5 0.0025 0.021 3.4 0.02 0.3 0.1 0.2 E460 steel
[40] 1.25 0.005 – 0.2 – 0.001 0.04 0.01 0.2 A533B – – –
[41] 1.5 0 0.06 0.212 4 0.002 0.3 0.1 0.1 Steel 440 600
1.5 0 0.04 0.197 4 0.002 0.3 0.1 0.1 620 750 SENB
1.5 0 0.03 0.189 4 0.002 0.3 0.1 0.1 320 580
[42] 1.25 0.00033 0.026 0.15 6.24 0.006 0.3 0.1 0.033 CMn steel 360 – –
[43] 1.47 0.002 0.028 – – – – – – Cu 312 325 AE1 2 4 8

parameters are necessary. They can be classified into two
principal families:
 the ‘‘constitutive parameters’’: q1, q2 and q3
 the ‘‘material parameters’’, which are classified in two
parts. Firstly, ‘‘the initial material and nucleation
parameters’’, which are determined as the initial void
volume fraction f0 and the void nucleation parameters
fn, en and Sn. Secondly, ‘‘the critical and final failure
parameters’’, the critical void volume fraction fc
and fF.
A combination of numerical results and experimental
data is necessary in order to determine some of the
parameters. It is important to note that most of the
parameters are not easy to define. Globally, there is no
unique method to determine these parameters. For this
reason, a global analysis of the large data available in the
literature has been performed, in order to examine the
validity of the choices of these parameters, and suggest a
global method to determine them (see Table 1).
3.1. Constitutive parameters: q1, q2, q3
In order to describe material ductile fracture, Tvergaard
[15] has suggested fixing the q1 and q2 values at q1 ¼ 1.5
and q2 ¼ 1. These values have been used in several
investigations (see Table 1).
In a recent study, Perrin et al. [16] have determined a
correlation between the parameter q and porosity f: q ¼
q(f). The authors show that when the porosity tends to
zero, the q value tends to 1.47. This value is similar to that
suggested by Tvergaard (q ¼ 1.5) [15]. In the modelling of
nodular cast iron, Steglich et al. [17] have proposed a yield
condition determined from a cell model that results in using
a quadratic equation to estimate the parameter q1. The
calculations of this parameter for various stress triaxiality
ratios T give an average value of q1 equal to 1.5. The
authors have noted that the parameter q1 does not depend
on the stress triaxiality ratio T but little physical
significance is given to this value.
Gao et al. [18] have performed several calculations
considering a wide range of material flow properties
(hardening N, sy/E) and stress triaxiality ratios (2–3.3)
with sy/E ¼ 0.001–0.004.
For a specific set of flow properties, the authors have
obtained various q1 and q2 parameters. It is interesting to
note that the parameter q ¼ q1  q2 is approximately
always constant and equal to about 1.5 for all cases
studied (Table 2). Faleskog [19] indicates that the two
parameters depend on the material hardening exponent.
The q parameters depend strongly on strain hardening and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
222 N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227
Table 2
Optimal values for micro-mechanics parameters (q1, q2) [19]
Hardening (N) sy/E ¼ 0.001 sy/E ¼ 0.002 sy/E ¼ 0.004
q1 q2 q1  q2 q1 q2 q1  q2 q1 q2
5 1.96 0.78 1.531 1.87 0.8 1.496 1.71 0.84 1.43
6.7 1.78 0.83 1.483 1.68 0.86 1.438 1.49 0.9 1.342
10 1.58 0.9 1.425 1.46 0.93 1.359 1.29 0.98 1.265
material strength; for a material of moderate hardening
and strength, e.g., N ¼ 0.1 and sy/E ¼ 0.002, the calibra-
tion gives q1 ¼ 1.46 and q2 ¼ 0.93. High strain hardening
reduces the effect of stress triaxiality on void growth rate,
resulting in q2 values much below unity [19] (Table 2).
It is important to note that the value of q1 may be
considered as essential to describe the failure stage. Because
of Eq. (2), fracture of material occurs (i.e. f ¼ fF) when f*
reaches its ultimate value f u ¼ 1=q1 (when q1 ¼ 1.5,
f u ¼ 0:666). The physical validity of this value is not
proven.
Table 1 shows that the value of the constitutive
parameter q1 varies from 1.1 to 1.5 for many materials.
However, this parameter is often fixed to 1.5 and q2 ¼ 1.
3.2. Material parameters: f0, fN, fc, fF, eN and SN
3.2.1. Initial material and nucleation parameters
Generally, the initial void volume fraction f0 and volume
fraction of void nucleating particles fN are evaluated by
microscopical examination of the undamaged material. As
a first approximation, f0 can be obtained from the MnS
inclusions by Franklin’s formula using the chemical
composition [20].
Table 1 also shows that the values of the nucleation
parameters fN, eN and SN can be arbitrarily fixed. The
values eN ¼ 0.3 and SN ¼ 0.1 have been used in several
studies, and they are determined by fitting.
3.2.2. Critical and final failure parameters
In most investigations, only the critical void volume
fraction fc is considered as a parameter, obtained by fitting
the numerical calculations with experimental results, and
the other parameters are fixed arbitrary. According to
Zhang et al. [21], fc is not a constant but decreases when the
stress triaxiality ratio T increases. However, other authors
note that fc can be taken as a constant only for small f0
values. In a similar study, Steglich et al. [17] confirm that
the fc value depends on stress triaxiality T: fc decreases with
the increase of T. In a recent experimental study [22], these
observations were confirmed and the author proposed a
linear correlation between fc and T for a high f0 value
(f0 ¼ 13%): fc ¼ 0.2550.146  T.
According to Koplik and Needleman [23], the fc value,
which signifies the onset of coalescence, seems to vary
slowly with stress triaxiality ratio but depends strongly on
the initial void volume fraction f0 and is generally smaller
q1  q2
Fig. 1. Dependence of fc on f0.
than the value of 0.15. Fig. 1 shows a dependence of fc on
f0. Only for small f0, as a first approximation, can the value
of fc be taken as a constant. Tvergaard and Needleman [15]
suggested that the value of fc can be taken as 0.15.
These observations show that fc is not a material
parameter but is a parameter determined by fitting.
Table 1, which gives numerous values from the literature,
shows the variability of this parameter for a considered
material.
On the other hand, the final failure void volume fraction
fF is considered a parameter that may be experimentally
determined [6]. The mentioned authors show that fF affects
the post-initiation load diameter–reduction curve and that
the smaller the fF the faster the load decreases. In FE
modelling, Chambert [24] has analysed curves illustrating
the evolution of equivalent stress with equivalent plastic
strain using three fF values: 0.075, 0.15 and 0.225. The
author noted that this parameter controls the final slope of
these curves. Originally, Tvergaard and Needleman [15]
proposed a value equal to 0.25.
From Eq. (2), the final failure void volume fraction fF
may be determined if the values of q1, d and fc are
previously known using fF ¼ fc+(1/q1fc)/d. This shows
that the final failure parameter may be given to a first
approximation by f F ¼ 1=dq1 ¼ ð1=dÞ  f u when the value
of fc is low.
Recently, Zhang et al. [28] have proposed an empirical
expression for fF and f0, which is written as a linear
equation: fF ¼ 0.15+2  f0. This signifies that fF can be
fixed to a first approximation at 0.15 for low f0 values. As
shown in Table 1, this parameter can take values between
0.15 and 0.44.
4. Experimental technique and results
4.1. Material
The nickel and chromium steel used in this investigation
is the 12NC6 steel. Its chemical composition was (wt%):
0.12C, 0.007S, 0.32Si, 0.6Mn, 1.6M, 0.85Cr and 0.076A1.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227 223

The steel was austenitized at 880 1C for 1 h, and then
quenched in an oven. The final steel micro-structure is
illustrated in Fig. 2. This shows the ferritic–pearlitic bands.
The initial void volume fraction f0 is small (f0 ¼ 0.001%).
This micro-structural parameter is necessary to use the
GTN model.
4.1.1. Mechanical properties
Three tensile tests were carried out at ambient tempera-
ture on cylindrical specimens with a diameter d ¼ 11 mm.
The mechanical properties of this material are as follows:
0.2% proof stress of 340 MPa, ultimate stress of 489 MPa
Fig. 2. Micro-structure of the steel used in this study.
and Young’s modulus of 194 GPa. The uniaxial plastic flow
behaviour was assumed to follow a Ramberg–Osgood
stress–strain law:
8
>  ¼ e þ p
<
s ¼ Ee if spsy ; (7)
>
: s ¼ sy þ kn if s4sy ;
p
with the hardening exponent N ¼ 0.45 and ductility
coefficient k ¼ 544 MPa.
To experimentally determine the crack initiation point,
other tensile tests have been carried out using three sets of
standard axisymmetrically notched bar specimens: AE2,
AE4 and AE10. This specimen is often used in order to
vary the stress triaxiality ratio T with the notch radius
according to Brigdman’s formula [26]:
 
sm 1 r
T¼ ¼ þ ln 1 þ , (8)
seq 3 2r
where r is notch radius and r is the minimum radius of the
notched round specimen. As shown in Fig. 3, the specimens
used in this study have a notch radius r ¼ 2, 4 and 10 mm,
and minimum radius r ¼ 3 mm. This leads to three values
of stress traixiality ratio T ¼ 0.89, 0.65 and 0.47.
During this kind of test, it is difficult to correctly
measure the diameter reduction. In our study, the variation
of diameter has been measured using an image technique,
which has the advantage of not requiring contact. An
example of an image is shown in Fig. 4. This technique can
follow the evolution of the diameter reduction exactly at
the notch bottom and at the minimum diameter. In

Fig. 3. Notched round specimens: (a) NR2, (b) NR4 and (c) NR10.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
224 N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227
Fig. 4. An example of typical images to measure the diameter reduction.
Global profile corresponding to (a) first image, (b) at initial diameter and
(c) at crack initiation.
addition, the image analysis technique easily detects the
point where crack initiation is localized.
Fig. 5 shows the evolution of applied load as a function
of diameter reduction DF for the three configurations
examined. These curves give the critical diameter reduction
DFc at crack initiation. The ductility er is defined as the
average longitudinal strain at fracture:
 
F0
r ¼ 2 ln . void volume fraction of the steel used in this study. The
F0  DFc
Fig. 6 shows the variation of failure strain with stress
triaxiality ratio T. The failure strain is sensitive to the stress
triaxiality ratio T. Indeed, the coalescence strain decreases
Fig. 5. Load versus diameter reduction for three notched axisymmetric
specimens.
Fig. 6. Failure strain versus stress triaxiality ratio.
when T increases, i.e., when the minimum diameter
decreases. This observation is in agreement with several
literature results.
4.2. Fracture toughness tests
Six fracture mechanics tests were performed at room
temperature using side-grooved CT specimens (width
W ¼ 50 mm, thickness BN ¼ 20 mm) pre-cracked to
a/W ¼ 0.5. The parameter J was determined according to
the ASTM standard procedure [25] using the area under
the load–displacement curve and crack extension was
deduced from the partial unloading compliance method.
Fig. 7 shows the evolution of J with crack extension. The
J0.2 value, corresponding to a crack extension
Da ¼ 0.2 mm, is about 210 kJ/m2. The high value of this
parameter can be explained by the small value of initial
stable growth stage, within the valid domain of crack
extension defined by two parallel offset lines at 0.15 and
1.5 mm crack growth, is described by a power function
J ¼ J1.0Dan, with J1.0 ¼ 529 kJ/m2 and n ¼ 0.89.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227 225

Fig. 7. J-integral versus crack extension Da (experimental results).

5. Numerical investigation

The GTN model has been applied in the FE simulation

using the SYSTUS software. The material is assumed to be
homogeneous, elastoplastic with isotropic hardening. Five
parameters of this model are necessary: q1 ¼ q (i.e.,
q2 ¼ 1), A, f0, d and fc.
Two configurations have been analysed: the tensile AN
specimen and the CT specimen. Fig. 8 shows the meshing
corresponding to each specimen using quadratic elements Fig. 8. (a) Tensile axisymmetric notched, (b) typical meshing for CT
with eight nodes. In the CT specimen, the mesh size around specimen and (c) detail around crack tip (Le ¼ 0.2 mm).
the crack tip is refined and chosen equal to Le ¼ 0.2 mm,
which is a size usually used for ductile tearing simulation. It
is well known that the Le value affects the computation
results using the local approach [9,26]. In the literature,
proposals have been made to estimate the mesh size as a
function of the number of inclusions per unit volume Nv
[9,26].
For the ductile tearing computation, the whole specimen
must be considered even where the specimen has geome-
trical symmetry [24,27].
At first, the following parameter set has been chosen in
order to simulate the P–DF curve of the AN specimen:

 f0: initial void volume fraction is evaluated by

observations f0=0.001%,
 q: interaction between void parameters, q=q1=1.5
and q2=l ((with q3(q1)2),
 d: amplifying factor of f in the coalescence phase is
arbitrarily fixed to 3 with d ¼ ðf u  f c Þ=ðf F  f c Þ
where fu*=1/q1=0.666,
 A: continuous void nucleation parameter is arbitrarily Fig. 9. Critical void volume fraction versus stress triaxiality ratio.
fixed to 0.001 and
 fc: critical void volume fraction or critical porosity
(adjustable parameter) with fF determined as a func- ality ratio values. As expected, fc decreases with increasing
tion of 1/q1, d and fc from Eq. (2). stress triaxiality ratio T (Fig. 9). The value of fc depends
on the set of parameters initially fixed and the average
From this set of parameters, the critical void volume value in this case is fc ¼ 0.004. Using this set of para-
fraction fc has been computed by fitting the experimental meters (f0 ¼ 0.001%, q ¼ q1 ¼ 1.5, A ¼ 0.001, d ¼ 3 and
load–diameter reduction curves for different stress triaxi- fc ¼ 0.004), crack growth simulation has been carried out
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
226 N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227
Fig. 10. J–Da curves. Comparison between numerical results and
experimental data.
Fig. 11. Load versus diameter reduction for d ¼ 2 and 3.
using the GTN model, but underestimates the resistance
curve. This may be explained by the high value of the
amplifying factor d (Fig. 10). Fig. 10 also shows that the
crack growth curve is correctly simulated when d is reduced
to 2. This indicates that the amplifying factor plays an
important role in crack growth simulation. On the other
hand, d plays a weak part on the end of the curve (load
versus diameter reduction) for AN numerical result
(see Fig. 11). In our case we have chosen arbitrarily this
parameter (d ¼ 3), but we suggest taking smaller values
(1–2) to obtain good results.
6. Conclusions
This study has examined ductile fracture analysis using
the GTN model based on local damage. The nine
parameters characterizing this model have been studied
using literature data and have been classified as follows:
 The constitutive parameters (q1, q2, q3) which are always
fixed and not dependent on material. In the majority of
cases q1 ¼ 1.5.
 The material parameters (f0, fN, fc, fF, eN and SN), where
f0 can be determined experimentally and it is possible to
determine the relationship between f0, fc and fF.
The critical void volume fraction fc decreases with
increasing stress triaxiality. In numerical calculations,
related to experimental data on a nickel–chrome steel, an
average value of this parameter has been used.
The crack growth resistance curve has been simulated by
using the following parameters: the constitutive parameters
are constant, q1 ¼ 1.5 and q2 ¼ 1, the amplifying factor in
the coalescence phase d is 3, the void nucleation factor is
arbitrarily fixed at 0.001. The first calculations lead to a
difference between the numerical results and experimental
data. This may be due to using a value for the coalescence
phase, d, which is too high. Indeed, a value of this chosen
parameter equal to 2 leads to the correct results. In this
model case, it is difficult to determine a unique solution.
References
[1] McClintock FA. A criterion for ductile fracture by growth of holes.
J Appl Mech 1968;35:363–434.
[2] Thomason PF. Ductile fracture and the stability of incompressible
plasticity in the presence of microvoids. Acta Metall 1968;29:360–5.
[3] Rice JR, Tracey DM. On ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial
stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids 1969;17:201–17.
[4] Thomason PF. Ductile fracture of metals. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
1990.
[5] Wilsius J, Inad A, Nait Abdelaziz M, Mesmacque G, Eripret C. Void
growth and damage models for predicting ductile fracture in welds.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2000;23:105–12.
[6] Bauvineau L, Burlet H, Eripret C, Pineau A. Modelling ductile stable
crack growth in a C–Mn steel with local approaches. In: First
European mechanics of materials conference on local approach to
fracture, Fontainebleau, September 1996.
[7] Imad A, Wilsius J, Na-t Abdelaziz M, Mesmacque G. Experiments
and numerical approaches to ductile tearing in an 2024-T351
aluminium alloy. Int J Mech Sci 2003;45:1849–61.
[8] Dutta BK, Saini S, Arora N. Application of a modified damage
potential to predict ductile crack initiation in welded pipes. Int J Press
Vessels Piping 2005;82(11):833–9.
[9] Rousselier G. Ductile fracture models and their potential in local
approach to fracture. Nucl Eng Design 1987;105:97–111.
[10] Gurson AL. 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 1977;99:2–15.
[11] Wilsius J. Etude experimentale et numerique de la dechirure ductile
basee sur des approches locales en mecanique de la rupture. PhD
thesis, Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, France, 1999.
[12] Devaux J, Joly P, Leblond JB. Simulation by the local approach of
ductile crack growth in a pressure vessel steel using an improved
Gurson–Tvergaard model. 21st MPA seminar, October 1995.
[13] Betegon C, Rodriguez C, Belzunce FJ. Analysis and modelisation of
short crack growth by ductile fracture micromechanisms. Fatigue
Fract Eng Mater Struct 1997;20(5):633–44.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Benseddiq, A. Imad / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 219–227
[14] Hao S, Brocks W, Heerens J, Hellmann D. Simulation of 3D ductile
crack growth by the Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman model. ECF11
Mechanisms and mechanics of damage and failure, September 1996.
p. 805–10.
[15] Tvergaard V, Needleman A. Analysis of the cup–cone fracture in a
round tensile bar. Acta Metall 1984;32:157–69.
[16] Perrin G, Leblond JB. Analytical study of a hollow sphere made of
plastic porous material and subjected to hydrostatic tension—
application to some problems in ductile fracture metals. Int J
Plasticity 1990;6:677–98.
[17] Steglich D, Brocks W. Micromechanical modelling of damage and
fracture of ductile materials. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1998;
21(10):1175–88.
[18] Gao X, Faleskog J, Shih CF, Dodds RH. Ductile tearing in part-
through cracks: experiments and cell-model predictions. Eng Fract
Mech 1998;59:761–77.
[19] Faleskog J, Gao X, Shih CF. Cell model for nonlinear fracture
mechanics—I. Micromechanics calibration. Int J Fract 1998;89:365–73.
[20] Franklin AG. Comparison between a quantitative microscope and
chemical methods for assessment of non-metallic inclusions. J Iron
Steel Inst 1969:181–6.
[21] Zhang ZL, Niemi E. A new failure criterion for the Gurson–Tver-
gaard dilatation constitutive model. Int J Fract 1995;70:321–34.
[22] Guillemer-neel C. Comportement mecanique et endommagement de
la fonte a graphite spheroidal. PhD thesis, UTC France, 1999.
[23] Koplik J, Needleman A. Void growth and coalescence in porous
plastic solids. Int J Solids Struct 1988;24(8):835–53.
[24] Chambert J. Etude parametrique d’un modele d’endommagement de
type Gurson. Prise en compte d’un critere de coalescence. In:
Proceeding du 14eme Congres de Mecanique, Toulouse, 1999.
[25] Chung WN, Williams JG. Elastic–plastic fracture test methods: the
user’s experience (second volume). In: Joyce JA, editor. ASTM STP,
1114, vol. 2. ASTM; 1991. p. 320–39.
[26] Devaux JC, Mudry F, Pineau A, Rousselier G. Experimental and
numerical validation of a ductile fracture local criterion based on a
simulation of cavity growth. In: Saxena A, Merkle JG, editors. Non
linear fracture mechanics, vol. 2II. Philadelphia: American Society
for Testing and Materials; 1989. p. 332–54.
[27] Zhang ZL, Niemi E. Analyzing ductile fracture using dual dilational
constitutive equations. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1994;17(6):
695–707.
[28] Zhang ZL, Thaulow C, Phidegard J. A complete Gurson model
approach for ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech 2000;67:155–68.
[29] Zhang ZL. A sensitivity analysis of material parameters for the
Gurson constitutive model. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1996;
19(5):561–70.
227
[30] Brocks W, Hao S, Steglich D. Micromechanical modelling of the
damage and toughness behaviour of nodular cast iron materials. In:
First European mechanics of materials conference on local approach
to fracture, Fontainebleau, September 1996.
[31] Brocks W, Sun DZ, Honig A. Verification of micromechanical
models for ductile fracture by cell model calculations. Comput Mater
Sci 1996;7:235–41.
[32] Dong MJ, Berdin C, Beranger AS, Prioul C. Damage effect in the
fracture toughness of nodular cast iron. In: First European mechanics
of materials conference on local approach to fracture, Fontainebleau,
September 1996.
[33] Decamp K, Bauvineau L, Besson J, Pineau A. Size and geometry
effects on ductile rupture of notched bars in a C–Mn steel.
Experiments and modelling. Int J Fract 1997;88:1–18.
[34] Sovik OP. Experimental and numerical investigation of void
nucleation in an AlMgSi alloy. In: First European mechanics of
materials conference on local approach to fracture, Fontainebleau,
September 1996.
[35] Ghosal AK, Narasimhan R. Numerical simulations of hole growth
and ductile fracture initiation under mixed-mode loading. Int J Fract
1996;77:281–304.
[36] Kuna M, Sun DZ. Three-dimensional cell model analyses of void
growth in ductile materials. Int J Fract 1996;81:235–58.
[37] He R, Steglich D, Heerens J, Wang G-X, Brocks W, Dahms M.
Influence of particle size and volume fraction on damage and fracture
in Al-A13Ti composites and micromechanical modelling using
the GTN model. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1998;21(10):
1189–201.
[38] Sun DZ, Siegle D, Voss B, Schmitt W. Application of local damage
models to the numerical analysis of ductile rupture. Fatigue Fract
Eng Mater Struct 1989;12(3):201–12.
[39] Siegmund T, Bernauer G, Brocks W. Two models of ductile fracture
in contest: porous metal plasticity and cohesive elements. ECF12
fracture from defects, September 1998. p. 933–8.
[40] Xia L, Cheng L. Transition from ductile tearing to cleavage fracture:
a cell-model approach. Int J Fract 1997;87(3):289–306.
[41] Schmitt W, Sun DZ, Blauel JG. Damage mechanics analysis (Gurson
model) and experimental verification of the behaviour of a crack in a
weld-cladded component. Nucl Eng Design 1997;74:237–46.
[42] Skallerud B, Zhang ZL. A 3D numerical study of ductile tearing and
fatigue crack growth under nominal cyclic plasticity. Int J Solids
Struct 1997;34(24):3141–61.
[43] Pardoen T, Doghri I, Delannay F. Experimental and numerical
comparison of void growth models and void coalescence criteria for
the prediction of ductile fracture in copper bars. Acta Mater
1998;46(2):541–52.