2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2021.103149
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of material orientation on void growth

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Badreddine et al (2015) and Badreddine and Saanouni (2017) modeled the anisotropic plastic behavior with the Hill yield condition and used the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxiality given by the ratio of the mean and the von Mises equivalent stress. Similarly, Hosseini et al (2022) studied the effect of material orientation on void growth based on the orthotropic Yld2004 yield criterion (Barlat et al, 2005) also using the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxaility and the Lode parameter expressed in terms of the principal stresses. However, in the analysis of anisotropic materials it is important to take into account the directionality of the stress state with respect to the material orientation and, therefore, a generalized stress triaxiality and Lode parameter have to be developed.…”
Section: Continuum Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Badreddine et al (2015) and Badreddine and Saanouni (2017) modeled the anisotropic plastic behavior with the Hill yield condition and used the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxiality given by the ratio of the mean and the von Mises equivalent stress. Similarly, Hosseini et al (2022) studied the effect of material orientation on void growth based on the orthotropic Yld2004 yield criterion (Barlat et al, 2005) also using the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxaility and the Lode parameter expressed in terms of the principal stresses. However, in the analysis of anisotropic materials it is important to take into account the directionality of the stress state with respect to the material orientation and, therefore, a generalized stress triaxiality and Lode parameter have to be developed.…”
Section: Continuum Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2015) and Badreddine and Saanouni (2017) modeled the anisotropic plastic behavior with the Hill yield condition and used the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxiality given by the ratio of the mean and the von Mises equivalent stress. Similarly, Hosseini et al. (2022) studied the effect of material orientation on void growth based on the orthotropic Yld2004 yield criterion (Barlat et al., 2005) also using the classical isotropic definition of the stress triaxaility and the Lode parameter expressed in terms of the principal stresses.…”
Section: Continuum Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…𝝈𝑑𝑉 (Vadillo et al, 2016;Hosseini et al, 2022), with 𝑉 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 = ∫ 𝑉 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑉 being the total volume of the unit-cell. Moreover, the macroscopic strain tensor of the bi-phase material is defined as the volumetric averaging of the microscopic strain tensor…”
Section: Unit-cellmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the simulations, periodic boundary conditions have been applied on the unit-cell using the equations for the nodal displacements reported in Appendix A of Dakshinamurthy et al (2021). The multi-point constraint subroutine developed by Dakshinamurthy et al (2021) has been employed to impose controlled values of macroscopic stress triaxiality and macroscopic Lode parameter in the unit-cell (bi-phase material), 𝑋 𝛴 𝛾+𝛼 ′ and 𝐿 𝛾+𝛼 ′ , respectively-see also Hosseini et al (2022) and Vishnu et al (2023). The loading directions are parallel to the principal directions of the macroscopic stress tensor of the bi-phase material, such that the major loading direction corresponds to the principal stress direction associated with 𝛴 𝛾+𝛼 ′ 𝐼 and the minor loading direction corresponds to the principal stress direction associated with 𝛴 𝛾+𝛼 ′ 𝐼𝐼𝐼 ; see Fig.…”
Section: Unit-cellmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most void cell calculations reported in the literature have been performed considering isotropic matrix materials and spheroidal voids (e.g., Faleskog et al (2000); Pardoen and Hutchinson (2003) and Kim et al (2004); Benzerga et al (2004b) and Danas and Ponte Castañeda (2012)). However, some studies dealing with unitcell simulations involving plastically anisotropic matrix (Benzerga and Besson, 2001;Wang et al, 2004;Keralavarma and Benzerga, 2010;Steglich et al, 2010;Keralavarma et al, 2011;Legarth and Tvergaard, 2018;Daehli et al, 2017;Hosseini et al, 2022) were also reported but much less often than the case when the matrix material is isotropic. The unit cell studies mentioned above reveal the profound influence of anisotropy on the aggregate material behavior affecting both the stress strain cell response and void (size and shape) evolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%