PSI - Issue 42

Lucas Mangas Araújo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 42 (2022) 1591–1599 Author n me / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 0 0

1597

Fig. 5. Comparison between the numerical responses of Mises and Gao based formulations with the experimental reaction curve from the compression- tension (−90◦ to+ 90◦) test 1. On the left, only is activated, while on the left both a and b are considered. Gao’s parameters and calibrated on monotonic conditions.

Fig. 6. Comparison between the numerical responses of Mises and Gao based formulations with the experimental reaction curve from the compression- tension test (−90◦ to+ 90◦) . On the left, only b is activated, while on the left both and are considered. Gao’s parameters and calibrated on monotonic conditions. The outcomes of the simulations are presented in Fig.5 and in dicate that a recalibration of Gao’s constants is needed. This is likely due to the presence of kinematic hardening in the ULCF modeling, which is neglected on the monotonic case. In this regard, one conducts an identification methodology following the same steps utilized in monotonic conditions. First, based on the reversed shear tests, several simulations are performed with different values within the range [−70.0, −10.0] . The interval was narrowed compared to the one chosen previously because of the convexity loss observed with a high negative . The best result was achieved with = −70.0 . The left plots in Fig.7 and 8 shows the numerical versus curves for = 0 and = −70.0 (blue square-dashed lines).