PSI - Issue 47

Hachimi Taoufik et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 47 (2023) 711 – 722 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

717

7

3. Result and discussion The Extended finite element model for the tensile test was created to locate the crack propagation and follow it with high precision considering the printing trajectories and orientations. The local material reference was assigned using 45°/-45° data. For this, Fig. 7 shows the curves Stress-Strain of the experimental test and the modeled one.

Fig. 7. Curves Stress-Strain of the experimental and the modeled test

Fig. 7 contrasts the experimentally measured stress-strain curves with those produced by extended finite element simulations. Table 3 demonstrates that the elastic behavior is accurately recreated with a minor variation due to the previously indicated simplifications. As a result, the model accurately forecasts the progression of stress up to the yielding point. On the other hand, the numerical answer exhibits plastic behavior. Since it didn't show up in the experiments, this behavior was consciously ignored. Applying the equivalent displacement value and putting a fracture initiation criterion in place allowed for managing the elongation at fracture.

Table 3. Result of the experimental and modeled tensile test for the SENT specimen Modeling Experimental Young's Modulus (MPa) 1090.40 1016.70 Elastic limit σ e (MPa) 16.45 22.5 Tensile strength σ m (MPa) 25.4 24.36 Elongation at Break (%) 4 4.4

3.1. Crack length The tensile test was recorded with the aid of a Camera 4K@30 IPS. An adaptative study was made, fixing the tensile test's starting and ending with the recorded video. Then, we split the video with a total length of 26s into 38 frames, including the first one at t=0. The conventional time for each frame was 0.701s. This division was obtained to study the crack length. The crack length was studied using ImageJ by importing the frames and selecting two reference points, one for the initial state and the other for the following form (Fig. 8). It should mention that the program works according to a ladder of 23.4.