PSI - Issue 68

T. Fekete et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 68 (2025) 687–693 T. Fekete et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2025) 000–000

691

5

Fig. 4. Finite Element model of the tensile test specimen

This paper presents three models for consideration. The first model (M1) implements the idealized, symmetric design model of the specimen geometry with nominal dimensions: gauge width×thickness×length 8 × 2 × 30 [mm × mm × mm]. The second model (M2) also incorporates the idealized representation of the specimen, however, the width and thickness of the gauge section have been determined using the mean value of the respective coordinate measuring system results. Thus, the gauge section width×thickness×length is 7.962 × 1.967 × 30 [mm×mm×mm]. In the third model (M3), the surface nodes of the gauge section were aligned to the coordinate maps determined by the measurements (see Figure 2b). This indicates that the M1 and M2 models contain an idealized, symmetric geometric model of the specimen, while the geometry of M3 is based on a realistic model of the measurement section incorporating a slight asymmetry. Figure 5 illustrates the evolution of the equivalent plastic strain for each model.

Fig. 5. Evolution of the strain field during the simulations