PSI- Issue 9

Riccardo Fincato et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 9 (2018) 126–135 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000 – 000 b

7 7 7 7

132 a

a a a

b b b

c c c c

d d d d

e e e e

f f f f

Figure 4 Load-displacement curves for the round notched bars and flat grooved plates. Figure 4 Load-displacement curves for the round notched bars and flat grooved plates. Figure 4 Load-displacement curves for the round notched bars and flat grooved plates. Figure 4 Load-displacement curves for the round notched bars and flat grooved plates. Both of the ductile damage solutions L an MC are in go d agreement with the experimental results in terms of m delling the load- isplacement curves and in the identification of the total displacement to failure. The soluti n obtain d with Lemaitre’s approach is in general more accurate in the description o the load displacement b haviour, whereas the urple l nes se m to und restimate the experimental solution in the n tched round samples and overe imate th total load for the flat groov d bars. Thi is visible also damage evolution reported with dashed green (L) and purple (MC) lines for t most damaged e ment of mesh (i. . centroid). The amag evolution was faster using the M hr- Coulo b’s cr terion, ther fore material parameter d 1 was set to be equal to 0.1 in orde to be able to catch the experi ental load peaks. In gen al, the total displacemen at failure is better describ d w th the MC’s approach, the only case w ere th L’s damage law give a more accurate response is fo the flat g o ved plate with a 1 mm groove radius. Fi ure 5a report th MC f ilu envelop wi the breaking points of the six specimens obtained by adding to the f  computed with Eq. (8) the value of cumulativ plastic strain threshold d 1 in order to obtain the total Both of the ductile damage solutions L an MC are in good agreement with the experimental results in terms of modelling the load-displacement curves and in the identification of the total displacement to failure. The solution obtained with Lemaitre’s approach is in general more accurate in the description of the load displacement behaviour, whereas the purple lines seem to underestimate the experimental solution in the notched round samples and overestimate the total load for the flat grooved bars. This is visible also in the damage evolution reported with dashed green (L) and purple (MC) lines for the most damaged element of the mesh (i.e. centroid). The damage evolution was faster using the Mohr- Coulomb’s criterion, therefore the material parameter d 1 was set to be equal to 0.1 in order to be able to catch the experimental load peaks. In general, the total displacement at failure is better described with the MC’s approach, the only case where the L’s damage law give a more accurate response is for the flat grooved plate with a 1 mm groove radius. Figure 5a reports the MC failure envelope with the breaking points of the six specimens obtained by adding to the f  computed with Eq. (8) the value of cumulative plastic strain threshold d 1 in order to obtain the total Both of the ductile damage solutions L an MC are in good agreement with the experimental results in terms of modelling the load-displacement curves and in the identification of the total displacement to failure. The solution obtained with Lemaitre’s approach is in general more accurate in the description of the load displacement behaviour, whereas the purple lines seem to underestimate the experimental solution in the notched round samples and overestimate the total load for the flat grooved bars. This is visible also in the damage evolution reported with dashed green (L) and purple (MC) lines for the most damaged element of the mesh (i.e. centroid). The damage evolution was faster using the Mohr- Coulomb’s criterion, therefore the material parameter d 1 was set to be equal to 0.1 in order to be able to catch the experimental load peaks. In general, the total displacement at failure is better described with the MC’s approach, the only case where the L’s damage law give a more accurate response is for the flat grooved plate with a 1 mm groove radius. Figure 5a reports the MC failure envelope with the breaking points of the six specimens obtained by adding to the f  computed with Eq. (8) the value of cumulative plastic strain threshold d 1 in order to obtain the total Both of the ductile damage solutions L an MC are in good agreement with the experimental results in terms of modelling the load-displacement curves and in the identification of the total displacement to failure. The solution obtained with Lemaitre’s approach is in general more accurate in the description of the load displacement b haviour, whereas the purple lines seem to underestimate the experimental solution in the notched round samples and overestimate the total load for the flat grooved bars. Th s is visible also in the damage evolution reported with dashed green (L) and purple (MC) lines for the most damaged e ment of mesh (i.e. centroid). The damage evolutio was faster using the Mohr- Coulomb’s criterion, therefore the aterial parameter d 1 was set to be equal to 0.1 in order to be able to catch the experim ntal load peaks. In gen al, the total displacemen at failure is better described with the MC’s pproach, the only case where the L’s damage law give a more accurate response is fo the flat grooved plate with a 1 mm groove radius. Figure 5a reports the MC failure envelope with the breaking points of the six specimens obtained by adding to the f  computed with Eq. (8) the value of cumulativ plastic strain threshold d 1 in order to obtain the total