
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
56 sec Video (below): An R&D project featuring a 3D 1/8-model of a standard tensile test specimen having a minimum axial h-value of 0.001" at the failure plane. YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/j6j8C-iEQhY What do you think this numerical behavior represents?
Notes:
1. Low strain hardening coefficient
2. Lower order (linear) bricks
3. No geometric protuberance
4. AutoDesk Simulation Mechanical
The surface crinkling may be a valid phenomenon. A circumferential set of axial stripes or ridges is evidenced in lab tensile-testing of some metallic specimens. These ridges are probably all or mostly due to microstructural dislocation slip, which is beyond the capability of the FE model's isotropic material model used. Or, could it be that prior to (or without) microvoid nucleation, which is an MES impossibility, in this ductile sample the axial ridges are true "crinkling" but their rather large size is caused by the 8-node brick mesh limiting the model's sensitivity to manifest a much smaller and more numerous set of axial ridges.
Besides that material model being a limit to the nature of this model behavior, the 1/8 symmetry of the model negates simulation of a true cup-cone failure mode. But, imagine just prior to such a failure mode, except we have a symmetric, "cup-bullet" failure mode... the "bullet" being a "symmetric cup" of-sorts, and each side of the specimen forms a "symmetric cone" to match it.
So, what do you think this numerical behavior represents?
www.OrgeronEngineering.com
VIDEO LINK:
Solved! Go to Solution.