DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING

Modelling of failure

Master Thesis carried out at Division of Solid Mechanics

Linköpings University
March 2008

Oscar Björklund

LIU-IEI-TEK-A--08/00381--SE

Institute of Technology, Dept. of Management and Engineering,

SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
Framläggningsdatum Avdelning, institution
Presentation date Division, department
2008-03-10
Publiceringsdatum Division of Solid Mechanics
Publication date Dept. of Management and Engineering
2008-03-19 SE-581 83 LINKÖPING

Språk Rapporttyp ISBN:

Language Report category
Svenska/Swedish Licentiatavhandling ISRN: LIU-IEI-TEK-A--08/00381--SE
X Engelska/English X Examensarbete
C-uppsats
Serietitel:
D-uppsats
Title of series
Övrig rapport
Serienummer/ISSN:
Number of series

URL för elektronisk version

URL for electronic version
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-11466

Titel Modelling of Failure

Title
Författare Oscar Björklund
Author

Sammanfattning
Abstract

This report is a review of some failure models today used for determine failure in thin
sheets of high strength steels. Focus has been given on phenomenlogical models
and only some simple simulations have been carried out. The phenomenlogical models that
have been summarized here are of four different categories, namely stress based, strain
based, combined stress and strain based and damaged models. However, the simulations
have only been preformed for some of the models.

Nyckelord: failure modelling, phenomelogical, Cockcroft-Latham, Bressan-Williams, Gurson, Johnson-Cook

Keyword Wilkins, damage, LS-DYNA
 iii

Abstract
This report is a review of some failure models today used for determine
failure in thin sheets of high strength steels. Focus has been given on phe-
nomenlogical models and only some simple simulations have been carried
out. The phenomenlogical models that have been summarized here are of
four different categories, namely stress based, strain based, combined stress
and strain based and damaged models. However, the simulations have only
been preformed for some of the models.

— Modelling of Failure —
 v

Preface
The work presented here is the master thesis preformed at the Division of
Solid Mechanics at Linköpings University. The work is a first part of a
literature study in the project FAIL which concerns failure in thin, high
strength steel sheets.
A special thanks should be given to my supervisor Prof. Larsgunnar
Nilsson and my co-supervisor Assoc. prof. Kjell Simonsson for all the help
during the thesis. I would also like to thank all Ph.D. students and other
diploma workers at the division for all their support.
A great appreciation should also be given to my family and friends for all
their support during the years.

Linköping in March 2008

Oscar Björklund

— Modelling of Failure —
 vii

Notation
Symbol Meaning
E Young modulus of elasticity
T Temperature
A Transformation matrix
e1 , e2 , e3 Base vectors
Ω0 Reference configuration
Ω Current configuration
u Displacement vector
v Velocity vector
a Acceleration vector
F Deformation gradient tensor
R Rotation tensor
U Right stretch tensor
V Left stretch tensor
C Green deformation tensor
E Lagrange deformation tensor
L Velocity gradient tensor
D Rate of deformation tensor
W Spin tensor
ρ Density
b Body forces
t Traction vector
e Specific internal energy
q Heat flow
r Inside generated heat
σ Cauchy stress tensor
σ∞ Nominal stress
σ1 , σ2 , σ3 Principal stresses
σm Average normal stress
σvM von Mises equivalent stress
σc Maximum compression stress
σt Maximum tension stress
σF Fracture stress
σY Yielding stress
σ̄ Equivalent stress
τc Critical shear stress

— Modelling of Failure —
viii

Symbol Meaning
ε1 , ε2 , ε3 Principal strains
εf Fracture strain
ε̄ Equivalent strain
a Crack length
GC Critical elastic energy release rate
KIC Fracture toughness
W Elastic strain energy density
J Rice integral
x1 , x2 , x3 Coordinates
D Damage variable
n Normal vector

— Modelling of Failure —
CONTENTS ix

Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Continuum Mechanics 3
2.1 Constitutive relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Tensor transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Conservation equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Physical mechanisms of fracture 11

4 Fracture mechanics 13

5 Damage mechanics 15

6 Phenomelogic failure models 17

6.1 Stress dependent failure criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.1 Maximum principle stress criterion . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2 Tresca’s and von Mises’ failure criteria . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3 Mohr’s failure criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2 Strain dependent failure criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1 Maximum principle strain criterion . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.2 Constant equivalent strains criterion . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.3 Forming Limit Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3 Cockcroft-Latham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4 Shear instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5 Damage models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.5.1 Gurson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.5.2 Johnson-Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.5.3 Wilkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7 Plane strain test sample 31

8 Conclusions and discussion 43

— Modelling of Failure —
 1

1 Introduction
The automobile industry is more and more using computer simulations in the
product development process in particular concerning passive safety. The
main reasons for this are a reduced time and cost but also to be able to
determine, at an early design state, if the car is safe from a crash point of view.
The phenomenological models used today have a good agreement to reality as
long as no failure occurs in a component. In physical testings of, e.g., frontal
collisions, failures sometimes occur which not have been predicted in the
simulations. The same is true for side impact tests, where failure sometimes
occurs in the B-pillar which not were predicted by the simulations. As a result
of the poor agreement between simulations and real crash tests, the project
FAIL was initiated. The FAIL project is a collaboration project between
SAAB Automobile, SSAB Tunnplåt, Outokumpu Stainless and Linköping
University. The goal of the project is to evaluate and develop more accurate
and effective phenomenological models for failure prediction in thin, high
strength steel sheets used in a car body structure. As a first step in this
project a literature review has been carried out.

— Modelling of Failure —
 3

2 Continuum Mechanics
From a physical point of view all materials are built up by atoms, which in
turn consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. The strength of a material
is due to the bindings between atoms. However, the bodies of interest are
very large compared to the size of the atoms. From a practical point of
view it is therefore in most analyses necessary to approximate the body as
beeing continuous or at least partly continuous. The continuum mechanics
are describing the phenomena of a continous body, see Mase and Mase [1],
Spencer [2] and Belytschko [3]. In this report all coordinate systems that are
used are Cartesian unless otherwise is stated.

2.1 Constitutive relations

The constitutive equations are relating the stresses to strains in the material.
One of the most commonly known constitutive equation is the Hooke’s law
which is representing the behaviour of a linear elastic material. For the
three-dimensional case the law is

σ=C:ε
(1)
σij = Cijklεkl

where C is the fourth order material stiffness tensor. There are more
advanced constitutive relations describing how the stress depends on other
mechanical properties, and for a general case the stress can be expressed as
a function of the type

σ = f (ε, ε̇, T, ...) (2)

2.2 Tensor transformation

Most entities in continuum mechanics are represented as tensors, e.g. the
velocity which is a first order tensor and the stress which is a second order
tensor. This means that their components will change according to specific
rules when changing from one coordinate system to another. The equations
that transforms the components from one coordinate system to another are
called the transformation equations. If one is trying to express the base

— Modelling of Failure —
4 2 CONTINUUM MECHANICS

vectors e1 , e2 and e3 in the new coordinate system with base vectors e˜1 , e˜2
and e˜3 this could be done by the matrix A according to

⎛ ⎞ ⎡ ⎤⎛ ⎞
e˜1 A11 A12 A13 e1
⎝ e˜2 ⎠ = ⎣ A21 A22 A23 ⎦ ⎝ e2 ⎠ (3)
e˜3 A31 A32 A33 e3

ẽ = Ae and e = AT ẽ (4)

The components of a first order tensor is transformed according to Equa-

tion (5) and a second one according to Equation (6), where ṽ denotes the
components of the velocity tensor in the coordinate system with the base
vectors e˜1 , e˜2 and e˜3 . v denotes the component of the velocity tensor repre-
sented in the coordinate system with the base vectors e1 , e2 and e3 . σ̃ and
σ are the components obtained in a similar way.

ṽ = Av (5)

σ̃ = AσAT (6)

In some applications, when operating with anisotropic materials, it may

be a good idea to express the tensor in a coordinate system that rotates with
the material. In that case the corotated stress can be expressed as

σ̂ = RσRT (7)

The difference between A and R is that R only represents a rotation of

the axes while the A can also contain a scaling.

— Modelling of Failure —
2.3 Kinematics 5

2.3 Kinematics
Kinematics is the study of motion, without consideration of the mass or
forces that causes it. To be able to describe any motion it is necessary to
define a coordinate system, in this case a fixed Cartesian coordinate system,
defined by an origin O and base vectors e1 , e2 and e3 . Then at time t = 0
a reference configuration is defined, named Ω0 . At time t the same body is
at another place in space, which is denoted Ω and referred to as the current
configuration. In some applications even an intermediate configuration is
needed. Then considering a material point P0 in the reference configuration
−−→
a vector from O to P0 is defined as X (OP0 = X). A moment later the same
point is at P in Ω with the associated vector x going from O to P . The
Lagrangian displacement vector u can then be defined as

Ω0
P0

X
e2 P
x
Ω

e1 e3

Figure 1: Positions of a material particle in the reference and the current

configurations

u=x−X (8)

The deformation gradient F and its inverse F−1 are defined as

Fij = ∂xi
∂Xj
Fij−1 = ∂Xi
∂xj (9)

— Modelling of Failure —
6 2 CONTINUUM MECHANICS

Furthermore, it can be shown that the deformation gradient can be split

into one orthogonal rotation tensor R and one positive definite symmetric,
so called right stretch tensor U or one left stretch tensor V in the following
way

F= R·U=V·R (10)

The deformation gradient can then be seen as a first stretching of the

body and then rotating it like in the upper part of Figure 2 or as in the lower
part of this figure where the body is first rotated and then stretched.

U R

Figure 2: Polar decomposition. The deformation can be seen as in the upper

picture where the body is first stretched and then rotated, or as in the lower
picture where it is first rotated and then stretched

With this deformation tensor it is possible to construct other deforma-

tion tensors such as the Green deformation tensor in Equation (11) or the
Lagrangian finite strain tensor in Equation (12)

C = FT · F (11)

1
T  1
E= F · F − I = (C − I) (12)
2 2
— Modelling of Failure —
2.3 Kinematics 7

When considering small strains it is possible to split the total strain into
one elastic and one plastic part according to

ε = εe + εp (13)
where the index e and p denoted elastic or plastic strain. In case of large
deformations the deformation gradient can be split into one elastic part end
one plastic part in a multiplicative way

F = F eF p (14)
Figure 3 describes the deformation from the reference configuration (Ω0 )
to the current configuration (Ω). It can be seen as a plastic deformation F p
to an intermediate configuration and then an elastic deformation F e to the
current configuration.

F
Ω0
Ω

Fp Fe

Intermediate
configuration

Figure 3: Split of the deformation gradient into one elastic and one plastic
part

The Lagrangian velocity field v is defined as vi = ∂u∂t

i
since X is indepen-
dent of time. The spatial velocity gradient is defined as

∂vi
Lij = (15)
∂xj

— Modelling of Failure —
8 2 CONTINUUM MECHANICS

The velocity gradient can be split into one symmetric tensor D and one
skew-symmetric tensor W according to

 
1 ∂vi ∂vj 1 ∂vi ∂vj
Lij = + + − = Dij + Wij (16)
2 ∂xj ∂xi 2 ∂xj ∂xi
where D is called the rate of deformation tensor and W is called the spin
tensor.

2.4 Conservation equations

In continuum mechanics some basic equations exist. First there are four
conservation laws. The first one, the conservation of mass, requires that the
mass of any material domain remains constant. If no material flows through
the boundaries of the material


d
ρdV = 0 (17)
dt Ω

The second law is the conservation of linear momentum, which can be

expressed as

  
d
ρvdV = ρbdV + tdS (18)
dt Ω Ω ∂Ω

where b is body forces and t is the surface traction (ti = σij nj ). By using
Reynold’s transport theorem, Cauchy’s relation and the Gauss’s theorem,
one can transform all integrals into volume integrals over the domain Ω and
since this should be valid regardless of the choice of such a domain, one
obtain the equation of motion

∂σij
+ ρbi = ρai (19)
∂xj
where σij is the Cauchy stress tensor, ρ is the density, bi is body forces
and ai is the acceleration of the material point. The third law is the conser-
vation of angular momentum which implies that the Cauchy stress tensor is
symmetric.

— Modelling of Failure —
2.4 Conservation equations 9

σ = σ T or σij = σji (20)

The last conservation law is the conservation of energy, which is also

known as the first law of thermodynamics. The law implies that the rate of
change of total energy is equal to the work done by body forces and surface
tractions and supplied heat per time unit.

 
d 1
ρedV + ρv · vdV =
dt 2 Ω
  Ω
 
= ρb · vdV + t · vdS + rdV − q · ndS (21)
Ω ∂Ω Ω ∂Ω

where e is the specific internal energy per unit mass and q is the heat flux.
The parameter r is the heat generated inside the body. From this expression
we can obtain

ρė = σ : D + r − div q (22)

where ė is the time derivative of the specific internal energy and D is the
rate of deformation tensor defined in the previous section.

— Modelling of Failure —
 11

3 Physical mechanisms of fracture

To be able to formulate the hypothesis upon which macroscopic phenomeno-
logical fracture models are based, it is necessary to understand the basic
physical mechanism, that are causing the failure in the material. More de-
tailed information is given in, e.g. Askeland [4], Hertzberg [5], Dieter [6] and
Lemaitre and Chaboche [7]
Elastic or plastic deformations, which take place on a atomic or crystalline
levels, do not destroys the order of the material, while fracture on the other
hand cause discontinuities within the material. This discontinuities cause
stress concentrations which will increase the ’rate’ of the fracture. There is
two main types of fracture, namely brittle and ductile.
Brittle fracture is the fracture of interatomic bounds without noticeable
plastic deformation. This fracture occur when the local strain energy be-
comes larger then the energy necessary to pull the atom layers apart. Brittle
fracture occurs mainly in high-strength metals with poor ductility and tough-
ness. However, even metals that have normal ductility may fail in a brittle
way at low temperatures, in thick sections or at high strain rates, the latter
might be the case in vehicle crash situations. The surface of a brittle frac-
ture is characterized by its flat appearers and it is also perpendicular to the
applied load.
Ductile fracture, on the other hand, is caused by instability which is a
result from very large plastic deformations occuring in the surrounding of
crystalline defects. The deformation in ductile fracture can be both large
and small depending on the density of the defects. The fracture surface of
the ductile fracture is characterized by the shear lips that are present, see
Figure 4, which leads to the form of a cup and a cone for the two surfaces in
a microscope. It is also often possible to see the dimples that are caused by
the micro-voids.

Shear lip

Figure 4: Shear lips appearance in a ductile fracture zone

— Modelling of Failure —
 13

4 Fracture mechanics
The concept of fracture mechanics is the study of cracks in solid materials.
It goes back to the beginning of the 20th century when Griffith introduced
his energy method, which for a simple case of a thin rectangular plate with
a crack perpendicular to the load becomes

2
σ∞ πa
> GC (23)
E
where σ∞ is the nominal stress far away from the crack tip, a is the crack
length, E is Young´s modulus of elasticity and GC is the critical elastic
energy release rate.
Even though the Griffith’s concept was introduced earlier it was not until
the World War II, when Irwin and coworkers started to work with fracture
mechanics, that it became used in industrial applications. Irwin and cowork-
ers used a stress based model instead of the energy based Griffith model.
In their model they introduced a new material property, fracture toughness
(KIC ) which has the unit N m3/2 or P a m1/2 . For the same case as above the
Irwin model becomes

√
σ∞ πa ≤ KIC (24)

The fracture models of Griffith and Irwin are only valid for linear elastic
materials. Rice however introduced a more advanced method to solve the
fracture problems where plastic deformations are present. He considered the
J integral and said that when this parameter reach a certain value fracture
occurs. The J, or Rice integral is, defined as

  
∂u
J = W dx2 − t ds (25)
Γ Γ ∂x1
where W is the elastic strain energy density, t is the traction vector acting
on the contour around the crack, u is the displacement vector and ds is an
increment of the contour path, see Figure 5. Note that all the above models
are valid for two-dimensional cases.
For more information on fracture mechanics, see Hertzberg [5], Dieter [6],
Lemaitre and Chaboche [7] and Dahlberg and Ekberg [8].

— Modelling of Failure —
14 4 FRACTURE MECHANICS

x1 Γ

x2

ds
t

Figure 5: Sketch of the Γ contour drawn around a crack tip to define the J
(Rice) integral

In a Finite Element analysis of a crash simulation the concept of fracture

mechanics will be too expensive considering computing time and therefore it
is not further investigated in this study. In this rapport only stress, strain
and damage mechanics models to predict failure are studied.

— Modelling of Failure —
 15

5 Damage mechanics
The basic idea of damage mechanics is to translate the underlying micro-
scopical failure phenomena to a macroscopical description that can be used
in a phenomelogical model. In all cases, discussed in this report, the models
are considering one or more parameters and when these parameters reaches
a critical value failure is expected.
Macroscopical fracture has been studied for a very long time. Even as
early as in the beginning of 16th century, Leonardo da Vinci was explaining
the fracture in terms of mechanical variables. He established that the load
an iron wire could carry strongly depends on the length of the wire as a
consequence of the amount of voids in the material; the longer wire the more
voids which lead to a lower load carrying capacity.
A number of failure criteria in terms of stresses and strains to character-
ize the fracture of a body have been proposed, e.g., by Coulumb, Rankine,
Tresca, von Mises et al.. These simple failure models only consider the stress
or strain, while more complex models such as the Cockroft-Latham model
also depend on the loading history.
In recent years models concerning different type of damages have been
studied, e.g. by Gurson, Johnsson-Cook and Wilkins, which all are trying
to describe the new formation, growth and coalescence of micro-voids in
terms of mechanical properties. In this case more properties are needed, for
instance the strain rate, stress triaxiality and temperature are included in the
Johnsson-Cook model. Most crash simulations of today do not use damage
models due to a lack of information on which damage models that under
given conditions give reliable predictions, and how the damage parameters
should be determined. The report by Feucht et al. [9] shows the difficulties
and benefits of such models.

— Modelling of Failure —
 17

6 Phenomelogic failure models

The phenomelogical models describe the failure in the material in terms of
mechanical variables such as stress, strain, temperature, strain rate etc. In all
models presented in this work the failure model is a function which depends of
these variables and if the functions reaches a critical value, failure is expected
in the material. The report by Wierzbicki et al. [10] contains information
on calibration of some of the models presented in this report. The models
that are presented in this report can be classified in four different groupes as
models dependent on stress, strain or a combination of stress and strain, ore
models dependent on damage.

6.1 Stress dependent failure criteria

One of the most simple models to predict failure is to consider that failure
occures when the stress reaches a critical value. Below follows a short review
of some of the basic stress dependent failure criteria. All the models presented
are isotropic, i.e. they have the same property in all directions of the material.

6.1.1 Maximum principle stress criterion

The maximum principle stress criterion is also known as the Coulomb or
Rankine failure criterion. It only depends on the principle stress to predict
failure. To predict failure one considers two material parameters describing
the maximum allowed stress in compression σc and tension σt , respectively,
and state that failure is not to be expected as long as the principle stresses
is in between these values, i.e.

−σc ≤ {σ1 , σ2 , σ3 } ≤ σt (26)

This criterion can be visualized by a cube in the principal stress space

and failure is not expected as long as the principal stress state is inside the
cube. In a plane stress case, i.e σ3 = 0, the allowed area is the shaded one
shown in Figure 6.

— Modelling of Failure —
18 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

Figure 6: Maximum principle stress in a plan stress case. Failure is not

expected as long as the stress is inside the box

6.1.2 Tresca’s and von Mises’ failure criteria

The two well known yielding functions by Tresca and von Mises, respectively
describe when yielding occurs. The failure criteria is similar but instead
of saying that yielding occurs when the functions value reaches the yield
strength one is looking at the failure parameter σF . The simplest is the
Tresca’s criterion, which says that failure is not expected as long as the
maximum differences between the principle stresses is lower then the fracture
stress σF .

σF ≥ max (| σ1 − σ2 |, | σ2 − σ3 |, | σ1 − σ3 |) (27)

The von Mises’ fracture criterion is given by


1
σF ≥ [(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 ] (28)
2
where σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are the principle stresses. For a tree-dimensional
case the allowed volume is shown in Figure 7, where the von Mises’ crite-
rion becomes a cylinder which has its centerline along the hydrostatic axes
σ1 = σ2 = σ3 . The Tresca’s criterion is a hexagonal tube inside the cylinder.
Failure is not expected as long as the principal stress state is inside the vol-
umes. One drawback with these failure criteria is that they are not sensitive
to hydrostatic stresses.

— Modelling of Failure —
6.1 Stress dependent failure criteria 19

Figure 7: Yield surface according to Tresca and von Mises. From [11]

If a plan stress (σ3 = 0) case is studied the Tresca’s failure criterion

becomes a hexagon and the von Mises’ an ellipse that surrounds the hexagon
in the stress plane, see Figure 8. As long as the stress is inside these surfaces
no failure is expected.
σ1

σ2

Figure 8: Tresca’s and von Mises’ failure criteria for a plane stress case. If
the principle stresses are inside the area no failure is expected

— Modelling of Failure —
20 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

6.1.3 Mohr’s failure criterion

Mohr’s failure criterion is also known as the Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion
or the internal-friction theory. It is based on Mohr’s circle and includes, just
like the maximum principle stress criterion, only two material parameters,
σc and σt . But in this case one also considers the shear stresses in order to
predict failure. In this model one constructs two circles in a diagram showing
shear stress on
the y-axes and normal stress

σ on the x-axes. The first circle
σc c

has the radius 2 and a centre

σt point
 in 2 , 0 , the second has the radius of
σt
2
and a centre point in − 2
, 0 . The circles are then connected to each
other with lines according to Figure 9. Failure is not expected as long as the
Mohr’s circles of the actual stress state can be constructed inside this area.
In Figure 9 the Mohr circles are drawn in dashed lines for a case when no
failure is expected.

σt  
σ3 
σ2 
σ1 
σc σ

Figure 9: Mohr’s failure criterion. Failure is not expected as long as the

Mohr circles are inside the dashed lines

— Modelling of Failure —
6.2 Strain dependent failure criteria 21

6.2 Strain dependent failure criteria

Other simple failure criteria consider the strains to fracture. Below follows a
short review of some of the basic strain dependent failure criteria.

6.2.1 Maximum principle strain criterion

This may be one of the most simple failure criterion and it implies that failure
is not expected as long as the maximum principle strain value is lower then
a critical value εf , which is considered as a material parameter, i.e.

{ε1 , ε2 , ε3} ≤ εf (29)

where ε1 ...ε3 are the principal strains.

6.2.2 Constant equivalent strains criterion

Another basic failure criterion is to state that failure will occur when the
equivalent strain ε̄ reaches a critical value ε̄f .

ε̄ ≤ ε¯f (30)

For an incompressible plastic material obeying the von Mises’ equivalent

stress, the equivalent strain is defined as


2 2
ε̄ = (ε + ε22 + ε23 ) (31)
3 1
where ε1 ...ε3 are the principal strains.

— Modelling of Failure —
22 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

6.2.3 Forming Limit Diagram

The forming limit diagram (FLD) is often used in the analyses of forming
processes to determine how close the material is to failure. The FLD was
first developed by Keeler-Backhoften and Goodwin in the 60’s, c.f. Stoughton
and Zhu [12]. The main part of the FLD is the experimental construction of
the forming limit curve (FLC) which can be represented in a diagram with
the first and second principle strains as axes, see Figure 10. One drawback
with the FLD is that it is only valid when the loading path is proportional,
i.e. the ratio of the plastic strains must be constant throughout the forming
process. This means that one needs to have a new FLC if any pre-strain or if
any nonlinear loading path is used. It is also possible to present other failure
criteria in the FLD like what has been done in the report by Eriksson et al.
[13]. In this report the Cockcroft and Latham and the Bressan and Williams
failure criteria are represented, and the benifit by showing all in the same
FLD is that it is possible to see which failure criterion causes the failure.

Figure 10: Forming Limiting Diagram

— Modelling of Failure —
6.3 Cockcroft-Latham 23

6.3 Cockcroft-Latham
Cockcroft and Latham [14] suggested that a criterion based on both stresses
and strains might be beneficial. More precisely they argued that the plastic
work must be an important factor. The total amount of plastic work done
per unit volume at the fracture point can be formed from
 εf
σdεp (32)
0

where σ = σ(ε) is the current stress and εf is the fracture strain. However,
the current stress σ unlike the peak stress σ1 , is not influenced by the shape
of the necked region. A criterion based on the total amount of plastic work
therefore states that the shape of the neck should not have effect of the
fracture strain, which is contrary to experiments. Therefore, the total amount
of plastic work can not provide a good criterion by itself as the neck play an
imported role according to experiments.
A more reasonable criterion of ductile fracture would be to take the mag-
nitude of the highest normal stress into account. Therefore, it is proposed
that fracture occurs in a ductile material when the quantity
 εf σ 
1
σ̄ dε̄p (33)
0 σ̄
reaches a critical value for a given temperature and strain rate. Further-
more, σ̄ is the equivalent

σ  stress, εf the strain at fracture, ε̄p the equivalent
plastic strain and σ̄1 a non-dimensional stress concentration factor repre-
senting the effect of the highest tensile stress, σ1 . The reduced form
 εf
σ1 dε̄p (34)
0

is used for the evaluations, and this integral reaches a critical value C at
failure where C is a material constant. If all the principal stresses are smaller
or equal to zero no fracture will occur according to this model. This model
implies that failure in a ductile material depends both on stresses and plastic
strains, i.e. neither stress nor strain alone can describe ductile fracture. Later
modifications of the Cockcroft and Latham model have been made by Brozzo
et al., Clift et al. and Oyane et al., see Heung and Keun-Hwan [15].

— Modelling of Failure —
24 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

6.4 Shear instability

Plastic deformation is caused by slip on certain preferred slip systems, i.e.
combinations of closed-packed crystallographic planes and directions. To
make it possible to get plastic deformation, the shear stress needs to exceed
a certain critical value τc that depends on the material.

Figure 11: Local necking of thin metals

In Bressan and Williams [16] the authors suggest a shear instability cri-
terion that say that the plastic strain in xt - direction, see Figure 11 should
be equal to zero. Due to the transformation of a second order tensor, the
strain in the xt - direction expressed in the main strain components becomes

dεpt = sin2 θ dεp1 + cos2 θ dεp3 = 0 (35)

This expression can be rewritten as

dεp1 + dεp3
cos 2θ = p (36)
dε1 − dεp3
dεp2
if the plastic volume is constant, i.e. dεp1 +dεp2 +dεp3 = 0, and with β = dεp1
,
this expression becomes

— Modelling of Failure —
6.4 Shear instability 25

β
cos 2θ = − (37)
2+β
If the same rotation, as for the strain, is done in the Mohr circle for the
stresses, see Figure 12, the following equation is obtained

τc
sin 2θ = σ1 (38)
2

τ
τc

σ3 σ2 2Θ σ1 σ

Figure 12: Mohr’s circle

By using Equations (37) and (38) one finally obtains

2τc
σ1 =  (39)
1− β 2
( 2+β )

where σ1 is the largest principle stress, τc is the critical shear stress,

which is determined by experiments, and β, as shown above, is a relationship
between the strains in the plane.

— Modelling of Failure —
26 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

6.5 Damage models

In recent years models concerning different types of damage have been stud-
ied. In all these models some damage parameter has been considered. The
damage parameter explaines how much of the material that is damaged. One
simple way to consider this damage is proposed by Lemaitre and Chaboche
[7], i.e. as a relationship between the initial area and the damaged area in a
certain direction

Figure 13: Definition of the damage parameter

SD
Dn = (40)
S
where Dn is the damage variable, SD and S are the damaged area and the
initial area in the n direction, respectively, see Figure 13. In this definition of
damage ultimate failure is expected when Dn reaches the value of 1, i.e. when
the whole surface is damage and there is no material left to hold the parts
together. The area that can hold the load in the material is the difference
between the damaged and the initial area (S − SD ) and if one considers the
stress far away from the damaged region (σ∞ ) and evaluate the effective
stress working on the material in the damaged region, it could be calculated
as

Sσ∞ σ∞
σef f = = (41)
S − SD 1 − Dn
Many authors describe the benefits and the selection of material param-
eters for models concerning damage variables, e.g Feucht et al. [9], Ockewitz
and Sun [17] and Poizat et al. [18].

— Modelling of Failure —
6.5 Damage models 27

6.5.1 Gurson
The original Gurson model [19] considers a damage parameter that describes
the porosity f of the material. The damage parameter can vary from a
value f0 for undamage material, to f = 1 for a completly damaged material.
Because of the inability of predicting instability caused by coalescence of
microvoids the Gurson model was modified by Tvergaard and Needleman
[20]. The model is using the yield condition


σ2 trσ
Φ = vM + 2q1 f ∗ cosh − 1 − (q1 f ∗ )2 = 0 (42)
σY2 2σY
where σ is the macroscopic stress tensor, σvM the von Mises equivalent
stress, σY the actual yield stress of the matrix material, q1 is a constant
that amplifies the hydrostatic stress effect for all strain levels and f ∗ is the
effective void volume fraction given by


f if f ≤ fc
f ∗ (f ) = 1/q1 −fc (43)
fc + ff −fc
(f − fc ) if f > fc

where f is the void volume fraction, fc the critical void volume fraction,
and ff is the void volume fraction at rupture. The above equations explan
the behaviour for a material when a specific void volume is considered. How-
ever, when a material is subjected to higher strain levels, the void volume is
increasing. There are two phenomena that contribute to the increase of void
volume: the first one is the growth of voids and the second one is the origin
(nucleation) of new voids. As a consequence, the increase in void volume is

f˙ = f˙growth + f˙nucleation (44)

since the matrix material is plastically incompressible the growth of voids
can be expressed as

f˙growth = (1 − f )trε˙p (45)

where ε˙p is the rate of plastic strain. The nucleation is a phenomenon
resulting from the stress level, strain level or a combination of these. There-
fore, its definition needs substantial experimental support because it depends

— Modelling of Failure —
28 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

heavily on the material that is being studied. One of the most studied cases
corresponds to the situation when the nucleation is produced by plastic strain
and is given by

f˙nuclation = Aε̇peq (46)

where ε̇peq is the equivalent plastic strain rate and A is the cavity nucleation
rate given by

 p 2
ε −ε
fn −1/2 eqs N
A= √ e N
(47)
sN 2π
where fn is the volume fraction of void nucleating particles, εN is the
mean strain for nucleation and sN is the standard deviation. The Gurson
model strongely depending on the element size and to eliminate this effect it
is possible to make the parameters ff , fc and fn dependent on the element
size le , that is

ff = ff (le ) fc = fc (le ) fn = fn (le )

This topic is further discussed in the report by Feucht et al. [9]. More
rescent reports based on the Gurson model are presented by e.g. Springmann
and Kuna [21] and Alegre and Gutiérrez-Solana [22].

— Modelling of Failure —
6.5 Damage models 29

6.5.2 Johnson-Cook
The Johnson-Cook failure model [23] and [24] is a purely phenomenological
model and is based on the plastic strain. The model use a damage param-
eter D and when this parameter reaches the value of 1, ultimate fracture is
expected. The definition of the damage parameter is


1 p
D= dε (48)
εf eq

where εf is the equivalent strain to fracture and dεpeq is the increment of

equivalent plastic strain. The expression for the equivalent strain to fracture
is given by

  
ε̇peq

−d3 σσm
ε f = d1 + d2 e vM 1 + d4 ln (1 + d5 T ) (49)
ε˙0

where d1 ...d5 are material constants, which can be determined from ex-
periments. σm is the average of the three normal stresses, σvM is the von
Mises equivalent stress, ε̇peq is the rate of the von Mises plastic equivalent
strain, ε˙0 is a reference strain rate and T is the corresponding temperature.
As one can see in the Equations (48) and (49) the model depends on  strain,

strain rate, temperature and stress triaxiality, where the relationship σσvM
m

is a measure of the latter.

— Modelling of Failure —
30 6 PHENOMELOGIC FAILURE MODELS

6.5.3 Wilkins
The model by Wilkins [25], also known as the Rc Dc model, states that two
factors increase the damage: the hydrostatic stress and the asymmetric stress.
The hydrostatic stress accounts for the growth of holes by spalling. Inter-
rupted tension tests have shown initiation and growth of voids that are form-
ing a fracture surface. The asymmetric stress accounts for the observation
that the elongation at failure decreases as the shear load increases in fracture
tests with combined stress loads. The simplest expression for the damage D,
which takes both the hydrostatic stress and asymmetric stress in to account,
is


D= ω1 ω2 dεpe (50)

 α
ω1 = 1
1−γσm
ω2 = (2 − AD )β (51)

   
 s2   s2 
AD = min   ,   (52)
s3 s1

where ω1 is the hydrostatic pressure weight, ω2 is the asymmetric stress

weight, dεpe is the equivalent plastic strain increment, σm is the hydrostatic
pressure, s1 ...s3 is the principal stress deviators and α, β and γ are material
constants. The parameter AD ranges from 0 to 1 and when AD = 1 the stress
field is symmetric (and asymmetric when AD = 0). The Wilkins model is
expecting failure when D reaches a critical value DC


Dc = D0 1 + b | ∇D |λ (53)

where ∇D is the damage gradient and D0 , b and λ are material parame-

ters. Due to its non-local form, Equation (53) is less mesh dependent than,
e.g., the Johnson-Cook model.

— Modelling of Failure —
 31

7 Plane strain test sample

As an example a plane strain test is analysed with material model ”Strong
texture material” MAT 135, in LS-DYNA, Hallqvist [26] and Hallqvist [27].
The material model MAT 135 has three different failure criteria, first there
is a critical thickness strain (CTS), which implies that if the plastic strain
in the thickness direction reach a critical value the element is considered as
failed and is deleted. The material model also contains the Cockroft-Latham
(C-L) and the Bressan-Wiliams (B-W) criteria, which previously have been
discussed. The test is to be done assuming the Duplex steel DP800 and
the material parameters, taken from Eriksson [13], are presented in Tables 1
and 2. The values of the parameters for C-L and B-W are taken from the
same report, the C-L parameter is set to C = 530 MPa and the B-W is set
to τc = 590MPa. The critical thickness strain parameter εtc is calculated
from the fact that the plastic elongation on a speciment that is L0 = 80 mm
elongates 10 % before fracture, i.e. A80 = 0.1, from [28]. With this value the
total elongation before fracture is calculated as

L
A80 = ln Lf0 ⇒ Lf = L0 eA80 = 80e0.1 ≈ 88.41 mm (54)

However it is assumed that the plastic strains appears on a local necked

region whith a length of the same size as the thickness. Thus the total
elongation of Lf − L0 = 8.41 mm takes place on a distance that is L̂0 =
1.5 mm. Which means that

Lf − L0 + L̂0 9.91
εLc = ln = ln ≈ 1.89 (55)
L̂0 1.5

Then the plastic strain in the length direction is known. From plastic
volume constance, one fine

εL + εw + εt = 0 (56)

where εL , εw and εt is the plastic strain in length, width and thickness

directions.

— Modelling of Failure —
32 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

The relation ship between the strain in the thickness and width direction
can be given by the value R0 ≈ εεwt and is given in Table 2. Equation (56)
can then be written.

εL + (1 + R0 )εt = 0 ⇒ εtc = − 1+R

εLc
0
= − 1+0.75
0.98
= −1.08 (57)

Thus, in the simulations the critical thickness strain is set to εtc = −1.08.

Table 1: The extended Voce strain hardening parameters

Parameter σY QR1 CR1 QR2 CR3
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
Value 392 201 51 362 5.23

Table 2: Dimensionless anisotropy coefficents from uniaxial loading tests

Material (σ0 /σ0 )avg (σ45 /σ0 )avg (σ90 /σ0 )avg R0 R45 R90
DP800 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.01 1.06

εy

εx

Figure 14: One element.

— Modelling of Failure —
 33

First simulations is carried out for only one element which is given a
prescribed elongation, see Figure 14. The relation between the strain in the
x- and y-direction is constant for different load cases according to

εx = αεy (58)

where for a plane strain case the constant α is equal to 0. The simulation
is then carried out for three different failure criteria, C-L, B-W and CTS.
However, the extended Voce hardening has one drawback, i.e. the stress
converges towards a final value. The values of the Voce parameters according
to Table 1 give a converges towards 955 MPa, which means that the B-W
failure model never fails for a plane strain case, i.e σ1 ≤ 2τc . In the work by
Eriksson [13] an improved hardening parameter is included, i.e. the hardening
is first given by the Voce law but when the slope of the curve is below a critical
value the hardening is set to continue in this direction. The value of this slope
is first set to σ100 = 1250 MPa, in agrement with Eriksson, then the value is
changed to 802 MPa, which is the slope of the curve at local necking. The
result indicates that the Bressan-William failure criterion is more dependent
of a correct hardening than the Cockcroft-Latham criterion, see Figures 15
and 16.

— Modelling of Failure —
34 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

(S)

(B-W)

(C-L)

Figure 15: Growth of the Bressan-Williams and the Cockcroft-Latham failure

parameters as a function of the strain for a plane strain case. The upper curve
marked S is the stress curve for the material. Two different type of hardening
are used, 802 MPa (dashed) and 1250 MPa (solid)

Figure 16: Bressan-Williams and the Cockcroft-Latham failure for different

strain path

— Modelling of Failure —
 35

After the first simulation with only one element a plane strain specimen,
with geometry according to the one used by Eriksson, see Figure 17, is carried
out.

Figure 17: Specimen geometry

Five different types of simulations have been carried out with different
failure models active: the first one with a failure criterion according to C-L,
the second one according to B-W, the third one according to CTS, the forth
one assuming a combination of the C-L and the B-W criteria and the final
one assuming a combination of all three failure criteria.
As boundary condition one node on the left edge has been fixed in all
directions while the other nodes on the same side have been fixed in the
length direction. On the other side all nodes are given a smoothly increasing
translation in the length direction realized by the LS DYNA keyword DE-
FINE CURVE SMOOTH. For all simulations the improved hardening pa-
rameter has been chosen to σ100 = 1250 MPa.
In the first simulation with the plane strain specimen, where only the C-
L failure criterion is used, the failure is initiated at the edge and is growing
towards the middle of the specimen, see Figure 18. The total displacement
of the right edge at the final fracture is u ≈ 5.9 mm. Even in the second
simulation, when only B-W failure criterion is used, the failure is initiated
at the edges and is growing towards the middle of the spacemen, see Figure
19. However, in this case the total displacement at final fracture is shorter
u ≈ 5.2 mm. The third simulation with the CTS criterion, predicts that
the failure is initiated in the middle and is growing towards the edges, see

— Modelling of Failure —
36 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

Figure 20. The total displacement at fracture for this case is u ≈ 9.8 mm.
The remaining simulations with combinations of the different failure criteria
show that different elements can fail due to different criteria, see Figures 21
and 22, the displacement for the final cases is u ≈ 5.2 mm. According to the
tests preformed by Eriksson the displacement at fracture should be lower.
However, if a different second hardening value is used the total displacement
at fracture can be reduced significantly. For instance when a hardening
parameter of 802 MPa is used the displacement at fracture is u ≈ 3 mm
according to the simulation. The lager displacement is caused by the bigger
plastic zone that arise in the model when a faster hardening is used. It can
also be argued that the element size plays an important role.
When a real test is studied, see Figure 23, it is seen that the fracture
surface looks quite similar to the one obtained by a simulation based on a
combination of all failure criteria. It seems that different elements are failing
due to different criteria.

— Modelling of Failure —
 37

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 18: Plane strain failure test with Cockroft-Lathams failure criterion
(a) before failure starts, (b) failure is initiated at the edges, (c) the failure is
growing towards the mid point, (d) final failure. The fringe levels show the
values of the Cockroft-Latham failure parameter

— Modelling of Failure —
38 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 19: Plane strain failure test with Bressan-Williams failure criterion
(a) before failure starts, (b) failure is initiated at the edges, (c) final failure.
The fringe levels show the values of the Bressan-Williams failure parameter

— Modelling of Failure —
 39

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 20: Plane strain failure test with critical thickness strain failure cri-
terion (a) before failure starts, (b) failure is initiated in the center of the
specimen, (d) final failure. The fringe levels show the values of the strain in
the thickness direction

— Modelling of Failure —
40 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 21: Plane strain failure test with, Cockcroft-Latham and Bressan-
Williams failure criteria (a) before failure starts, (b) failure is initiated at
the edges, (c) final failure. The fringe levels show the values of the Bressan-
Williams failure parameter

— Modelling of Failure —
 41

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 22: Plane strain failure test with Cockcroft-Latham, Bressan-Williams

and critical thickness strain failure criteria (a) before failure starts, (b) failure
is initiated at the edges, (c) final failure. The fringe levels show the values
of the Bressan-Williams failure parameter

— Modelling of Failure —
42 7 PLANE STRAIN TEST SAMPLE

Figure 23: Real plane strain failure test of DP800. From [13]

— Modelling of Failure —
 43

8 Conclusions and discussion

One of the main reasons for the poor agreement between simulations and
real tests, when using the simple failure models only considering stresses or
strains, is the element size dependency. If an element is failing in a simulation
it causes a concentration of the stress in the neighbouring elements which
might fail immediately. Therefore, if a failure is started in an element a
chain reaction is causing a complete failure of the specimen. A model that
does not regard what happens in the neighbouring elements is called local,
and the opposite is a non-local model. The model of Wilkins is a non-local
model as the damage gradient concerns the behaviour of the neighbouring
elements.
One of the main drawbacks of the more advanced phenomelogical failure
models are the many material parameters, that have to be determined from
material tests. Another drawback is, as mentioned earlier, that they are quite
element size dependent and sometimes the material parameters have to be
set for a specific element size, e.g. using the Gurson model.
Another problem, when considering failure in components, is to take care
of what has happened before, i.e. if the component has any internal faults like
micro-voids or crazing that have arised during the creation of the material. It
is also interesting to consider how the material has been formed, i.e. to what
extent it has undergone plastic deformations. It is thus often necessary to
modify the material description in order to take into account its history. As
an example in the case when a damage model is used, e.g. Gurson, Johnson-
Cook or Wilkins, it is not necessary that the damage parameter starts from
zero. Even in some of the other models the parameter describing damage
can be set to an initial value to describe a previous deformation history.
As could be seen in the previous section, it is for a plane strain test not
sufficient with only one failure criterion, as adopted in the first part of the
experiment, see Figures 18, 19 and 20. When comparing this to the actual
fracture surface of the plane strain specimen, see Figure 23, it is obvious that
it does not correspond well to experiment. However, when the simulation is
based on a combination of the failure criteria the agrement is improved c.f.
Figure 22. It is thereby clear that it might be a combination of different
failure models that is causing the failure of the elements. As shown in the
previous section it is also important to have a good material model that
correctly describes the hardening of the material.

— Modelling of Failure —
REFERENCES 45

References
[1] Mase G. T., Mase G. E., (1999), Continuum Mechanics for Engineers.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

[2] Spencer A. J. M., (1980), Continuum Mechanics. New York: Dover

Publications.

[3] Belytschko T., (2000), Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
Structures. Chichester: John Wiley.

[4] Askeland D. R., (1984), The Science and Engineering of Materials.

Sheffield: Nelson Thorens Ltd.

[5] Hertzberg R.W., (1996), Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engi-

neering Materials. Hoboken: John Wiley.

[6] Dieter G. E., (1986), Mechanical Metallurgy. McGraw-Hill.

[7] Lemaitre J., Chaboche J.-L., (1990), Mechanics of Solid Materials. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Dahlberg T., Ekberg A., (2006), Failure Fracture Fatigue. Lund: Stu-
dentlitteratur.

[9] Feucht M., Sun D.-Z., Erhart T., Frank T., (2006), Recent Develop-
ment and Applications of the Gurson Model, LS-DYNA Anwenderfo-
rum, Ulm, 2006.

[10] Wierzbicki T., Bao Y., Lee Y.-W., Bai Y., (2005), Calibration and eval-
uation of seven fracture models. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 47 pp. 719-743.

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yield surfaces.png (2008-02-28)

[12] Stoughton T. B., Zhu X., (2004), Review of theoretical models of strain-
based FLD and their relevance to the stress-based. International Journal
of Plasticity 20 pp. 1463-1486.

[13] Eriksson M., Lademo O.-G., Hopperstad O. S., Langseth M., (2007), De-
terministic material modelling for forming and crash analyses of metal
components. SINTEF, Materials and Chemistry, Trondheim. 85 pp.

— Modelling of Failure —
46 REFERENCES

[14] Cockcroft M. G., Latham D. J., (1968), Ductility and the workability of
metals. Journal of the institute of metals 96 pp, 33-39

[15] Heung N. H., Keun-Hwan K., (2003), A ductile fracture criterion in sheet
metal forming process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 142,
pp. 231-238

[16] Bressan J. D., Williams J. A., (1983), The use of a shear instability cri-
terion to predict local necking in sheet metal deformation. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 25, pp. 155-168

[17] Ockewitz A., Dong-Zhi S., (2006), Damage modelling of automobile

components of aluminium materials under crash loading. LS-DYNA An-
wenderforum, Ulm, 2006.

[18] Poizat C., Campagne L., Daridon L., Ahzi S., Husson C., Merle L.,
(2005), Modeling and simulation of thin sheet blanking using damage
and rupture criteria. International Journal of Forming Prosses 8 pp.
29-47.

[19] Gurson A. L., (1977), Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void

nucleation and growth: Part I– Yield criteria and flow rules for porous
ductile media. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 99(1)
pp. 2-15.

[20] Needleman A., Tvergaard V., (1984), An analysis of ductile rupture in

notched bars. Journal of Mechanical Physics of Solids 32 pp. 461-490.

[21] Springmann M., Kuna M., (2005), Identification of material parameters

of the Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model by combined experimental
and numerical techniques. Computational Materials Science 32 pp. 544-
552.

[22] Alegre J.M., Gutiérrez-Solana F., (2004), A Gurson-Tvergaard based

model to simulate fracture of aged duplex stainless steels. Fatigue Frac-
ture Engne Mater Struct 27 pp. 1171-1182.

[23] Johnson G. R., Cook W. H., (1985), Fracture characteristics of three

metals subjecred to various strains, strain rates, temperaturs and pres-
sures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 21 pp. 31-48.

— Modelling of Failure —
REFERENCES 47

[24] Johnson G. R., Cook W. H., (1983), A constitutive model and date for
matals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high tempera-
tures. Presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics,
Hague.

[25] Wilkins M. L., Streit R. D., Reaugh J. E., (1980), Cumulative-Strain-

Damage Model of Ductile Fracture: Simulation and Prediction of Engi-
neering Fracture Test. University of Califonia, Livermore. 70 pp.

[26] Hallquist J.O., (2006), LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore: Liver-

more Software Technology Corporation.

[27] Hallquist J.O., (2007), LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual. Livermore:

Livermore Software Technology Corporation.

[28] http://www.ssabdirect.com/templates/
SteelfactsSearchProduct.aspx?id=5787 (2008-03-06)

— Modelling of Failure —