Fracture Energy for JH2 Model (Ceramics and FEA)?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on challenges in simulating the impact behavior of Alumina ceramics using ANSYS, specifically regarding the accuracy of crack formation in simulations. Despite using standard material parameters from peer-reviewed journals, the simulations show localized failure without significant cracking, which contradicts expected real-world behavior where Alumina shatters upon impact. Two potential solutions are proposed: incorporating a crack softening failure model to enhance realism and addressing the calculation of fracture energy from available fracture toughness values. The user also compares ANSYS capabilities with Abaqus, noting that while both can simulate dynamic fracture, the specific material models available in ANSYS may limit accuracy. The conversation emphasizes the need for more advanced modeling techniques to better replicate the fracture mechanics of ceramics under impact conditions.
Ozen
Messages
40
Reaction score
2
This is a bit of a multi-part question on impact engineering and FEA usage.

I am working on making my Alumina ceramic model as accurate as possible in ANSYS for impact simulations. But I am noticing a common theme, while using model parameters in scientific journals I am not getting any cracking in the simulation. The ceramic has localized failure but there are no cracks or wide spread failure. This does not seem to be accurate because Alumina does shatter into fragments from a bullet impact. Yet is I run the model against a soft core bullet, there will be cracking or breaking, it will fully repel the bullet. The material parameters are correct, I've looked them over many times, and the values used are the standard set by a peer reviewed journal. So I am left with two ideas: 1) according to the impact engineering book my professor sent me pictures of, in compression ceramics are more resistant to the micro cracks already in the structure and the addition of new micro cracks doesn't effect the compression strength. This allows the compression strength to be much closer to the theoretical strength of a perfect ceramic. 2) Perhaps adding a crack softening failure model into the material properties could give more realistic simulations.

I believe 2) is the correct path, but I may be wrong and the simulation could be accurate and just unable to simulate fractures like in reality.

The second part of this question/problem, is the value to use for the crack softening failure model. It wants a fracture energy (strain energy release rate) but I only have fracture toughness values. I have a fracture toughness value of 3.0 MPA m^1/2, which is K_IC. The only equations I found linking fracture energy (G) is G = (K_I)^2 / E`. E` is for if E is given as plain strain, therefore E` = E / (1 - v^2). K_I >/= K_IC. K_I is the Mode I stress intensity factor.

So, would I just use K_IC = K_I since I have no other data? How reliable would this be? Furthermore, I would have to calculate E` according to the equation, right? Since you can't measure plane stress but you can measure plane strain, and that would be the value I get from the Shear Modulus and Bulk Modulus.

What do y'all think of this odd situation? Is option 1) or 2) correct? And how would I calculate the fracture energy G?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I have some experience with simulations involving dynamic fracture of ceramics but I use Abaqus. That software has a built-in brittle cracking model (known as Hillerborg's model in the literature). With VUMAT subroutine it's also possible to implement other models, such as the crack delay model proposed by J. Pelfrene (check his article "Fracture Simulation of Structural Glass by Element Deletion in Explicit FEM", it can be useful for you). Thanks to the element deletion functionality in Abaqus it's possible to simulate the actual fracture where the sample breaks into pieces after impact.

I don't know what features Ansys offers for such analyses but with its acquisition of LS-Dyna simulations like that shouldn't be a big problem. I know for sure that element deletion is implemented in this software and I'm just not sure what material models it offers.
 
FEAnalyst said:
I have some experience with simulations involving dynamic fracture of ceramics but I use Abaqus. That software has a built-in brittle cracking model (known as Hillerborg's model in the literature). With VUMAT subroutine it's also possible to implement other models, such as the crack delay model proposed by J. Pelfrene (check his article "Fracture Simulation of Structural Glass by Element Deletion in Explicit FEM", it can be useful for you). Thanks to the element deletion functionality in Abaqus it's possible to simulate the actual fracture where the sample breaks into pieces after impact.

I don't know what features Ansys offers for such analyses but with its acquisition of LS-Dyna simulations like that shouldn't be a big problem. I know for sure that element deletion is implemented in this software and I'm just not sure what material models it offers.
Thanks for the source, I'll check it out when I have time!

In ANSYS, I use Explicit Dynamics (AutoDyn) instead of LS-DYNA. While I have a key for LS-DYNA, it is confusing to work in while I can use explicit dynamics directly in workbench and streamline my work. The material models I use are the Johnsom-Holmquist 2 strength and failure model and the Polynomial EOS. The JH2 models the ceramic strength, damage, and failure behavior. When an element fails, it gets automatically deleted from the model.

Here is a link showing an alumina plate penetrated: , skip to 9:00 min. Below is the alumina model.
1649021991576.png

This model is the only one that has the back side failure larger than the front side. But it erodes the SiC tip much faster, so i question its accuracy (SiC is stronger and much harder than Alumina). The other models show a through hole with additional elements deleted around it. But none of the models look like the hole in the video. Hence why I think the material model may be incomplete with just JH2 and Poly EOS.
 
Thread 'What type of toilet do I have?'
I was enrolled in an online plumbing course at Stratford University. My plumbing textbook lists four types of residential toilets: 1# upflush toilets 2# pressure assisted toilets 3# gravity-fed, rim jet toilets and 4# gravity-fed, siphon-jet toilets. I know my toilet is not an upflush toilet because my toilet is not below the sewage line, and my toilet does not have a grinder and a pump next to it to propel waste upwards. I am about 99% sure that my toilet is not a pressure assisted...
After over 25 years of engineering, designing and analyzing bolted joints, I just learned this little fact. According to ASME B1.2, Gages and Gaging for Unified Inch Screw Threads: "The no-go gage should not pass over more than three complete turns when inserted into the internal thread of the product. " 3 turns seems like way to much. I have some really critical nuts that are of standard geometry (5/8"-11 UNC 3B) and have about 4.5 threads when you account for the chamfers on either...
Thread 'Physics of Stretch: What pressure does a band apply on a cylinder?'
Scenario 1 (figure 1) A continuous loop of elastic material is stretched around two metal bars. The top bar is attached to a load cell that reads force. The lower bar can be moved downwards to stretch the elastic material. The lower bar is moved downwards until the two bars are 1190mm apart, stretching the elastic material. The bars are 5mm thick, so the total internal loop length is 1200mm (1190mm + 5mm + 5mm). At this level of stretch, the load cell reads 45N tensile force. Key numbers...
Back
Top