Comparison of different finite deformation inelastic damage models within multiplicative elastoplasticity for ductile materials (Q1331395)

The authors introduce two damage models coupled with finite elastoplasticity and based on different philosophies. The modified Lemaître approach concerns forming processes which accompany finite inelastic strains and notable damage accumulation. The Gurson model deals with the description of void nucleation and growth within porous ductile materials. The elastic response is formulated in terms of spatial elastic logarithmic Hencky strains and employs the flow rule for finite elastoplasticity. The novel aspect of the ``geometrically exact'' approach pursued in this work is the lack of approximations in the geometrical description of multiplicative elastoplastic deformations. This framework allows to integrate the flow rule and the evolution equations for the internal variables with the same algorithms as in the infinesimal elastoplasticity. Exponential map stress integrators in various modifications are developed and applied. The constitutive equations are derived from Clausius-Duhem inequality and the postulate of maximum dissipation. Different proposals concern the correct choice of the arguments of the Helmholtz free energy. This discussion cumulates in the dependence of the Helmholtz free energy on the elastic Finger tensor and the spatial metric to express the assumed isotropy. Details pertaining to the integration algorithm for two models together with the linearization necessary for the global Newton-Raphson strategy are given. Standard examples within finite elastoplasticity are examined, and the results of two damage models are compared with the predictions of the von Mises model. Both damage formulations tend to increase the softening behaviour of the material with respect to the von Mises formulation. The main outcome of this study is the dramatic influence of damage evolution on the postpeak behaviour in necking and localization problems. It is shown that the Gurson model reduces the initial yield strength due to the existence of an initial void volume fraction. An essential difference between two formulations is the behaviour in compression. Due to the dissipative character of damage evolution within the Lemaître model, damage increases in tension as well as in compression. In the same time the damage evolution of the Gurson model is derived from the balance of mass; the void volume fraction decreases in compression which leads to damage healing.