PROBLEM STATEMENT: Formulate a mathematical correlation between the damage

variable and the effective material properties. A representative volume element is considered,
which is a cube of unit volume, and the spherical void acts as the most fundamental sense of
the damage entity. The radius of the spherical void is altered to find the effective properties,
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and Lame’s constants by correlating the volume averaged
strain with the applied stress. Variation of the properties with respect to the radius of the void
is studied.
SOLUTION: The solution can be portrayed under several heads. Finite Element Analysis has
been carried out in ABAQUS CAE. The most fundamental stress states are applied, hydrostatic
stress state and shear in XY (or 12). The mathematical formulae used are provided below. It is
to be remembered that the stress state is the known constraint, and for simplicity, unit
magnitude of stress is applied. Aluminum 6063 T6 is used.
𝐸 = 68.9 𝐺𝑃𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ν = 0.3
Volume averaged strains are calculated using the elemental strains (from elemental centroids)
and elemental volumes.

1
〈∈𝐻 〉 = ∫ ∈ (𝑋⃗)𝑑𝑉
𝑉 𝑉 𝐻

1
〈𝛾12 〉 = ∫ 𝛾 (𝑋⃗)𝑑𝑉
𝑉 𝑉 12
The volume of the element will keep on changing owing to the presence of void.

𝑉 = ∫ 𝑑𝑉
𝑉

Owing to the assumption that the material is isotropic, homogeneous and linear isotropic, the
corresponding constitutive relation can be used.
〈𝜎𝐻 〉 = (3λ + 2μ)〈∈𝐻 〉
〈𝜎12 〉 = (2μ)〈𝛾12 〉
The stresses are known and as stated before are of unit magnitude. The strains will be available
from simulation. Hence, these two equations will be required to solve for the Lame’s constants.
The corresponding Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio can be found using following
relationships.
𝜇(3λ + 2μ)
𝐸=
(λ + μ)
λ
𝜈=
2(λ + μ)
Both the relationships are rather viable owing to the thermodynamic analysis and the stress
application analysis.
(i) GEOMETRY DEFINITION: The cube is of unit dimension. The sphere radius has been
changed in order to vary the damage constraint. A representative diagram of the geometry
created is provided below.

(ii) MESHING: Tetrahedral meshes are being used, with the specification of C3D10 in the
commercial software package. The meshes are seeded using sizes of 0.1 at the edge of the cube
and 0.03 along the periphery of the voids. The reason behind this is to facilitate better data
calculation near the void periphery owing to the presence of possible stress concentration.

(iii) LOADING AND BOUNDARY CALCULATIONS: Loading and boundary calculations are
the most important entities. Without proper stress state application, the result may be erroneous.
The representative diagram for load application for hydrostatic loading is provided below.

“Pressure” type load is applied, however negative to facilitate for tensile loads, at the positive
X, Y and Z faces of unit magnitude. The representative diagram for boundary condition for
hydrostatic loading is provided below.
Simple supports are applied at the negative X, Y and Z faces. However, only the corresponding
displacement component is constrained, that is U is constrained along negative X face, V is
constrained along negative Y face and W is constrained along negative Z face.
Now, for shear application only along XY (or 12) direction, shears are applied along positive
and negative X faces as “Surface Traction”. The representative diagram for the load application
for shear is provided below.

Now as for boundary condition, roller supports are applied along positive and negative Y faces.
The representative diagram for the boundary condition for shear is provided below.

(iv) RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: Obtaining the strain responses, the prediscussed formulae
have been used in order to solve for the Lame’s constants, using a MATLAB CODE (provided
in APPENDIX). The different material constant values for different radius of the sphere, with
0 corresponding to an RVE without any void is tabulated below.
 RADIUS E (Pa) NU LAMBDA (Pa) MU (Pa)
0 68899957879 0.33000003 50280830695 25902239223
0.01 68899702179 0.329999951 50280611575 25902144638
0.1 68611464524 0.329999997 50070284803 25793783709
0.2 66591168984 0.329999995 48595941584 25034274157
0.3 61107614026 0.329999993 44594231618 22972787342
0.4 50429128499 0.330000002 36801443400 18958318953
0.45 42600642721 0.329999998 31088482632 16015279245

The obvious has been noted. With the presence and increment of the void size, the material
properties degrade. The graph correlating the properties with the radius is provided below.

VARIATION OF PROPERTIES WITH RESPECT TO RADIUS

8E+10
7E+10
PROPERTIES IN PA

6E+10
5E+10
E (Pa)
4E+10
NU
3E+10
2E+10 LAMBDA (Pa)
1E+10 MU (Pa)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
HOLE RADIUS (IN M)

The conclusions that maybe drawn from this characteristic curve are (i) the material properties
are rather inversely proportional to the damage quantification parameter, which is the radius of
the void here, (ii) till a certain value of radius of the void, say about 0.1, the material properties
do not undergo a noticeable change, which actually explains the viability of practical
application of materials even in presence of miniscule defects and (iii) Poisson’s ratio being
the ratio of transverse to longitudinal strain response, for an isotropic material even in presence
of damages, the value of Poisson’s ratio do not undergo any change. Next up is to analyze the
damage variables with respect to the hole radius. The damage variable corresponding to any
certain material property, say A, is defined below.
𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑
𝑑(𝐴) = 1 −
𝐴𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑

RADIUS D(E) D(NU) D(LM) D(MU)

0 6.11333E-07 -9.04747E-08 3.67684E-07 6.33778E-07
0.01 4.32251E-06 1.49678E-07 4.72561E-06 4.28537E-06
0.1 0.004187743 8.27984E-09 0.004187765 0.004187741
0.2 0.033509884 1.65681E-08 0.033509927 0.03350988
0.3 0.113097039 2.00913E-08 0.113097087 0.113097034
0.4 0.268082315 -6.71507E-09 0.268082302 0.268082316
0.45 0.381703299 6.64529E-09 0.38170331 0.381703298
Since the material is isotropic and all the parameters are correlated, the figurative variation of
the damage variable pertaining to different material properties is not noticeable. Moreover, the
previous suggestion that Poisson’s ratio is not varying by much indicates the contant nature of
the damage variable pertaining to the same, and the miniscule magnitude of it.

DAMAGE VARIABLE WITH RESPECT TO RADIUS

0.45
0.4
0.35
DAMAGE VARIABLES

0.3
0.25 D(E)
0.2 D(NU)
0.15 D(LM)
0.1 D(MU)
0.05
0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
HOLE RADIUS IN M

It can be concluded from here that the damage variables are rather vary exponentially with
respect to the hole radius. The previous suggestion that damage is rather unnoticeable till a
certain value of hole radius (0.1 as said) is still valid here.
APPENDIX
The MATLAB code used to compute the material properties from the strain data accumulated
from ABAQUS is provided below.
clc; clear all;
hyd_stress=importdata('HYDROSTATIC_0P3_STRESS.txt');
hyd_strain=importdata('HYDROSTATIC_0P3_STRAIN.txt');
hyd_volume=importdata('HYDROSTATIC_0P3_EVOL.txt');
temp=size(hyd_volume); numel=temp(1);
shr_stress=importdata('SHEAR_0P3_STRESS.txt');
shr_strain=importdata('SHEAR_0P3_STRAIN.txt');
shr_volume=importdata('SHEAR_0P3_EVOL.txt');

sigmaHT=0; volH=0;
for i=1:1:numel

sigmaHT=sigmaHT+((hyd_stress(i,2)+hyd_stress(i,3)+hyd_stress(i,4))/3)*hyd_v
olume(i,2);
volH=volH+hyd_volume(i,2);
end
sigmaH=sigmaHT;

strainHT=0;
for i=1:1:numel

strainHT=strainHT+((hyd_strain(i,2)+hyd_strain(i,3)+hyd_strain(i,4))/3)*hyd
_volume(i,2);
end
strainH=strainHT/volH;
sigmaST=0; volS=0;
for i=1:1:numel
sigmaST=sigmaST+((shr_stress(i,5))*shr_volume(i,2));
volS=volS+shr_volume(i,2);
end
sigmaS=sigmaST;

strainST=0;
for i=1:1:numel
strainST=strainST+(((shr_strain(i,5))/2)*hyd_volume(i,2));
end
strainS=strainST/volS;

A=[3*strainH 2*strainH;0 2*strainS]; B=[sigmaH;sigmaS];

temp1=inv(A)*B; mat_lambda=temp1(1); mat_mu=temp1(2);
mat_E=(mat_mu*((3*mat_lambda)+(2*mat_mu)))/(mat_lambda+mat_mu);
mat_NU=mat_lambda/(2*(mat_lambda+mat_mu));