International Journal of Fracture 88: 359371, 1997.

1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

On the effect of triaxial state of stress on ductility using nonlinear
CDM model
NICOLA BONORA
Industrial Engineering Dept., University of Cassino, Via Di Biasio 43, 03043, Cassino (FR), Italy;
e-mail: nbonora@ing.unicas.it
Received 28 July 1997; accepted in revised form 6 February 1998
Abstract. Ductility takes into account the material capability to plastically deform. This parameter is not only
modied by temperature but it is strongly affected by the stress triaxiality that, in the case of positive hydrostatic
stress, reduces the material strain to failure. Due to the importance of this parameter in engineering design many
attempts to predict the evolution of ductility with stress triaxiality have been done. Here, a nonlinear continuum
damage model, as proposed by the author, is used to obtain the evolution of material ductility with stress triaxiality.
The expression found relates the strain to failure in multi-axial state of stress regime only to the uniaxial strain
to failure, to the damage strain threshold, to the material Poissons ratio, and, of course, to stress triaxiality. The
proposed model was successfully veried comparing the predicted evolution of material ductility with the experi-
mental data relative to several metals. The procedure for the damage parameters identication is also discussed in
details.
Keywords: Continuum damage mechanics, plasticity, triaxiality, ductile failure.
Introduction
The mechanics of ductile failure in metals is of signicance in designing structure and compo-
nents against plastic collapse and fracture. In engineering design is not rare to nd application,
such as metal-forming processes, where large plastic deformations need to be taken into ac-
count. Ductility characterizes the material capability to plastically deform and the knowledge
of this parameter is required in engineering design. What makes the choice of this parameter
difcult is that material ductility changes not only with temperature, that can be considered
constant in a large spectrum of application, but also it changes dramatically together with the
stress state. Then, the same material will fail at different strain levels if tested under uniaxial
or multi-axial state of stress as showed since the pioneering experimental work of von Karman
(1911), that underlined how tensile hydrostatic stress strongly reduces the material ductility
leading to premature failure.
Thus, material ductility and ductile failure process are intimately related. Under plastic
deformation, material failure occurs as a result of the microcavities nucleation and growth
process. The analytical work performed by McClintock (1968), Rice and Tracy (1969) and
Budiansky et al. (1981), pointed out the exponential amplication of the growth rate of mi-
crovoids with stress triaxiality in elastic-perfectly plastic materials.
Hancock and Meckenzie (1976) and Thomson and Hancock (1984) extensively investi-
gated the dependence of the material ductility on the triaxiality state of stress. Their work
showed that an exponential decay of the ductility as a function of triaxiality as given by Rice
and Tracy (1969) is approximate and can give only a rough idea of the effective link between
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.1
VS o/s disc mc2 INTERPRINT: Article Frac4391 (frackap:engifam) v.1.1
360 N. Bonora
the ductility and triaxiality for an hardening material. Manjoine (1982) proposed a different
expression for the evolution of ductility, that is normalized by a not well dened tensile
elongation, with stress triaxiality as result of best t procedure of experimental data.
In the recent years, continuum damage mechanics (CDM) come out to be a powerful tool
to approach ductile fracture related problems such as crack geometry and size effect on crack
resistance curve under large scale yielding, (Xia and Shih, 1995). Lemaitre and Chaboche
(1985) proposed a CDM model for plasticity damage where the damage variable is a linear
function of the effective accumulated plastic strain. The experimental results presented by
LeRoy et al. (1981) gave compelling evidence of the nonlinearity of damage evolution with the
effective accumulated plastic strain in metals. Recently, Bonora (1997) proposed a nonlinear
damage model that predicts very well ductile damage evolution with strain for a large class of
metals.
In the present paper, the nonlinear damage model proposed by the author is summarized
and its extension to the multi-axial state of stress is used to derive the evolution of the material
ductility as a function of stress triaxiality. The presented model is successfully veried com-
paring ductility evolution with triaxiality for several metals. It is worth to anticipate here that
the model presented needs to know only material parameters, such as uniaxial failure strain
and damage threshold strain, that can be easily measured with simple tensile test according to
the procedure described in the following sections.
The effect of the material Poissons ratio, together with the material damage parameters,
on the predicted material ductility in multi-axial state of stress is also presented and discussed.
1. Nonlinear damage model
In the framework of CDM, damage is addressed as one of the thermodynamics variables and
its evolution law is given as a general function of other state variables such as stress, plastic
strain, temperature and so on. From a general point of view, damage variable should be de-
scribed using a tensor formulation (Murakami 1987; Chaboche 1984). From the physical point
of view, damage variable indicates the progressive material deterioration due to nonreversible
deformation processes and can be expressed by the reduction of the nominal section area of a
given reference volume element (RVE) as a result of microvoids formation and growth
D
(n)
= 1
A
(n)
eff
A
(n)
0
, (1)
where, for a given normal n, A
(n)
0
is the nominal section area of the RVE; A
(n)
eff
is the effective
resisting section area that takes into account of the presence of microdefects, voids and their
mutual interactions.
Making the assumptions of isotropic damage, the variable does not depend on the direction
n and the damage state can be completely characterized by a scalar quantity indicated with D.
Let us assume as valid the strain equivalence hypothesis (Lemaitre, 1985), the strain asso-
ciated with a damage state under the applied stress is equivalent to the strain associated with
its undamaged state under the effective stress, (Simo and Ju, 1987). The deformation behavior
of the material is only affected by damage in the form of effective stress, i.e. the constitutive
equations of a damaged material are the same of the virgin material with no damage where
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.2
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 361
the stress is simply replaced by the effective stress. Thus, the following denition of damage
can be given
D = 1
E
eff
E
0
, (2)
where E
0
and E
eff
are the Youngs modulus of the undamaged and damaged material, re-
spectively. In the framework of CDM, the existence of a damage dissipation potential F
D
is
assumed and, in the case of plasticity damage, the total dissipation potential is given as,
F = F
p
(, R, X) + F
D
(Y, p, D), (3)
where Y is the internal variable associated to damage and p the effective accumulated plastic
strain. F
p
is the dissipation potential associated to plastic deformation that is function of the
actual stress tensor kinematic and hardening back stress X and R.
If the expressions of the two potentials are known, the evolution law of the internal vari-
ables can be obtained through the normality rule.
For a isotropic hardening material we can derive the full set of constitutive equation as
follows.
Let assume strain decomposition as,

T
ij
=
e
ij
+
p
ij
, (4)
where elastic strain components are given by,

e
ij
=
1 +
E

ij
1 D

kk
1 D

ij
. (5)
Standard isotropic plasticity associated with a Von Mises yield criterion leads to,
F
p
(, R; D) =

eq
1 D
R(r)
y
, (6)
where plastic strain rate components can be obtained as,

p
ij
=

F
p

ij
=

3
2
s
ij
1 D
1

eq
, (7)
and
p =

F
p
R
=

1 D
, (8)
where s
ij
is the deviatoric part of the stress tensor, is the plastic multiplier and the dot indi-
cates time derivative. Damage equation can be obtained in the similar way from the damage
potential as,

D =

F
D
Y
. (9)
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.3
362 N. Bonora
The author (Bonora, 1997) proposed the following expression for the damage dissipation
potential,
F
D
=
1
2
_

Y
S
0
_
2

S
0
1 D

(D
cr
D)
(1)/
p
(2+n)/n
, (10)
where D
cr
is the critical value of the damage variable for which ductile failure occurs; is the
damage exponent that characterizes the shape of the damage evolution curve. S
0
is a material
constant and n is the material hardening exponent. This choice of the damage potential leads
to the following damage kinetic evolution with the effective accumulated plastic strain,
dD =
(D
cr
D
0
)
1/
ln(
f
) ln(
t h
)
f
_

eq
_
(D
cr
D)
(1)/

dp
p
, (11)
where D
0
is the initial damage in the material microstructure as a result of the presence of
inclusions or second phase precipitates,
t h
and
f
are the threshold strain at which damage
process starts and the strain to failure in the uniaxial state of stress, respectively.
Damage is both sensitive to the shear and to the volumetric deformation energy since
microvoids are very sensitive to the hydrostatic state of stress. On these premises, Lemaitre
(1985) postulated that damage mechanism is governed by the total elastic strain energy W
e
decomposed in the distortion and volumetric change contributions. Assuming that damage
does not vary within the elastic range, the expression of the elastic strain energy, with the use
of (5), leads to the denition of an equivalent damage stress

similarly to the equivalent

stress in plasticity, by stating that deformation energy in multi-axial state of stress is equal to
that in an equivalent uniaxial state dened by

, i.e.,
W
e
= W
D
+ W
m
=
_
s
ij
d
D
ij
+
_

m
d
m
=
1
2
_
1 +
E
s
ij
s
ij
1 D
+ 3
1 2
E

2
m
1 D
_
, (12)
that with the denition of the equivalent Mises stress can be rewritten as,
W
e
=

eq
2(1 D)
_
2
3
(1 + ) + 3(1 2)
_

eq
_
2
_
=

2(1 D)
, (13)
where,

=
eq
f
_

eq
_
(14)
and
f
_

eq
_
=
2
3
(1 + ) + 3(1 2)
_

eq
_
2
. (15)
Thus, the function f (
m
/
eq
) takes into account of the extension to triaxial state of stress
of the damage variable.
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.4
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 363
.
Figure 1. Triaxiality along the minimum section of round notch tensile bar
Figure 2. Plastic strain along the minimum section of round notch tensile bar.
In the present model ve material parameters needs to be identied: the threshold strain

t h
at which damage process starts, the failure strain
f
at which damage variable reaches its
critical value; the critical damage D
cr
, the initial damage D
0
and the damage exponent .
The identication of these parameters can be done in a uniaxial tensile test using an
appropriate hourglass shaped tensile specimen. The collocation of a small strain gauge in
the minimum specimen section, where plastic deformation is localized, monitors the varia-
tion of the material stiffness as a function of the imposed strain level performing a series
of loading-unloading ramps. The initial damage in the material D
0
can be assumed equal
to zero for the virgin material. The determination of damage threshold strain needs some
attention as a result of the fact that its measure can be very scattered. The same attention
is required for the critical damage D
cr
because close to failure damage variable quickly
accumulates with strain. Once the damage data as a function of strain are collected, the
damage exponent can be determined as the slope of the best t line in the logarithmic
plane ln[(D
cr
D)/D
cr
] ln[ln(/)/ln(/
t h
)]. More experimental details on the procedure
how to measure damage parameters can be found in Lemaitre and Dufally (1987) and Bonora
et al. (1994).
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.5
364 N. Bonora
Figure 3. Comparison between the present model, Rice & Tracy and Lemaitres estimation for a Q1 steel tested
along LT direction, (exp. data from Thomson & Hancock, 1984).
Figure 4. Comparison between the present model, Rice & Tracy and Lemaitres estimation for a Q1 steel tested
along ST direction, (exp. data from Thomson & Hancock, 1984).
2. Triaxial state of stress and ductility
Hanckock and Meckenzie (1976) have largely investigated the effect of stress triaxiality on
failure strain in high strength steels. Their investigation was based on the Earl and Browns
(1976) analysis of round notch tensile bar specimen. This specimen geometry is peculiar
because allows to change stress triaxiality simply changing the radius of the notch and it
is characterized to have uniformly constant plastic strain on the minimum section once the
full section is yielded. In addition, stress triaxiality, that varies along the minimum section, is
load independent. In Figure 1, an example of the triaxiality distribution along the minimum
section for a round notch specimen, is shown (Bonora et al., 1992). In Figure 2 the distribution
of the equivalent plastic strain along the minimum section for different notch radii and for
different values of the Ludwiks power law exponent is given. Earl and Brown found that the
value of stress triaxiality on the specimen center can be given with good approximation by the
following Bridgmans solution,
_

eq
_
max
=
1
3
+ ln
_
1 +
d
2R
_
, (16)
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.6
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 365
where d is the actual radius of the minimum cross-section and R is the notch radius as depicted
in Figure 1. While the equivalent plastic strain along the minimum section is given by,

p
eq
= 2 ln
_
d
0
d
_
, (17)
where d
0
is the initial diameter of the reduced section. Hancock and Meckenzie found that
ductility at failure and triaxiality are nonlinearly inversely proportional: the more stress state is
triaxial the less the strain at failure is. This result was in part anticipated by Rice and Tracy that
analytically found an exponential decrease of strain at failure with the increase of triaxiality,

f
= exp
_

3
2

eq
_
. (18)
McClintock (1968), considering the growth of elliptical holes, found an analogous relation
as

f
=
(1 n) ln(l
0
/b
0
)
sinh
_

3
2
(1 n)
_

a
+
b

eq
__
+
3
4
_

b
+
a

eq
_, (19)
where l
0
and b
0
identify the initial void and cell size;
a
,
b
are the principal stresses in the
remote matrix along the void axes directions and n is the material hardening exponent as
dened in the Ludwiks power-law,

eq
=
0
(
p
eq
)
n
, (20)
where
0
is the uniaxial yield stress. However, these expressions match the experimental
observations in a very approximate way as it is shown in Figures 3 and 4 for a Q1 steel
tested along the LT and ST directions.
In the framework of the continuum damage model proposed material ductility, neglecting
the elastic strain, is expressed by the effective accumulated plastic strain p that is dened as
the equivalent plastic strain effectively accumulated in the generic multi-axial state of stress
together with damage presence. In the uniaxial case p
f
denition coincides with
f
.
Using continuum damage mechanics, a damage model should be able to determine the
evolution lawfor the failure strain as a function of stress triaxiality only on the base of uniaxial
experimental data. The damage kinetic evolution law given in (11) can be integrated in the
uniaxial case (f (
m
/
eq
) = 1) over the strain range [
t h
,
f
] leading to
D = D
0
+ (D
cr
D
0
)
_
1
_
1
ln(/
t h
)
ln(
f
/
t h
)
_

_
(21)
and in the case of proportional loading (f (
m
/
eq
) = const) where we get,
D = D
0
+ (D
cr
D
0
)
_
1
_
1
ln(p/p
t h
)
ln(
f
/
t h
)
f
_

eq
__

_
. (22)
Dividing Equation (21) by (22) we get the following relation between strains
_
p
f
p
0
_
=
_

t h
_
1/f(
m
/
eq
)
. (23)
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.7
366 N. Bonora
Figure 5. Comparison between the model proposed and experimental data relative to Marrel steel, (exp. data from
Thomson & Hancock, 1984).
Figure 6. Comparison between the model proposed and experimental data relative to a C-Mn steel, (exp, data
from Tai, 1990).
This relation states that effective strain to failure in multi-axial state of stress is function of
the uniaxial failure strain, stress triaxiality and of the Poissons ratio of the material. Equation
(23) needs the knowledge of the evolution of the plastic threshold strain p
0
, as a function
of stress triaxiality in order to be used. According to the Thomson and Hancocks (1984)
observations, the equivalent threshold strain p
0
can be taken constant and equal to
t h
. Thus,
(23) leads to the following evolution law for strain to failure in multi-axial state of stress,
p
f
=
t h

_

t h
_
1/f(
m
/
eq
)
. (24)
The validity of this relation has been veried with experimental data of six different ma-
terials. In Figures 3 and 4, the comparison between the experimental data relative to Q1 steel
tested along the LT and ST directions and the present model is given together with the Rice
and Tracy and Lemaitres linear damage model. These pictures show a very good agreement
between the model proposed and the experimental data and underlines differences with the
other models. Even though differences between the Rice and Tracy and CDM model do not
surprise, because the two models have been obtained in different frameworks, the differences
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.8
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 367
Figure 7. Comparison between the model proposed and experimental data relative to a welded steel 6013, (exp.
data from Tai, 1990).
Figure 8. Comparison between the model proposed and experimental data relative to a welded steel 6015, (exp.
data from Tai, 1990).
Figure 9. Comparison between the present model and experimental data relative to a HY130 steel along the two
directions LT and ST, (exp. data from Hancock & Meckenzie, 1976).
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.9
368 N. Bonora
Figure 10. Damage threshold strain measurement for a Swedish pure steel in different triaxiality states of stress,
(data from Thomson & Hancock, 1984).
of the present model with the Lemaitres one put in evidence the importance of the nonlinear
description for damage process.
In Figures 59 the comparison of the present model with the experimental data relative
to Marrel steel, to a C-Mn steel, two welded steels, 6013 and 6015, and to HY130 steel are
given, respectively. In all the cases examined the model presented is always in a very good
agreement with experimental measurements. In Table 1, the damage parameters
f
,
t h
and
the Poisson ratios for each material are also summarized.
3. Triaxiality and damage threshold strain
Damage threshold strain indicates the strain level at which damage process starts to take place.
At this stage voids nucleation and growth are large enough to affect the material stiffness. In
the framework of the proposed damage model, the knowledge of
t h
in very important because
this parameter affects signicantly damage evolution law. As already seen for failure strain,

t h
should be sensible to stress triaxiality in the same way. In the Lemaitres linear model
the assumption that triaxiality acts in the same way on p
f
and p
0
, is made, Lemaitre, 1985).
Thomson and Hancock (1984) have experimentally investigated the variation of p
0
with the
increase of stress triaxiality as depicted in Figure 10 for a Swedish pure iron. They underlined
two main results
(a) threshold strain is scarcely sensitive to stress triaxiality,
(b) experimental data are largely scattered for low triaxiality. Experimental data scatter at
low triaxiality can be explained with the observation that the less stress triaxiality is the
higher is the effect in damage localization due to inclusion shape, size and distribution.
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.10
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 369
Table 1. Material damage parameters
Material Uniaxial failure Threshold Poissons ratio
strain
f
strain
t h
Marrel 1.04 0.05 0.30
C-Mn steel 1.13 0.21 0.33
HY130 (LT) 0.97 0.05 0.30
HY130 (TS) 0.54 0.002 0.30
weld 6013 1.04 0.05 0.33
weld 6015 1.41 0.05 0.37
Q1 steel (LT) 1.05 0.05 0.30
Q1 steel (TS) 0.67 0.02 0.30
Figure 11(a).
f
effect on the triaxiality-ductility
curve Equation (22).
Figure 11(b).
f
effect on the triaxiality-ductility
curve Equation (22).
Figure 11(c). Poissons ratio effect on the triaxiality-
ductility curve Equation (22).
The verication of this hypothesis can be done using the results given in Figures 59. In
fact, the effective strain at failure evolution curve given in (24) leads to a very good comparison
with experimental data if the appropriate values of uniaxial
t h
and
f
are provided.
Variation of
f
leads to curves that shift on the left side of the diagram with consequent
shifting of the point that represent the uniaxial case. A variation of the p
0
(=
t h
) produces a
shift to the right of the upper part of the curve that correspond to high triaxiality: in this case
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.11
370 N. Bonora
failure strain in multi-axial stress state is overestimated. In Figures 11(ac), the modication
of (24) due to the variation of
t h
,
f
and the Poissons ratio, is summarized.
According to this, threshold strain can be simply evaluated performing few tests only at
high triaxial stress state gaining two conditions: rstly, a pivoting point for (24) is found, sec-
ondly, experimental scatter in the measurements is drastically reduced avoiding the tests rep-
etition or the examination of the whole specimen minimum section as described in (Thomson
and Hancock, 1984).
Figure 12. Specimen redution for damage measurement in triaxial state of stress.
Threshold strain test measurements in multi-axial state of stress can be performed as sug-
gested by Bonora et al., (1996) using round notch tensile bar (RNB(T)) multiple specimen
technique. This method consists in pre-straining a number of RNB(T) specimens. The strain
level along the minimum section can be monitored according to (17). The stress triaxiality
along the minimum section can be calculated with nite element method once the mesh
has been calibrated comparing the load vs diameter reduction (P ) response. Once a
specimen has been prestrained, it has to be reduced to standard rectangular at tensile spec-
imen as depicted in Figure 12 using electro-discharge cutting technique. Thus, damage can
be measured positioning a strain gauge at the center of the old minimum section, where the
triaxiality was constant during straining, and loading the specimen in the elastic range. Even
if this technique can be very expensive, it allows to monitor damage evolution in the triaxial
state of stress and, if a replication technique is used, it can be used to control the effective
microscopical modication at each damage stage.
4. Conclusions
In the present paper, ductile fracture has been approached using continuum damage concepts.
The nonlinear damage model, as proposed by the author, was reviewed and it has been used to
discuss, on the basis of experimental data, the effect of stress triaxiality on damage parameters.
The predicted values of the effective strain to failure have been successfully compared with
experimental data relative to six different steels. The comparison with other models, such as
the Rice and Tracys approximated expression for cavities growth and the Lemaitres linear
damage model have been also presented and the differences have been highlighted.
The possibility to successfully derive without any additional hypothesis from a CDM
model the evolution of material ductility with stress triaxiality is an additional validation of
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.12
On the effect of triaxial state of stress 371
the damage model proposed. The experimental procedures to identify all the ve damage
parameters necessary has been discussed in details.
References
Bonora, N. (1997). A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 58(1-2), 1128.
Bonora, N., Marchetti, M., Milella, P.P., Maricchiolo, C. and Pini A. (1992). Ductile fracture criteria: An ap-
plication of local approach based on cavity growth theory in Pressure Vessel Fracture, Fatigue, and Life
Management (edited by S. Bhandari, P.P. Milella and W.E. Pennell) Book no. G00668, PVP Vol. 233, ASME
New York, 111115.
Bonora, N., Cavallini, M., Iacovello, F. and Marchetti, M. (1994). Crack initiation in Al-Li alloy using contin-
uum damage mechanics, in Localized Damage III Computer-Aided Assessment and Control. (Edited by M.H.
Aliabadi, A. Carpinteri, S. Kalisky and D.J. Cartwright), Computational Mechanics Publication, Southampton
Boston, 657665.
Bonora, N., Gentile, D. and Iacoviello, F. (1996). Triaxiality and ductile rupture in round notch tensile bar (in
Italian), Proceedings of XII Italian Group of Fracture National Meeting, Parma, June 1996.
Budiansky, B., Hutchinson, J.W. and Slutsky, S. (1981). In Mechanics of Solids (The Rodney Hill 60th Anniversary
Volume). (Edited by H.G. Hopkins and M.J. Sewell). Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1315.
Chaboche, J.L. (1984). Anisotropic creep damage in the framework of the continuum damage mechanics. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 79, 309319.
Earl, J.C. and Brown, D.K. (1976). Distribution of stress and plastic strain in circumferentially notched tension
specimens. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 8, 599611.
Hancock, J.W. and Meckenzie, A.C. (1976). On the mechanisms of ductile failure in high strength steels subjected
to multi-axial stress-states. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 24, 147169.
Lemaitre, J. (1985). A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. Journal of Engineering Material
and Technology 107, 8389.
Lemaitre, J. and Chaboche, J.M. (1985). Mechanics of Solids Materials, Cambridge Academic Press, (1985).
Lemaitre, J. and Dufally, J. (1987). Damage measurements, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 28(5/6), 643881.
Le Roy, G., Embury, J.D., Edward, G. and Ashby, M.F. (1981). A model of ductile fracture based on the nucleation
and growth of voids. Acta Metallurgica 29, 15091522.
Manjoine, M.J. (1982). Creep-rupture behavior of weldments. Welding Research Supplement, 50s57s.
McClintock, F.A. (1968). A criterion for ductile fracture by the growth of holes. Journal of Applied Mechanics 35,
363371.
Murakami, S. (1987). Anisotropic aspects of material damage and application of continuum damage mechanics.
CISM Courses and Lectures no. 295, (Edited by D. Krajcinovic and J. Lemaitre) Springer-Verlag, Wien-New
York, 91133.
Rice, J.R. and Tracy, D.M. (1969). On ductile-enlargement of voids in triaxial stress elds. Journal of Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 17, 210217.
Simo, J.C. and Ju, J.W. (1987). Stress and strain based continuum damage models I formulations. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 23, 841869.
Tai, H.W. (1990). Plastic damage and ductile fracture in mild steels. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 36, 853880.
Thomson, R.D. and Hancock, J.W. (1984). Ductile failure by void nucleation, growth and coalescence. Interna-
tional Journal of Fracture 26, 99112.
Von Karman, T. (1991). Z. Vereins Deutscher Ing., 55, 17491757.
Xia, L.C. and Shih, C.F. (1995). Ductile crack growth-II. Void nucleation and geometry effects in macroscopic
fracture behavior. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 43, 233259.
163167.tex; 19/09/1996; 7:58; p.13