All Courses
All Courses
Courses by Software
Courses by Semester
Courses by Domain
Tool-focused Courses
Machine learning
POPULAR COURSES
Success Stories
Material Modeling from Raw Data AIM: To create a material model using the data extracted from the given true stress-strain curve of graphite iron casting and validate it using the dog bone specimen. Here is the workflow: Extract the data from the diagram Clean the data and visually confirm that it matches the original…
Amol Anandrao Kumbhar
updated on 08 Apr 2021
Material Modeling from Raw Data
AIM:
To create a material model using the data extracted from the given true stress-strain curve of graphite iron casting and validate it using the dog bone specimen.
Here is the workflow:
Note: The unit system used is kg-mm-ms.
INTRODUCTION:
Material model:
To get realistic results for any analysis using FEA, a good material model for the material is necessary. A material model can have all sorts of data describing the behavior of the material in different conditions: say different tensile test curves for different strain rates and much more. This helps getting realistic behavior of the component with the material model in all sorts of situations.
Building a material model requires test data from various experiments conducted in real life to describe the material behavior in detail. A complex analysis would benefit from a detailed material model, whereas a simpler simulation would not benefit much. The data collected from an experimental test is first cleaned to make sure any unnecessary data points are filtered out to get clear picture. Usually, the same test is repeated a number of times to ensure repeatability of the results. This test data is then inserted in the suitable format into a model: say effective stress-strain curve in x-y co-ordinates.
A cleaner data with consistence behavior in the case of a stress strain plot, inconsistent data points should be avoided as it can affect the stability if the simulation having such a material model. A fitted curve with 98%+ accuracy can solve such issues. After matching for the unit system of the analysis, this data can be added to the simple material model to make it more detailed – for example with the use of material model such as MAT24 – linear piecewise material.
A good practice of the material modelling procedure is the validation of the model. By performing simple analysis for which an experimental test can be performed or such data can be acquired, and then comparing the experimental and analysis results gives a good benchmark for the model. In this exercise, we try and replicate such a process.
Material modeling is done with the help of raw data. We have to extract the data from given image. The given image gives you the Engineering Stress and Engineering Strain values. These values will produce the True stress and true strain with the help of calculations.
PROCEDURE:
1.Data Extraction:
The given image file of true stress-strain graph of graphite iron casting is opened in data digitizer software to extract the data and export it as excel file.
The curve 2 is chosen to extract data of stress-strain of graphite iron casting as shown in fig.1.
Note: Ensure the data points picked is evenly spaced so as to get smooth curve and better convergence.
Fig.1 given image and points for data extractions.
MAT_CURVE_1 |
MAT_CURVE_2 |
||
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
0.0158 |
3.1095 |
0.0158 |
3.1095 |
0.0305 |
6.3231 |
0.0305 |
6.3231 |
0.0476 |
9.9513 |
0.0476 |
9.9513 |
0.0659 |
13.7867 |
0.0659 |
13.7867 |
0.0818 |
17.4152 |
0.0818 |
17.4152 |
0.0952 |
19.9026 |
0.0952 |
19.9026 |
0.1147 |
23.2186 |
0.1159 |
23.1144 |
0.1365 |
26.6377 |
0.1401 |
26.0138 |
0.1621 |
30.1595 |
0.1692 |
28.2889 |
0.1876 |
33.4738 |
0.2006 |
30.4595 |
0.2179 |
36.3714 |
0.2393 |
31.9014 |
0.2578 |
39.9927 |
0.2779 |
33.1356 |
0.3014 |
42.7826 |
0.3165 |
33.9546 |
0.3388 |
44.7438 |
0.3623 |
34.6676 |
0.4004 |
46.9055 |
0.4021 |
35.1749 |
0.4475 |
48.4486 |
0.4479 |
35.6803 |
0.5018 |
49.8858 |
0.4986 |
36.0805 |
0.5525 |
51.0126 |
0.5492 |
36.3769 |
0.6019 |
52.0360 |
0.5998 |
36.7771 |
0.6514 |
52.7480 |
0.6528 |
37.1766 |
0.6996 |
53.5641 |
0.7011 |
37.4737 |
Fig.2 Plot of true stress vs true strain of curve 2.
1. The stress-strain data file obtained from data digitizer is opened in excel to plot a graph of true stress, (GPa) vs true strain as shown in fig.2. From the graph the yield stress value is taken as 0.151 GPa and the region beyond is considered as plastic region.
2.The true stress-strain data is then converted into effective plastic strain and stress to add to the material card. To keep the plot consistence, a curve is fitted to the extracted data, and the data-points are taken from the curve. Using the following relation, the true stress-strain data is converted into effective plastic stress-strain data:
Effective stress = true stress
Effective strain = Total true strain - elastic true strain
Effective strain = Total true strain - (true stress/Young's modulus)
for metals, 'E' is large (100x GPa), hence (true stress/E) can be taken as constant for all the points in the test data. This DOESN'T hold true for plastics where E is comparatively low (1x GPa).
Procedure:
Using the data digitizer the following data-points were collected from the given ‘True stress-strain plot’ for graphite ironspecimen tensile test.
MAT_CURVE_1 |
MAT_CURVE_2 |
||
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
0.0158 |
3.1095 |
0.0158 |
3.1095 |
0.0305 |
6.3231 |
0.0305 |
6.3231 |
0.0476 |
9.9513 |
0.0476 |
9.9513 |
0.0659 |
13.7867 |
0.0659 |
13.7867 |
0.0818 |
17.4152 |
0.0818 |
17.4152 |
0.0952 |
19.9026 |
0.0952 |
19.9026 |
0.1147 |
23.2186 |
0.1159 |
23.1144 |
0.1365 |
26.6377 |
0.1401 |
26.0138 |
0.1621 |
30.1595 |
0.1692 |
28.2889 |
0.1876 |
33.4738 |
0.2006 |
30.4595 |
0.2179 |
36.3714 |
0.2393 |
31.9014 |
0.2578 |
39.9927 |
0.2779 |
33.1356 |
0.3014 |
42.7826 |
0.3165 |
33.9546 |
0.3388 |
44.7438 |
0.3623 |
34.6676 |
0.4004 |
46.9055 |
0.4021 |
35.1749 |
0.4475 |
48.4486 |
0.4479 |
35.6803 |
0.5018 |
49.8858 |
0.4986 |
36.0805 |
0.5525 |
51.0126 |
0.5492 |
36.3769 |
0.6019 |
52.0360 |
0.5998 |
36.7771 |
0.6514 |
52.7480 |
0.6528 |
37.1766 |
0.6996 |
53.5641 |
0.7011 |
37.4737 |
Fig.3 curve 1 and curve 2.
From the plot it can be observed that there are some inconsistencies in the plot hence a curve is fitted to it using trend-line feature in excel. It is made sure that the error is minimal. Given the nature of the graph, a logarithmic distribution gets a very close fit and hence is selected.
To match a suitable unit system, the units for stress were converted from KSI – Kilo pounds per square inch into GPa – Giga Pascal using following conversions: 1 Kilo Pounds per square inch = 4.44822 KN = 6.8947572 Pascal.
To get good results we have make some equidistant spacing in the strain % so it will produce the curve which will result monotonically increasing values
FROM CURVE |
CONVERSIONS |
FROM FORMULA CALCULATION |
|||||||
AVG. CURVE |
SMOOTHING FOR STRAIN EQUIDISTANCE |
CONVERT |
1+ Engineering Strain |
True Strain |
Effective Plastic Strain |
ES OR TRUE STRESS |
|||
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
STRAIN % |
STRESS(KSI) |
STRAIN VALUE |
STRESS(GPA) |
||||
|
|
MADE EQUIDISTANT SPCAING |
|
|
0.006894757 |
||||
0.01585 |
3.10949 |
0.01585 |
3.10949 |
0.00016 |
0.02144 |
1.00016 |
0.00016 |
0.0000 |
0.0214 |
0.03050 |
6.32313 |
0.03170 |
6.32313 |
0.00032 |
0.04360 |
1.00032 |
0.00032 |
0.0000 |
0.0436 |
0.04759 |
9.95128 |
0.04635 |
9.95128 |
0.00046 |
0.06861 |
1.00046 |
0.00046 |
0.0000 |
0.0686 |
0.06589 |
13.78669 |
0.06344 |
13.78669 |
0.00063 |
0.09506 |
1.00063 |
0.00063 |
0.0000 |
0.0951 |
0.08177 |
17.41519 |
0.08174 |
17.41519 |
0.00082 |
0.12007 |
1.00082 |
0.00082 |
0.0000 |
0.1202 |
0.09517 |
19.90257 |
0.09762 |
19.90257 |
0.00098 |
0.13722 |
1.00098 |
0.00098 |
0.0000 |
0.1374 |
0.11525 |
23.16651 |
0.11102 |
23.16651 |
0.00111 |
0.15973 |
1.00111 |
0.00111 |
0.0000 |
0.1599 |
0.13833 |
26.32575 |
0.13110 |
26.32575 |
0.00131 |
0.18151 |
1.00131 |
0.00131 |
0.0001 |
0.1817 |
0.16562 |
29.22424 |
0.15418 |
29.22424 |
0.00154 |
0.20149 |
1.00154 |
0.00154 |
0.0001 |
0.2018 |
0.19409 |
31.96666 |
0.18147 |
31.96666 |
0.00181 |
0.22040 |
1.00181 |
0.00181 |
0.0003 |
0.2208 |
0.22856 |
34.13636 |
0.20994 |
34.13636 |
0.00210 |
0.23536 |
1.00210 |
0.00210 |
0.0005 |
0.2359 |
0.26787 |
36.56415 |
0.24441 |
36.56415 |
0.00244 |
0.25210 |
1.00244 |
0.00244 |
0.0007 |
0.2527 |
0.30894 |
38.36858 |
0.28372 |
38.36858 |
0.00284 |
0.26454 |
1.00284 |
0.00283 |
0.0010 |
0.2653 |
0.35058 |
39.70571 |
0.32479 |
39.70571 |
0.00325 |
0.27376 |
1.00325 |
0.00324 |
0.0013 |
0.2747 |
0.40127 |
41.04016 |
0.36643 |
41.04016 |
0.00366 |
0.28296 |
1.00366 |
0.00366 |
0.0017 |
0.2840 |
0.44771 |
42.06444 |
0.41712 |
42.06444 |
0.00417 |
0.29002 |
1.00417 |
0.00416 |
0.0021 |
0.2912 |
0.50018 |
42.98314 |
0.46356 |
42.98314 |
0.00464 |
0.29636 |
1.00464 |
0.00462 |
0.0026 |
0.2977 |
0.55082 |
43.69476 |
0.51603 |
43.69476 |
0.00516 |
0.30126 |
1.00516 |
0.00515 |
0.0031 |
0.3028 |
0.60087 |
44.40656 |
0.56667 |
44.40656 |
0.00567 |
0.30617 |
1.00567 |
0.00565 |
0.0035 |
0.3079 |
0.65211 |
44.96230 |
0.61672 |
44.96230 |
0.00617 |
0.31000 |
1.00617 |
0.00615 |
0.0040 |
0.3119 |
0.70033 |
45.51893 |
0.66796 |
45.51893 |
0.00668 |
0.31384 |
1.00668 |
0.00666 |
0.0045 |
0.3159 |
Fig.4 Plot of effective stress vs effective strain
Analysis Model and setup:
The given dog-bone specimen keyword file only has the mesh data and hence everything else needs to be added. To keep the analysis simple yet informative, the before mentioned boundary conditions were added along with a MAT24 material model consisting of the ‘log-data’ acquired from the experimental results. After trying a number of times to get the required results without any instability and unusual results, the following settings were finalized.
Part Definition:
1. The material card chosen is MAT_24_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY to define the behavior of an elasto-plastic material with an arbitrary stress versus strain curve and arbitrary strain rate dependency. With this material model it is possible to consider the effect of the strain rate.
Fig.5 Defining curve - A
Fig.5 Defining curve - B
Fig.6 LCSS curve definition for EPS vs ES
The plastic behavior of the material is defined using LCSS curve option in the material card. The curve is defined by inputting the values of effective plastic strain and effective stress (true stress).
The Effective Plastic Strain = True Strain – (True Stress/Young’s Modulus).
Note: To define LCSS curve the stress values beyond the yield stress values are considered.
SECTION PROPERTY
The section property of dogbone specimen is assigned as shell element with 2 mm thickness and ELFORM=16.
PART DEFINATION
3. Boundary Condition:
The nodes at the fixed end are constrained in X and Z direction only and Y direction is not constrained because of lateral expansion during tensile test
Fig.6 The nodes at the fixed end constrained in X and Z direction.
The nodes at the fixed end is constrained in X and Z direction only and Y direction is not constrained because of lateral expansion during tensile test.
Fig.7 The nodes at the middle constrained in Y direction.
The nodes at the middle are constrained in Y direction since the neutral axis passes through the middle of the specimen in Xdirection.
Fig.8.1 Boundary prescribed motion in the pulling end of specimen.
The nodes of the pulling end are assigned with a boundary prescribed motion in X direction using displacement load curve as shown in fig. 8.2.
The time step value for the BINARY_D3PLOT and DATABASE_ASCII option for GLSAT and ELOUT is given as 0.01 ms.
DATABASE_EXTENT_BINARY card with STRFLG =1, is used to compute the elastic strain in the model.
The tensile test of given dog bone specimen is considered as quasi-static analysis, hence implicit analysis is carried out with necessary control implicit cards as shown in fig.10. The Initial time step size for implicit analysis, dt0 =0.025.
Note: The value of dt0 should be chosen wisely for better convergence.
Fig.10 Control functions for implicit analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
The animation of stress and strain contour resemble realistic simulation of tensile test. The maximum v-m stress value is 0.33 GPa which is higher than the yield stress value of 0.151 GPa. Hence, plastic deformation is occurring in the specimen. The maximum stress is developed in the middle region of specimen but necking is not observed till the end of simulation.
2. The animation of Effective Plastic Strain contour.
The maximum effective plastic strain observed is very less as 0.00. Due to plastic strain the cross section of specimen is decreasing at the middle of specimen.
Fig.13 True Stress vs True Strain plot of tensile test on dog bone specimen.
The true stress vs true strain plot obtained from simulation of tensile test on dog bone specimen is as shown in fig.13 which resembles the given true stress vs true strain plot.
Fig.14 Validation of simulation results with raw data.
From the graph, the curve of raw true stress vs true strain plot exactly fits with simulation result curve of true stress vs true strain plot with dt0 = 0.0025. There is a deviation for simulation results with dt0 equal to 0.001 and 0.005 due poor convergence within the given initial time step size.
CONCLUSION:
Leave a comment
Thanks for choosing to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that all the comments are moderated as per our comment policy, and your email will not be published for privacy reasons. Please leave a personal & meaningful conversation.
Other comments...
Week 6 - CHT Analysis on a Graphics card
Objective: To perform a steady state conjugate heat transfer analysis on a model of graphics card. Introduction :The term conjugate heat transfer (CHT) describes the process which involves variation of temperature within solids and fluids, due to thermal interaction between the solids and fluids, the exchange of thermal…
23 Mar 2022 04:17 AM IST
Week 5 - Rayleigh Taylor Instability
Rayleigh Taylor Instability INTRODUCTIONThe Rayleigh–Taylor instability, is the instability of an interface between two fluids of different densities which occurs when the lighter fluid is pushing the heavier fluid with the effect of gravity. Here we have prepared a model with two surfaces on over the above and considered…
07 Mar 2022 05:33 PM IST
Week 3 - External flow simulation over an Ahmed body.
External flow simulation over an Ahmed body. AIM:To simulate flow over ahmed body & to address the below given tasks.1. Describe Ahmed body & its importance.2. Explain the negative pressure in wake.3. Explain significance of the point of seperation. Expected results:1. Velocity & pressure contour of the Ahmed…
07 Mar 2022 02:44 PM IST
Week 4 - CHT Analysis on Exhaust port
CHT Analysis on Exhaust port Objective :In this challenge,1. brief description of why and where a CHT analysis is used.2. simulate both fluid flow and also the heat transfer to the solid i.e., CHT Analysis on an Exhaust port3.calculate the wall heat transfer coefficient on the internal solid surface & show the velocity…
27 Feb 2022 03:12 PM IST
Related Courses
Skill-Lync offers industry relevant advanced engineering courses for engineering students by partnering with industry experts.
© 2025 Skill-Lync Inc. All Rights Reserved.