Issue 41

L. Patriarca et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 41 (2017) 277-284; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.41.37 280 (a) (b) Figure 1 : Tensile test analysis: (a) Geometry of the dog-bone specimen used for the test and the area simulated by crystal plasticity algorithm; (b) Comparison between the experimental and numerical stress strain curves after material parameters optimization. Model’s prediction was also compared in terms of strain distribution at the unloading condition. Fig. 2 shows the histogram of the strain occurrence over the inspected area between the DIC strain measurements and the CP simulation. The comparison shows the capability of the model to capture the strain distribution trend, with a good approximation of the mean value: 4.83 % for the experiment and 4.92% for the simulation. Figure 2 : Histogram showing the comparison of the strain fields detected by DIC and simulation of the tensile test. Q UASI - STATIC CRACK - EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE he setup of the test was constructed with the aim to capture, over a wide surface of the material, the localization of deformation around the crack tip. The geometry of the specimen, Fig. 3b, was chosen according to the 4 pins grips for Deben micro-testing machine, Fig. 3a. The notch of 0.5 mm was produced by electrical discharge machining. The nominal dimension of the net section of the specimen is 6 mm x 2 mm, while the specimen gauge length is 15.5 mm. T