Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Article summary:
1. An isotropic ductile fracture criterion is developed to model the fracture behavior of ductile metals, which considers nucleation, growth, shear coalescence and necking coalescence of voids during plastic deformation.
2. The damage from necking coalescence of voids is expressed as the sum of the damages from the shear coalescence of voids and necking coalescence of voids.
3. The proposed fracture criterion is employed to construct fracture loci for three different materials (AA 2024-T351, AA 6060-T6 and A710 steel) and compared with experimental data points to validate its performance.
Article analysis:
The article “Extension of a Shear-Controlled Ductile Fracture Criterion by Considering the Necking Coalescence of Voids” provides an overview on a new isotropic ductile fracture criterion that considers nucleation, growth, shear coalescence and necking coalescence of voids during plastic deformation. The article presents a detailed parametric study to demonstrate the flexibility of the proposed criterion and compares it with other existing criteria such as micro-mechanism-motivated criterion (Lou et al., 2014), modified Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Bai and Wierzbicki, 2010).
The article appears to be reliable in terms of its content as it provides a comprehensive overview on the proposed criterion along with detailed parametric studies and comparison with existing criteria. However, there are some potential biases in the article that should be noted. Firstly, there is no mention about any limitations or drawbacks associated with this new criterion which could have been explored further. Secondly, there is no discussion about possible risks associated with using this new criterion in finite element simulations which could have been addressed in more detail. Thirdly, while comparing this new criterion with existing ones, only two criteria were considered whereas more comparisons could have been made for better understanding. Lastly, while presenting both sides equally was attempted in some parts of the article such as when comparing this new criterion with existing ones; however it was not done consistently throughout the article which could lead to partiality or one-sided reporting in certain sections.
In conclusion, while this article appears to be reliable overall due to its comprehensive content; however potential biases should be noted such as lack of discussion on limitations/drawbacks associated with this new criterion; lack of discussion on possible risks associated with using this new criterion; limited comparison between existing criteria; and inconsistent presentation between both sides equally throughout the article which could lead to partiality or one-sided reporting in certain sections.