Advances in Plastic Anisotropy and Forming Limits in Sheet Metal Forming

Banabic, Dorel

doi:10.1115/1.4033879

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Uniaxial data lacks to provide enough information on other strain states that are critical to understanding the limitation of the design [3]. It was noted that stresses generated in equibiaxial mode for a particular anisotropy value was much higher than what was found in uniaxial testing [2,4]. In this study, a method called biaxial testing will be numerically simulated for a number of strain states on 5083 aluminum alloy and compared with equivalent hemispherical dome tests by determining the forming limits in each case.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Traditionally uniaxial simple tension tests were dominantly used to characterize the plastic deformation of materials but were found to be insufficient for large strain data while feeding the material, resulting in inaccurate predictions. The reason for this is that the simple uniaxial tension test only provides one mode of deformation, and the data from this test, when used in numerical models, fail to capture other deformation modes and thus need more accurate data-driven models [2]. Uniaxial data lacks to provide enough information on other strain states that are critical to understanding the limitation of the design [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further detail studies were performed on the effect of various parameters on this limit curve. It was identified that this limit curve is very sensitive to these parameters: (a) planar and normal anisotropy value "r-values" [2,[9][10][11][12], (b) strain-hardening exponent "n-value" [13], (c) temperature [14], (d) strain rate "e/svalue" [13][14][15], (e) size of grain at start of deformation [16,17], (f) prestrain [13,17], (g) path dependence [12,18,19], (h) tool geometry [20], (i) in and out of plane forming [21], (j) coefficient of friction between sheet metal and tool which changes the strain path [17], and (k) blank holding force [22]. Traditionally hemispherical dome tests were used to identify the limits of a material in various deformation modes [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Forming Limit Differences in Biaxial and Dome Test

Nikhare

2018

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For centuries, metals and materials have been characterized using a traditional method called a uniaxial tension test. The data acquired from this test found to be adequate for operations of simple forming where one axis stretching is dominant. Currently, due to the demand of lightweight component production, multiple individual parts eliminated by stamping a single complex shape, which also further reduces many secondary operations. This change is driving by the new fuel-efficiency requirement by corporate average fuel economy of 55.8 miles per gallon by 2025.1 Due to complex part geometry, this forming method induces multiaxial stress states, which are difficult to predict using conventional tools. Thus, to analyze these multiaxial stress states limiting dome height tests and bulge tests were recommended in many research publications. However, these tests limit the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading and rather a sample geometry changes are required to imply multiaxial stresses. Even this capability is not an option in bulge test due to leakage issue. Thus, a test machine called a biaxial test was devised that would provide the capability to test the specimen in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axis. In this paper, two processes, limiting dome tests and biaxial tests were experimented, modeled, and compared. For the biaxial tests, a cruciform test specimen was utilized, and conventional forming limit specimens were used for the dome tests. Variation of sample geometry in limiting dome test and variation of loading in biaxial test were utilized to imply multiaxial stress states in order to capture the limit strain from uniaxial to equibiaxial strain mode. In addition, the strain path, forming, and formability investigated and the differences between the tests provided. From the results, it was noted that higher limit strains were acquired in dome tests than in biaxial tests due to contact pressure from the rigid punch. The literature shows that the contact pressure (which occurs when the rigid tool contacts the deformed body), increases the deformation and thus increases the limit strains to failure. This contact pressure parameter is unavailable in biaxial test, and thus, a pure material behavior can be obtained. However, limit strains from biaxial test cannot be considered for a process where rigid tool is processing the metal, and thus, calibration is necessary.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Forming Limit Differences in Biaxial and Dome Test

Nikhare

2018

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Later, they will undergo large deformations during the forming processes (Banabic et al, 2000) (bulging, drawing, hydroforming…). Hence, adequate accounting for sheet metals intrinsic properties as well as of forming processes parameters (temperature, strain rate, lubrification…) allowed remarkable progress (Banabic, 2016;Banabic et al, 2010Banabic et al, 2016;Nakagawa, 2000) in improving the modelling capabilities for such materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formability of aluminum 1050A at high temperatures: Numerical modeling and experimental validation

Ghazouani

Eladeb

Tashkandi

et al. 2021

Lat. Am. j. solids struct.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sheet metals are prone to large plastic deformation during forming processes. The study purpose is to investigate 1050A aluminum sheets thermomechanical behavior with ductile damage. A modified Swift model coupled to isotropic ductile damage and thermal effects was used. The forming parameters are introduced using Swift model coefficients and Erichsen index. An inverse identification procedure is applied to nonhomogeneous Erichsen test results. Bulge test is then used to validate the identified parameters. Erichsen test (Punch force vs displacement) results were obtained by experimental testing and simulation to build the objective function. Aluminum 1050A plasticity flow parameters and ductile damage variables were identified using a part of Erichsen test results. The remaining part of Erichsen test and bulge test results were used for validation. The numerical approach allowed the detection of failure zones with respect to thermal gradient induced by heat exchange. Within the isothermal condition, equivalent stresses and strains for 1050A Aluminum were obtained by simulations and experimental data.

show abstract

“…Şekil 3. BBC2008 ve Yld2004 akma kriterlerin ile derin çekme analizi [12]. Bu çalışma kapsamında, literatürde yaygın olarak kullanılan BBC2000, BBC2003, BBC2005 ve BBC2008 akma kriterlerinin farklı alüminyum alaşımlarında tahmin performansları araştırılmıştır.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Farkli Alümi̇nyum Alaşimlarinda Bbc2000, Bbc2003, Bbc2005 Ve Bbc2008 Akma Kri̇terleri̇ni̇n Karşilaştirilmasi

Kılıç¹,

Toros²

2019

Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZSonlu elemanlar analiz programlarında malzemenin elastik ve plastik davranışı doğru tanımlanırsa, sonuçların hata payı düşmektedir. Başarılı analiz sonuçları elde etmek için önemli parametrelerden birisi ise akma kriteri seçimidir. Literatürde geliştirilmiş birçok akma kriteri mevcut iken bazıları sonlu elemanlar analiz programlarına dahil edilmektedir. Bazı analiz programlarında bu kriterler tanımlıyken (model parametre değerleri girilerek), bazılarında da programa kod yazarak ilave edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada BBC2000, BBC2003, BBC2005, BBC2008 akma kriterlerinin iki farklı alüminyum alaşımındaki model tahminleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Aynı zamanda BBC2008 akma kriterinde parametre sayısının etkisi de incelenmiştir. Daha fazla parametreli modelin deney sonuçlarını daha iyi tahmin ettiği görülmüştür. ABSTRACTIf the elastic and plastic behavior of the material is correctly defined in the finite element analysis programs, the margin of error reduces. One of the important parameters to obtain successful analysis results is the yield criterion choice. While there are many yield criteria developed in the literature, some of them are included in finite element analysis programs. In some analysis programs while these criteria are defined (by entering the model parameter values) and some are added by writing code to the program. In this study, model estimates of BBC2000, BBC2003, BBC2005, BBC2008 yield criteria are compared in two different aluminum alloys. At the same time, the effect of the parameters number on the BBC2008 yield criterion is examined. It is seen that the more parameters model predicts better the experimental results.

show abstract

Advances in Plastic Anisotropy and Forming Limits in Sheet Metal Forming

Cited by 15 publications

References 51 publications

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Forming Limit Differences in Biaxial and Dome Test

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Forming Limit Differences in Biaxial and Dome Test

Formability of aluminum 1050A at high temperatures: Numerical modeling and experimental validation

Farkli Alümi̇nyum Alaşimlarinda Bbc2000, Bbc2003, Bbc2005 Ve Bbc2008 Akma Kri̇terleri̇ni̇n Karşilaştirilmasi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About