2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2006.11.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of spatial grain orientation distribution and initial surface topography on sheet metal necking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

3
37
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is often used to model the localization in metal sheets, where only a small part of the sheet needs to be represented, with applied plane-strain or plane-stress boundary conditions [30][31][32][33]. The CP model allows studying phenomena which are outside the scope of the phenomenological models, like surface roughening [34], and their influence on necking. Other applications of the CP model are localization in thin films [35], tubes under pressure [36] and deep drawing [37].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is often used to model the localization in metal sheets, where only a small part of the sheet needs to be represented, with applied plane-strain or plane-stress boundary conditions [30][31][32][33]. The CP model allows studying phenomena which are outside the scope of the phenomenological models, like surface roughening [34], and their influence on necking. Other applications of the CP model are localization in thin films [35], tubes under pressure [36] and deep drawing [37].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[4] The addition of revised plasticity and kinematic hardening models and the results from studies of the influence of various material parameters (such as grain size and grain orientation effects, surface roughening effects, and other damage mechanisms) on strain localization have enhanced the reliability of the numerical models. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Despite the significant improvements that have been made to these models, inconsistencies still exist between the mechanical behavior that is predicted and the behavior that is observed experimentally. One possible source for these discrepancies is that the models used to predict the mechanical behavior are fundamentally deterministic and they simply cannot account for all of the variability that is possible in every microstructural component involved in the plastic deformation process of a polycrystalline material.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, the fidelity of the roughness data used in these models is questionable, given that these data are routinely based on the erroneous assumption of a linear relationship between the surface roughness and the plastic strain. [11,14,15] The literature also indicates that the strain mode has little or no influence on the measurable surface roughness, if the grain size is constant. [16] The results of a recent evaluation of deformationinduced surface roughness with plastic strain plainly demonstrated that the linear relationship between the surface root-mean-squared (RMS) roughness (Sq) and the plastic strain reported in the literature is a statistical artifact resulting from inadequate sampling.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The localization behavior of a material is due to two reasons: (i) The material non-homogeneities (second phase particles, grain morphology of surface defects, etc.) [4][5][6][7][8], (ii) constitutive behavior (material strain hardening, softening and rate sensitivity, etc.) [9,10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%