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

Abstract

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.

Experimental multiaxial fatigue tests realized with newly developed geometry specimens

“…This implies a considerable complication in the design of experimental fatigue tests . The problems from which this complexity of analysis derive are multiple but mainly concern the design of a system that generates a different temporal trend of stress components, and machines are extremely expensive and difficult to design . In a first analysis, it was necessary to study a simple geometry capable, if stressed in a particular way, of autonomously generating a multiaxial stress state.…”

Biaxial Tensile Testing of Cruciform Samples to Determine the Impact of Pre-Strain on the Forming Limit Diagram of Aluminum Alloy 5052 through Finite Element Simulation

“…Determination of FLD using cruciform samples is very promising due to their frictionless character, access to a pure two-dimensional stress area and in-situ measurement of strain on both side of the gauge region [12]. Nikhare [13] suggested that conventional forming limit test limits the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading. To overcome this limitation, he used the biaxial cruciform specimen which had provided the capability to test in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axes.…”