Finite Element Analysis of Self-Pierce Riveting in Magnesium Alloys Sheets

Abstract

Conventional fusion joining methods such as resistance spot welding have been demonstrated to not be effective for magnesium alloys. Therefore, self-pierce riveting (SPR) has been presented as an attractive joining technique for these lightweight metals. However, SPR must be performed at elevated temperatures because of the low ductility of magnesium alloys at room temperature. Even though the SPR joining process has been established on magnesium alloys, this joining process is not optimized. As such, this study establishes the first attempt at simulating the SPR of magnesium alloys through the use of the finite element

Deep-Learning Approach to the Self-Piercing Riveting of Various Combinations of Steel and Aluminum Sheets

“…Figure 7 shows the results of session 1. As the condition number changed from (2) to ( 5) to (8) to (11), the ultimate tensile strength of the steel sheet increased. Moreover, the size of the cavity (empty space between the rivet and top sheet) in the ground truth images increased with the increasing tensile strength of the steel sheet.…”

“…Furthermore, Atzeni et al [7] used the FEM to predict the deformed shape, failure mechanism, and shear resistance of an SPR joint by simulating the joining process and tensile test of Al6082-T4 sheet metal. Similarly, Moraes et al [8] attempted to simulate the SPR process for magnesium alloys by using a large-scale plasticity and damage model based on internal state variables and FEM to consider the complex physics phenomena occurring in the joining process. The numerical results of the final state were compared with the experimentally obtained cross-sections.…”

High cycle fatigue mechanisms of aluminum self‐piercing riveted joints

“…In addition, good results were obtained by using a failure criteria based on effective strain‐to‐failure . Recently, Moraes et al performed simulations of the SPR process using an internal state variable material model capable of correlating temperature and strain rate effects and that also includes a damage model based on void growth. Other studies with acceptable results were conducted, such as applying Gurson‐Tvergaard damage model as the failure criterion .…”

“…As the SPR process is dynamic, FEA of the forming process commonly uses an explicit dynamic solver, followed by springback calculations with an implicit solver . However, springback calculations using explicit analysis with mass damping have also been performed with reasonable results …”

“…22,26,27 However, springback calculations using explicit analysis with mass damping have also been performed with reasonable results. 24,28 Even though satisfactory results have been achieved for SPR simulations using FEA, the process simulation methods developed in literature have not been used to further understanding of fatigue damage. Iyer et al 12 studied the fatigue behavior of SPR, where in addition to experimental tests, they performed a three-dimensional (3D) elastic finite element analysis of single rivet joints to evaluate loadinduced local distributions of relative micro slip, contact pressure, and bulk stress.…”