FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS - laur.lau.edu.lb:8443
Transcript of FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS - laur.lau.edu.lb:8443
FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS
By
Jimmy Issa
A THESIS
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Mechanical Engineering
2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1424692
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®UMIUMI Microform 1424692
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS
By
Jimmy Issa
In this work, the Marciniak and Kuczynski model (MK) will be
reviewed and will be generalized to a more general approach for the
calculation of forming limit diagrams. In the new model we will
account for all directions of the imperfection. This new approach has
been used to calculate the theoretical FLDs (forming limit diagrams)
for Vonmises, Barlat Yield96 and Barlat Yield2000 for aluminum alloy
AI2008-T4 and compared with an experimental one. All the derivations
needed for the implementation of the code are derived in the appendix
for all yield functions. Finally the stretch stamping test will be modeled
using LS-DYNA. A very good agreement has been achieved between
the experimental and theoretical results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To my family
i i i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Farhang Pourboghrat, who
supported me throughout my study, Dr. Cloud and Dr. Liu for being on
my committee. I would also like to thank Nader Abedrabo and the
faculty members of the department of Mechanical Engineering at
Michigan State University who taught me through my masters or
helped me with my research. Finally thanks to the mechanical
engineering department at Michigan state university for giving me
admission and financial support.
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: Experimental forming lim its.......................................................3
CHAPTER 2: MK model.........................................................................................62.1 Introduction .............................................................................................62.2 Right hand side of forming limit diagrams........................................7
2.2.1 Algorithm.............................................................................................82.2.2 Vonmises........................................................................................ 112.2.3 Hill's quadratic 1948.................................................................... 142.2.4 Hill's non-quadratic 1 9 7 9 ............................................................ 16
2.3 Left hand side of forming limit diagrams..................................... 192.3.1 Algorithm.......................................................................................... 202.3.2 Thichness lim it ............................................................................... 212.3.3 Results...............................................................................................23
CHAPTER 3: General MK model.......................................................................253.1 Introduction............................................................................................253.2 Modified MK m odel................................................................................27
3.2.1 Algorithm.......................................................................................... 293.2.1.1 Region a ....................................................... 293.2 .1 .2 Region b ..................................................................................... 32
3.3 Yield functions......................................................................................... 373.4 Hardening rules.......................................................................................373.5 Material constants................................................................................. 373.6 Results and discussions........................................................................39
CHAPTER 4: Simulation of Stretch Stamping............................................. 404.1 Introduction............................................................................................404.2 Description of the m odel................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Part dimensions.............................................................................41
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2.2 Element type and material model............................................. 414.2.3 Material properties.........................................................................424.2 .4 Constrained and prescribed m otion.......................................... 44
4.3 LS-DYNA.................................................................................................. 464.3.1 Swift and Voce FLDs......................................................................464.3.2 DYNA FLDs........................................................................................47
4.4 Experimental findings........................................................................... 494.5 Numerical results.................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions................................................................................... 53
Appendix: Numerical implementations..........................................................55A Vonmises................................................................................................. 55
A1 Yield functioned.............................................................................55A2 First derivative................................................................................55A3 Second derivative.......................................................................... 55
B Barlat Yld96............................................................................................. 56B1 Yield functioned.............................................................................56B2 First derivative................................................................................58B3 Second derivative.......................................................................... 59
C Barlat Yld2000 ...................................................................................... 63C l Yield functioned.............................................................................63C2 First derivative................................................................................64C3 Second derivative.......................................................................... 66
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Constants for voce and swift - AI2008T4............................. 38
Table 2 : Constants for Barlat Yield96 - A I2008T4............................. 38
Table 3 : Constants for Barlat Yield2000 - AI2008T4....................38
Table 4 : Properties of Steel......................................................................42
Table 5 : Properties of A A 3003-H 111.................................................... 42
Table 6 : Constants for voce equation...................................................43
Table 7 : Constants for swift equation...................................................43
Table 8 : Constants for Barlat Yield2000......................................... 43
Table 9 : FLD user............................................................................................. 47
v i i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Fractured specimen......................................................................... 4
Figure 2 : Failure under biaxial tension.........................................................5
Figure 3 : RFIS model..........................................................................................7
Figure 4 : Different n values........................................................................ 12
Figure 5 : Different m values....................................................................... 12
Figure 6 : Different f values.......................................................................... 13
Figure 7 : Different R values.......................................................................... 15
Figure 8 : Different R values.......................................................................... 17
Figure 9 : Different a values.......................................................................... 18
Figure 10 : LHS m odel.................................................................................. 19
Figure 11 : Thickness limit Different n values..................................21
Figure 12 : Thickness limit Different m values................................ 22
Figure 13 : Thickness limit Different f values...................................22
Figure 14 : LHS Different n values............................................................ 23
Figure 15 : LHS Different m values............................................................. 24
Figure 16 : LHS Different f values................................................................ 24
Figure 17 : Modified MK m odel......................................................................27
Figure 18 : Fids A I2008-T4-Sw ift............................................................... 38
Figure 19 : Fids AI2008-T4-Voce.................................................................. 39
Figure 20 : Model stretch stamping............................................................. 44
Figure 21 : Blank holder force.......................................................................45
v i i i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 22 : Punch prescribed motion.......................................................... 45
Figure 23 : FLD AA3003-H111.......................................................................46
Figure 24 : LS-DYNA FLDs..............................................................................48
Figure 25 : Failed sheet................................................................................... 49
Figure 26 : FLD AA3003-H111 (t: 15 m s )................................................. 50
Figure 27 : FLD AA3003-H111 (t: 23 m s )................................................. 51
Figure 28 : Middle Element displacement...................................................51
Figure 29 : FLD contour at fa ilure................................................................ 52
Figure 30 : Experimental and numerical findings....................................54
IX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
a - Cauchy stress
a,aYF- Yield stress from yield function
oHR - Yield stress from hardening rule
s,s - Cauchy and effective strain
e- Engineering Strain
n,k,e0 - Swift constant
A,B,C- Voce constants
/ - Imperfection parameter
p- Strain ratio
a - Stress ratio
® - Yield ratio
t - Thickness
R- Ratio of plastic strain in the width and thickness direction
R- Average of lva lues
a - E x p o n e n t to a c c o u n t fo r crystallographically textured fee and bee m etal
J - Jacob ien
0- Imperfection orientation
C1,C2,C3,C6ax,ay,az0azl - Barlat yield96 material constants
al,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a1,ai- Barlat yield2000 material constants
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Introduction
Forming lim it d iagram s (FLDs) have been valuable tools for analyzing
sheet m etal form ing a fte r the introduction of the idea in 1965 . Stretching
operations of sheet m etals will norm ally lead to a developm ent of a sharp
localized neck on the surface w here the plastic flow will localize and lead to
fa ilure. Forming lim it diagram s have been first introduced by Keeler [1 -2 ]
and are still used as a failure criterion to assess the form ability o f sheet
m etals. Many tried to model the localized necking analytically a fte r the
introduction of the idea, starting w ith the pioneer w ork o f Marciniak and
Kuczynski [3 ] who first presented a m athem atical model to help understand
sheet m etal deform ation during form ing. They m odeled the im perfection as a
long groove, perpendicular to the direction of the largest stress for positive
m ajor strains (R H S) or along Hill's direction of zero-extension (th e strain
increm ent parallel to the groove inside and outside of it is equal to zero) for
th e negative m ajor strains (LH S). Using this approach theoretical FLDs have
been calculated for linear strain path using different yield criteria , von Mises,
Hill's 1948 [4 -5 -6 ] , Hill's 1979 [5 -6 ] and m any other yield functions. G raf
and Hosford [6 ] used an anisotropic yield function (Hill's 1 9 7 9 ) and
investigated the effect o f the hardening exponent n, the strain rate sensitivity
m , the im perfection f, the R-value and the yield function exponent a. F.
Barlat [7 ] calculated the FLD using a yield function based on von Mises but
with a high exponent. The effect o f nonlinear strain paths has been
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigated on form ing limits w here experim ental and num erical FLD have
been predicted for changing strain paths for d ifferent m ateria ls [8 -9 -1 0 -1 1 ] .
M.C. Butuc [1 2 -1 3 ] used a m ore general MK model and calculated th e FLDs
fo r von Mises, Hill's 1 94 8 , Hill's 1979 and Barlat Y ld96 for A I6061 .
In this w ork the MK model and a m ore general approach for the calculation of
form ing lim it d iagram s are explained in detail. The general approach is based
on the MK model but is m ore general since there is no constraint on the
groove direction and the lim iting strain is calculated for all possible angels
and m inim ized versus the angel o f the groove. This new approach uses the
New ton-Raphson m ethod to solve for the transverse stress and effective
strain in the groove. For this reason the second derivative of the yield
function is needed for the evaluation of the Jacobian. I calculated th e form ing
lim it d iagram for A I2 00 8 -T 4 alum inum alloy using the m odified MK model
w here von Mises, Y ield96 and Y ie ld2000 w ere used to describe the yield locus
and modeled the hardening using both Voce and Swift models. The first and
second derivatives for the th ree yield functions are evaluated in th e appendix
to m ake fu ture im plem entation easier. F. Barlat [1 4 ] calculated the FLD by
incorporating m icrostructural param eters , internal dam age (voids) and
crystallographic tex tu res in his model and it has given very accurate results.
Using a macroscopic approach, a very good agreem ent has been achieved
betw een the calculated and the experim ental FLD when the yield locus is
described w ith Y ld96 and the m aterial hardening with Sw ift model.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1: Experimental Forming Limits
O ver the years experim ental form ing lim it d iagram s have been
determ ined [4 -1 5 ] for d ifferent linear strain paths and even for m aterial p re
strained in d ifferent directions (biaxial tension, uniaxial tension and plane
strain).
The m ost widely used technique involves printing or etching a grid of
small circles o f d iam eter d0 on the sheet m etal before deform ing it. A fter
stretching or form ing the sheet, the circles will deform into a shape which
resem bles an ellipse. The form ing process will stop when the first perceptible
neck is observed. To find the lim iting strains for d ifferent strain paths,
lubrication and specim en widths are varied. To obtain th e lim it fo r negative
m inor strains, very narrow specim ens are used and by increasing the width
to full w idth specim en, we can find the lim its up to balanced biaxial. A fter
deform ation the ellipses wholly or partially in the neck are considered failed,
while th e circles one or m ore d iam eters aw ay form the neck are considered
safe. The principal d iam eters o f the failed ellipses are m easured (m a jo r di
and m inor d2). The lim iting strain can then be represented as engineering or
true strains using the tw o form ulas w ritten below.
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
True Limiting Strains
ts, = In
Engineering Limiting Strains
s2 - In
I d,
\d0 J
fd ?\d0 j
e x =
e2 =
dj d0
d2 d0
Finally, Forming lim it d iagram s determ ined in d ifferent laboratories
m ay be som ew hat d ifferent. This is because the determ ination of the first
perceptible neck is subjective. Many techniques have been used to determ ine
the onset o f the neck; visual inspection and feeling with the fingers. Also,
th ere is no restriction placed on how fa r one should go from th e neck before
considering a circle to be safe. I t is recom m ended th a t safe readings should
be m ade a t a distance a t least equal to 1 .5 circle d iam eter from the cen ter of
th e neck. Below are tw o pictures of tw o d ifferent failed specim ens.
Fig 1: Fractured specimen
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fig2: Failure under biaxial tension
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2: MK Model
2.1 Introduction
The MK model is th e first m athem atical model presented by Marciniak
and Kuczynski [3 ] to help understand localized necking in sheet m etals. They
assum ed a long groove, a locally thinned region within which the strain will
concentrate and will lead to failure due to the onset of localized necking. The
origin o f this im perfection is a variation in the sheet thickness [3 ] , difference
of the m aterial strength [1 6 ] or a com bination of both. The fa ilure is
assumed to occur when the ratio of the strain increm ent w ithin the groove
and outside of it reaches a critical value. There are some constraints on the
orientation of the im perfection w here it has been taken to be perpendicular
to the axis o f the largest principal stress and strain for positive m ajor strains
(RHS of th e FLD), and in the direction of zero-extension for negative m ajor
strains (LHS of th e FLD). In this section we will explain the algorithm for the
calculation of FLDs based on the MK model. W e will investigate th e effect o f
the hardening exponent n, the strain rate sensitivity exponent m , the
im perfection p aram eter f, the R-value and the yield function exponent a,
w here the yield locus will be described by Hill's 1979 yield function. W e will
investigate yield function differences in predicting localized necking. The
corresponding algorithm s are all w ritten in M atlab.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2 Right hand side of forming limit diagrams
For positive m inor strain the groove is assum ed to be perpendicular to
th e axis o f the largest principal stress and strain. The strain increm ents
parallel to the groove w ithin and outside of it are equal. The algorithm can be
sum m arized by assum ing, fo r a known strain path , the largest principal strain
increm ent in the im perfection (region b) and then calculating th e one in the
hom ogeneous region (region a ). The failure is assumed to occur when th e ir
ratio reaches a critical value (in the calculation below the critical value is
assum ed to be equal to 1 0 ). The algorithm below is w ritten for von Mises
yield function. The changes th a t will need to be im plem ented for o ther yield
functions are described in the definition of each yield function. The M atlab
program s are w ritten for von Mises (Appendix A ), Hill's quadratic (Appendix
B), and non-quadratic yield functions (Appendix C). In the algorithm below
indices a and b re fer to the hom ogeneous and the defected region
respectively. Indices 1 and 2 re fer to the principal values. The figure below
describes well the model.
2
Fig3: RHS model
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2.1: Algorithm
Under plane stress condition (<x3 = 0 ) , for a known strain ratio in region a
The stress ratio is calculated:
aa = ^ = (2pa+l)/(pa+2)°a\
The yield function is then evaluated:
°a\
Im pose a value for the strain increm ent in the groove:
d£bl = 0.001
Assume a value for the strain increm ent in region a:
d£ai
Calculate the rest o f the variables needed for region a:
d£„2 ~ Pad£a\dsa 3 = —dsa j — dsa2
dsa = dsal (l + a aPa )/O fl
n _ d-Sa• a ~ J
d £ a l
The equation below holds due to the com patib ility requirem ent:
d£b 2 d£a 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The rest of the variables in region b are evaluated:
dsb 3 — dsb] ds,4 2
dsb - dsbx (l + abpb ) /O t
dsb
P b =
ds
ds,b 1
42
ds41
« 4 = ( 2 / ^ 4 + O O 4 + 2 )
>b ab + 1
From the force balance equation betw een region a and b the largest strain
increm ent in th e region a is recalculated. Then it is correspondingly adjusted
and the process is repeated until the force balance is satisfied. The force
balance equation is derived below:
F a i = F bl
For a unit width and thickness t, the force in the 1-direction is:
F x = <Tj4 = <7 t =
The hardening rule w ith strain rate dependence can be w ritten :
a = ksnsm
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Using the variables defined above the force can be expressed by:
F] = kt{e + ds)" sm/o - kt{s + ds)n(/3/p)s™ / o
By applying the above force expression to regions a and b, and a fte r some
adjustm ents, the force balance can be reduced to:
/ x m /
— \ £ a i = -^ -exp(^3b - £ i a t ? b + d S b ) \ — y Pa I ^ y P>-Pb.
'b2
W here the im perfection p aram eter f and the current thickness are:
f = kbtbo/KtaOt = t0 exp s3
To solve th e force balance equation, the New ton-Raphson or the M id-point
m ethod can be used. Both m ethods w ere program m ed in M atlab, but the
New ton-Raphson proved to be faster. The sam e algorithm can be used for
any yield function provided th a t the equations th a t involve th e use of the
yield function are changed correspondingly. Below, the algorithm will be
applied to several d ifferent yield functions.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2.2 von Mises
The von Mises yield function is th e m ost basic yield function describing
the plastic behavior o f isotropic m ateria ls. An isotropic m aterial responds in
th e sam e m anner when strained or stressed in any direction. All the
derivations needed for the im plem entation of the algorithm for von Mises
yield function are shown above. In plane stress applications the yield function
is:
2<x2 = (cr, - a 2 )2 + + <j22
The calculated form ing lim it diagram s below are for von Mises yield function
w here the im perfection p aram eter f, th e hardening exponent n and the strain
rate exponent m are variables. The FLD curves shown below have been
plotted using the MK m odel. The groove does not change direction when the
deform ation occurs. So it is assumed to be perpendicular to the direction of
the largest stress and strain and does not ro tate during the straining of the
sheet. The plots shown below indicate th a t form ability increases and failure
occurs a t higher strains, with increased strain rate sensitivity and stra in -
hardening exponent, and decreased im perfection param eter.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Major
Strain
Major
Stra
in
von Mises - different n values0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 .0001
0.90 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Minor Strain
Fig4: Different n values
von Mises - different m values0.9
0.8,<-0.01 <- 0.005 0.0010.7 <- 0.0005
110.00010.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 .9 9
0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Minor Strain
Fig5: Different m values
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Major
Stra
in
von Mises - different f values0.8
0.9980.7
0.9960.6
0.994
0.9920.99
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0001
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.60.5 0.7 0.8Minor Strain
Fig6: Different f values
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2.3: Hill's Quadratic 1948
The Hill's quadratic yield function was one of the first yield functions to
describe the plastic anisotropy of m etals. Hill has form ulated a quantita tive
tre a tm en t o f plastic anisotropy w ithout regard to its crystallographic origin. A
new p aram eter R has been used which is th e ratio o f plastic strain in the
width and thickness direction for a tensile specim en cut from a sheet. The R-
values usually vary with the tes t direction and it is com m on to characterize a
m aterial by an average R-value w ritten below.
— = R0 + 2 R45 + Rgo 4
W here th e indices represent the angles (w ith th e rolling direction) to which
the tensile specimen has been cut from the sheet. For R equal to 1 the
quadratic hill's yield function will simply be reduced to von Mises. For plane
stress loading th e yield function sim plify to the equation below:
2 2 2£X — (J. + ------------- (JA (7-,1 2 1+R 1 2
The only tw o expressions in the algorithm th a t should be changed in order to
get the form ing lim it diagram s using Hill's 1948 are the stress ratio and the
yield ratio. The stress ratio is a function of th e strain ratio and the yield ratio
is a function of the stress ratio. Those tw o functions are w ritten below.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Quadratic Hill's - different R values
0.9 0.75
0.7
ifl444-1
w 0.5MOfl 0 4 a
0.3
0.2
0.00010 .9 9 8
0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90 0.1 0.2 0.5Minor Strain
Fig7: Different R values
The figure above shows th a t the form ing lim it is very sensitive to the value of
R and it decrease with increasing R. The form ing lim it for this case is
calculated w ith th e largest strain assum ed to occur in the RD direction.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2.4: Hill's Non-Quadratic 1979
Hill's quadratic yield function overestim ated the effect o f the R-value on
the shape of the yield loci. A new yield function has been developed to
overcom e this weakness w here a higher exponent "a" has been used to
account for crystallographically tex tu red fee and bcc m etals. W ith a equal to
2 this criterion simplifies to Hill's quadratic. H ow ever, crystallographic
calculations are much b e tte r approxim ated by a being equal to 6 for bcc and
8 for fee m etals. For plane stress loading this criterion simplifies to:
The yield ratio fo r this yield function can be expressed explicitly as a function
of the stress ratio but th e stress ratio cannot be expressed explicitly as a
function of the strain ratio. A nonlinear equation should be solved in order to
first get the stress ratio and then evaluate the yield ratio. The Newton
Raphson m ethod or the M idpoint m ethod can be used to solve this equation.
Below th e non-linear equation and the yield ratio are w ritten :
o a(1 + R) = cr“ + <t“ + - cr2)
p (1 + i?(l - a )" '1) - a a~' + R{1 - a )“_1 = 0
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
0.5Hill's 1979 - different R value
O.l
0.05
0
0.45
0.4
0.35
.3 03it
W 0.25
o0.2
■n
I
0.15
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3M in o r S t r a in
Fig8: Different R values
0.35
n = 0 .2 m = 0.0001 f = 0 .9 9 8 a = 8
_L_
0.4 0.45 0.5
The plot above proves th a t the form ing lim it diagram is insensitive to the
level o f R, w here it was very dependant when the quadratic hill's yield
function was used. This independence of the FLD of the R-value gave the
non-quadratic function a g reat im portance because it m atched w ith the
experim ental FLD w here it has been shown to not depend on R values.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hill's 1979 - different a values0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0 . 0001 0 .9 9 8
m0.05
00.050 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Minor StrainFig9: Different a values
As m entioned before the exponent a, connected to the crystal structure , is
equal to 6 or 8 fo r bcc and fee alloys respectively. For the special case w here
R is equal to 1 and a equal to 2 , Hill's 1 979 will simply reduce to von Mises.
The plot above shows a dependence of th e FLD on the value of a.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.3: Left hand side of forming limit diagrams
For the negative m inor strain regim e the groove direction is assumed to
line up with Hill's direction of zero-extension such th a t the plane strain
condition is satisfied. The existence of a critical thickness strain criterion for
localized necking of sheets in the negative m inor strain regim e has been
dem onstrated. The effective lim it strain in region a increases as the strain
ratio becomes m ore negative and tends towards uniaxial tension. The limit
thickness strain is a constant regardless of the imposed strain ratio , thus
indicating the existence of a critical thickness strain for the onset o f localized
necking. The lim iting thickness strain is dependant only on n, m and f. I t is
independent o f the plastic anisotropy, the yield function and the plasticity
theories (flow or deform ation th eo ry ).
2
FiglO: LHS model
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 .3 .1 : Algorithm
The algorithm is sim ple here because it involves the solution of a
nonlinear equation w ith the thickness strain. A thickness strain increm ent is
assum ed in the im perfection and from the nonlinear equation the thickness
strain in the hom ogeneous region is calculated until th e thickness strain in
the homogeneous region reaches a lim iting value. This equation is solved
using e ither Newton Raphson m ethod or the Mid-Point m ethod. A fter lengthy
m athem atical m anipulation w here the force balance equation coupled with
the condition of Hill's zero extension have been used, the nonlinear equation
simplifies to the equation below. The full derivation of this equation is in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
[1 7 ].
20
2.3.2: Thickness limit
The lim iting thickness strain in th e hom ogeneous region is independent
from the strain ratio. For each value of n, m and f the lim iting strain in region
a is constant. The variation of the lim iting strain with n, m and f is shown in
the plots below. By increasing the values of n and m, th e lim iting thickness
strain increases by keeping a constant ratio with the thickness strain in the
im perfection. By increasing the f values, the limiting thickness strain will
increase w ith a small increase in its ratio with the lim iting strain in the
im perfection.
Thickness limit - different n values
<- 0.280.25
ao■H -■e- 0.24
0.220.2
ajU4JCOCOCO(U£V•H
I0.05
0.00010 .9 9 8
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35- Thickness strain in region b
Fig 11: Thickness lim it Different n values
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thickness limit - different m values
0.25nj
Iu 0.005
•H0.0001c
« 0.15 u4JU1toto<uIu
0.05
0 .9 9 8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5- T h ic k n e s s s t r a i n i n r e g io n b
Fig 12: Thickness lim it Different m values
Thickness limit - different f values0.2
0.180.998
0.9960.9940.9920.99
0.16nj
I 0.14 U)Q)Ua 0.12-rd
c'id 0.1Vd4Jto[n 0.08toa)G^ 0.06 ■H£1 0.04
0.02 0.0001
0.050 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25- T h ic k n e s s s t r a i n i n r e g io n b
Fig 13: Thickness lim it Different f values
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.3.3: Results
The plots below show th e effect of th e hardening exponent n, the strain
rate sensitivity p aram eter m and the im perfect param eter f. The FLD for the
LHS increases with th e increase in the values of n, m, and decrease with the
increasing value of f. This is reasonable because an increase in the
im perfection p aram eter m eans a deeper defect, which will lead to an earlier
failure.
LHS - different n values0.5
0.28
0.45 0.26
0.240.4
C■H0.2
>4■° 0.3§,
0.25
0.20.00010 . 9 9 8
m
- 0.1- 0.2 -0.15 -0.05 0-0.25M in o r S t r a in
Fig 14: LHS Different n values
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LHS - different m values0.5
0.010.45
0.0050.4
fi* 0.35 uJJuju
0.3
0.0010.0005
0.0001
0.25
0.2
0 . 9 9 8
-0.25 - 0.2 -0.15 0.1 -0.05 0M in o r S t r a in
F ig l5 : LHS Different m values
LHS - different f values0.35
0.998
0.996 - K .
0.994 - j 0.992
0.3
0.99
0.15
0.0001
- 0.2 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 ■0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0M in o r S t r a in
Fig 16: LHS Different f values
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3: General MK Model
3.1: Introduction
In this chapter, we will explain in detail a general approach for the
calculation of form ing lim it diagram s. This present model is an extension of a
previous analysis by Marciniak and Kaczynski (M K -m o d e l), w here it is
generalized to account for all possible directions of the im perfection. The
lim iting strain is calculated for all possible angels and m inim ized versus the
angel o f the groove. W e will use this approach to com pare d ifferent yield
functions starting w ith the m ost basic one for isotropic m aterials von Mises
and tw o anisotropic yield functions Barlat Y ld96 and Barlat Y ld2000 proven to
describe well the plastic behavior o f alum inum sheet m etals. Two w ork-
hardening laws, swift and voce, will be used to model the effective stress-
strain behavior o f the m ateria l. This new approach uses the New ton-Raphson
m ethod to solve for the transverse stress and effective strain in the groove.
For this reason, the second derivative of the yield function is needed for the
evaluation of the Jacobian. The first and second derivatives of the th ree yield
functions are evaluated in the appendix for im plem entation purposes.
Forming lim it d iagram s will be calculated for alum inum alloy A I2 00 8 -T 4 and
will be com pared w ith experim ental data . Barlat calculated the FLD for
A I2 00 8 -T 4 by incorporating micro structural param eters, internal dam age
(voids) and crystallographic tex tu res in his model and showed very accurate
results. All com puted FLDs assum e th a t the largest strain is in the y-direction
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(TD d irection) in order to be on the safe side. A very good agreem ent
betw een the calculated and th e experim ental FLD was obtained, when the
Y ld2000 and the voce hardening law w ere used. M.C. Butuc [1 2 -1 3 ] already
developed FLD for the A I6061 alum inum alloy based on von Mises, Hill's
1948 , Hill's 1979 and Barlat Y ld96yield function.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.2: Modified M-K model
This model uses the sam e assumption proposed by Marciniak and
Kuczynski [3 ] who assumed a long groove, a locally thinned region within
which the strain will concentrate and will lead to failure due to the onset of
localized necking. The origin of this im perfection is a variation in the sheet
thickness [3 ] , d ifference of the m aterial strength [1 6 ], or a com bination of
both. The fa ilure is assum ed to occur when the ratio of the strain increm ent
within th e groove and outside of it reaches a critical value. As we mentioned
earlier th ere is som e constraints on the orientation of the im perfection. The
modified M -K model will consider all possible orientations for th e groove and
consider the fa ilure to occur when the ratio o f the total strain increm ent
inside and outside of the im perfection reach the value of 10.
2
Fig 17: Modified MK model
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The model above consist o f tw o regions, th e homogeneous region "a" w here
the axis 1, 2 and 3 represent th e principal directions of stress and strain and
the groove region "b" w here the axis n, t and 3 are the norm al to the
direction of the groove, the longitudinal direction, and the thickness
direction. The M -K im perfection p aram eter is defined as the initial thickness
ratio o f th e defected and the hom ogeneous area .The deform ation within the
groove occurs a t a fas ter rate than the one in the hom ogeneous region and
the plastic flow will localize in the im perfection area leading to eventual
failure. Under deform ation , the strains parallel to the im perfection direction
within and outside of the groove are equal and forces perpendicular to the
groove in both regions are the sam e. Those two constraints are called
com patibility and equilibrium conditions. The groove is assum ed to rotate
while the deform ation occurs. Let e and e0 be the current and the initial sheet
thickness. The value of the im perfection param eter, the com patib ility and the
equilibrium conditions can then be w ritten as
Im perfection p aram eter: f -ebjea
Com patibility condition: ds“ = dsb
Equilibrium condition : <7amea = & bnrieb , cr“e° = <jbnteb
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.2.1 Algorithm
Given the stress state in region "a", the plastic strain is evaluated in
region "b" for a known orientation of the groove. In th e figure above we will
assum e the x -, y - and z-axis to be the orthotropic axes of the m aterial
(rolling, transverse and norm al) th a t line up with axes 1, 2 and 3
respectively. For one increm ent we will explain clearly how to calculate the
plastic strain in region "b". First, assum e a small increm ent o f the effective
strain in region "a" and then follow the steps below. The details below show
how this algorithm should be used in order to calculate th e FLD for
proportional loading, by assuming th a t no shear stress exists in region "a".
This algorithm could be used to find th e critical strain for an unknown strain
path w here the strain s tate will be an input from an FEM analysis.
3 .2 .1 .1 Region "a"
• Strain ratio
Usually in the calculation of form ing lim it diagram s for linear strain path the
strain ratio in region "a" will be an input.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Stress ratio
The stress ratio is then evaluated by assum ing th a t it is a variable equal to
th e stress in the y -d irection , if the stress in th e x-direction is set equal to 1
and shear stress equal to zero.
For most yield functions, to get the stress ratio one will need to solve the
following nonlinear equation:
The Newton Raphson or M id-Point m ethod could be used for this purpose. For
the Mid-Point m ethod the initial interval w here the solution is located can be
taken as [-1 ; 2 ].
• Yield ratio
The yield ratio is the ratio of the yield function to the stress in the x -
direction. The yield ratio becomes the yield stress by assuming th e stress in
the x-direction to be equal to 1, the stress in the y-direction to be equal to
the stress ratio , and the shear stress to be equal to zero.
<7O = <j yf For cr = a
0cr
XX
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Stress state
Having assum ed an increm ent for the effective strain , the yield stress can be
evaluated using th e hardening rule (sw ift or voce). Coupled with the yield
ratio, th e stress in the x-d irection can be calculated, knowing the stress in
the y-d irection , and by setting the shear stress equal to zero (no shear stress
in region "a").
o HR - hardening^a + dsa)
= ° hr/®
e°yy =
<,=0
• Strain state
The strain state is calculated from the Flow Rule knowing th e stress state in
the orthotropic referential fram e.
del ds„ 8(Tyf“ dal
e l = e l + d e l
d£l = dz 2^ILa*;,
dsa = dea' 2 dal
C = < y+ de;y
YF £° = £ a + d£ a**xy xy xyxy
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Output needed
To solve for the effective strain increm ent in region "b" four values are
needed; the strain increm ent parallel to the groove, the strain in the
thickness direction, th e stress norm al to th e groove and the shear stress in
the groove coordinate axis. Those four values are calculated as following:
3 .2 .1 .2 Region "b"
• Nonlinear Equations
For this region to com plete our study we have to com pute the effective strain
increm ent and com pare it with th e one in the hom ogeneous region. Two
nonlinear equations in the effective strain increm ent and the stress in the
longitudinal direction m ust be satisfied. The first state th a t the yield stress
com puted from th e yield function m ust equal the one com puted form the
hardening rule. The second is the com patibility equation. The tw o equations
are w ritten below.
del = dsaxx sin2 6 + dsayy cos2 6 - dsaxy sin29
Gm = c°s 2 0 + o ayy sin2 9 + a £ sin 29
a “t = ° \^ (cos2 0 - s in 2 9) + (ayy - axx ) sin 9 cos 9
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To solve these equations the New ton-Raphson m ethod is used. This m ethod
involves the com putation of the Jacobian needed in the iterative evaluation of
the solution. The solution is reached by iteration using the form ula below:
W here J is th e Jacobian of the nonlinear equations. The Jacobian is the
m atrix o f the derivatives of G i and G2 w ith respect to the effective strain
increm ent and the stress in the longitudinal direction. For this case the
Jacobian is sym m etric and its com ponents are described below:
' dGx oG] ", _ ddeb dcrb
dG2 dG2
ddsb d a b _
The first com ponent o f the Jacobian is stra ightforw ard and is obtained by
deriving e ither hardening rules (S w ift or Voce)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dGx _ nK(sQ +6Jj + d s b Swi f t hardening
ddsb C x B exp[- c(sb + deb)]Voce hardening
33
As we m entioned above th e Jacobian is sym m etric and the non-diagonal
com ponent involve the first derivative of the yield function, which is derived
in the Appendix.
8G, 8G-,
8 a t t d d s-xb
s i n 2 6d a bF d a b F d a b F
c o s 2 98 a b 8 a b
X X y y xy- s i n # c o s #
The derivative o f G2 with respect to a tt involves the second derivative of the
yield function, which is derived in the appendix.
8G2
8 a b= - d s b \ s i n 2 <9 c o s 2 # - s i n 20
8 2a bF
8°xx 8 2a bYF
1 8 2 a2—b
YF
2 8 < j 8 ctxy x
2—b YFd a
2 —b8 l a YF
2—b1 d a YF
2 dander„
2—b YF8 a
d°XXd°Xy2—b8 a YF
daYY8cx*y1 82a bF
2 d a Xy
s i n 2 0
c o s 2 0
s i n 9 c o s 9
• System Solution
To solve th e system of the tw o nonlinear equations we will use the N ew ton-
Raphson m ethod. The initial values are assumed to be the one of the
hom ogeneous region. Using the equilibrium condition we are able to com pute
the norm al stress to the groove and the shear stress in the groove. W e
assum e the initial im perfection p a ram ete r to be the current fo r the first
iteration so we can proceed with the calculations and provided th a t the
variation of the im perfection p aram eter is too small a t the beginning of the
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
deform ation. Using the rotation rule below and th e flow rule the stresses and
strains in th e groove in the orthotropic referentia l fram e are determ ined and
finally we calculate the strain increm ent in the groove in the longitudinal
direction using th e rotation form ula:
dea, f f a„IN IT IA L
VALUES
1i 1<3Itc
i
. 1 1 0 _ J
a a rV n n ^ n t J E Q U IL IB R IU M *
= < , / /
'crnn
<jb =XX
< R O T A T IO N * < =
_<T»«. ^ =
° bxx_ b
y y FLOW R U LE ^ £ y y
xy _ S x y
crb - <7bnt(cos2 0 - sin2 0) - (cr* - crbm) sin# cos#
R O T A T IO N * dstt = dsxx sin # + dzyy cos 6 - dsxy sin 20
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Now having all the values needed to solve the nonlinear equation, th e strain
increm ent in the groove and the stress in the longitudinal direction of the
groove are com puted by iterating until a convergence value is reached. A fter
th a t the current im perfection p aram eter and th e angle o f the band are
updated. The process continue by assuming an effective strain increm ent in
region a and calculating the one in the groove until the ratio of these two
approaches a critical value corresponding to local instability. I t is usually
assumed th a t fa ilure occurs when the strain increm ent in the hom ogeneous
region reaches 10 percent or less than the one in the groove.
Im perfection param eter: f = f0 exp(f* - )
/ 1 + dsaGroove orientation : tan(# + d6)= tan# —
l + ds-„
The study above is done assuming the m a jo r strain to occur along the rolling
direction (x -a x is ), but to obtain the full FLD we have to assum e the case
w here th e m ajor strain occur along the transverse direction w here it will give
the lowest values for the strain and will be used as the FLD for m ateria l. To
calculate the FLD w here the m ajor strain occurs along the (y -a x is ), the only
thing to do is to switch the x and y m aterial coefficient and use the sam e
algorithm . For Vonm ises both FLDs are the sam e due to the sym m etry o f the
yield function w ith th e rolling and transverse directions, but for Barlat Y ield96
and Barlat 2 00 0 the full FLD is not sym m etric w ith the first bisector.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.3: Yield Functions
In this w ork th ree yield functions are used to calculate the theoretical
FLDs for A I2 00 8 -T 4 , von Mises, Barlat Y ield96 and Barlat Y ie ld2000 . A
description of the yield functions and the derivation needed for the
im plem entation of the codes are presented in the appendix.
3.4: Hardening rules
The coefficients o f an effective stress-strain curve th a t defines the strain
hardening of a m aterial is found by fitting the experim ental data obtained
from a uni-axia l tensile tes t to one of the following equations:.
Sw ift ct = K (s0 + e )”
Voce a - A - B exp(-CTr)
W here a a n d s a r e the effective stress and effective strain respectively, and
the rest o f the variables are constants th a t are obtained from theby fitting
the above equations of to experim ental results from a tensile test.
3.5: Material constants
The m aterial constants, needed for the im plem entation of the code for
alum inum alloy A I2 0 0 8 -T 4 , describes for both tw o hardening rules and yield
functions are presented below. The im perfection p aram eter is assum ed to be
0 .9 9 6 .
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Swift Voce£ o 0.002
n 0.1882
K 456.82 Mpa
A 447 Mpa
B 248 Mpa
C 4.3 Mpa
Table 1: Constants for voce and swift equation - AI2008T4
Yield96
a Ci c2 c3 c6 a* Cty <*/0 azi
8 1.1227 0.9154 1.0137 1.0578 1.55 1.75 1.0 0.6
Table 2: Constants for Barlat Yield96 - AI2008T4
Yield2000
a ai a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8
8 0.91777 1.14937 1.17360 1.14556 1.05262 1.19593 1.01494 1.06188
Table 3: Constants for Barlat Yield2000 - AI2008T4
0.6 -
1COoQ>
/
------ vonMises
(r —•— Yld96
—*■—Yld2000
-------------------------,-------------------- 0 -O E^erimental
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
RD Strain
F ig l8 : Fids AI2008-T4-Swift
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
.sasaCZ3
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
RD Strain
Fig 19: Fids AI2008-T4-Voce
3.6: Results and discussions
The experim ental and the com puted FLDs for von Mises, Barlat Y ld96 and
Barlat Y ld2000 yield function for A I2 00 8 -T 4 using Sw ift hardening law are
shown in F ig -18 . I t can be seen th a t von Mises over predicted the
experim entally m easured failure points due to the anisotropy of the m etal
and Y ld96 and Y I2000 have given good result with Y ld96 being more
conservative. In F ig -18 the FLDs are calculated using Sw ift hardening rule
w here it is shown th a t failure points are well predicted when Y ield96
describes the yield locus. For A I2 00 8 -T 4 it is best to use Y ield96 to describe
the yield locus and Sw ift equation to model the hardening of th e m ateria l to
be on the safe side.
39
0.6 -
0.3 -
------ von Mises
— Yld96
— Yld2000
O Experimental----------------------- 1--------------------9 - . ' u ----- -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4: Simulation of Stretch Stamping
4.1: Introduction
In m any sheet m etal form ing sim ulations a form ing lim it d iagram is used
to predict fa ilure. In sheet m etal stam ping sim ulations, the m inor and m ajor
strains for all e lem ents are plotted against each other and com pared with
with the FLD curve to check w hether or not strains a t any e lem ent exceed
the lim iting curve. Usually th e FLD is generated using both Voce and Swift
hardening rule, and the m ost conservative one is used to check for the
possibility of the developm ent of a localized neck in the sheet. In this chapter
stretch stam ping of a sheet m etal w ith a hemispherical punch is sim ulated
using LS-DYNA and the m ajor and m inor strains o f all the elem ents are
tracked through the sim ulation to see how and when they exceed its the
FLDIimit. W hen one e lem ent reaches the lim iting curve the sim ulation is
stopped and the lim iting punch depth is recorded. Although strain paths in
this type of sim ulations are not linear, FLDs are still used to check for
necking and has been shown to provide qualitatively accurate and failure
validprediction. The pure-stretch stam ping tes t o f a A I2 00 8 -T 4 sheet using a
hem ispherical punch has been done experim entally and initial fa ilure
occurredwas recorded for a t a punch depth of 27m m at room tem p eratu re .
The finite e lem en t sim ulation result w ith LS-DYNA alsos m atched the
experim ental results, w here it was showed predicted th a t the first tim e the
strains in a first e lem en t exceeded reached the FLD, occurred when the
punch depth was a t 27m m .
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2: Description of the model
In pure-stretch stam ping, a sheet is clam ped betw een a die and the
blank holder, and a punch is used to deform the sheet. A full model has been
used in this sim ulation to capture th e anisotropic behavior o f th e A A 3003-
H l l l sheet. The dimensions of the part, the m aterial properties, and all the
data needed to model this experim ent is described below.
4.2.1: Part dimensions
The punch d iam eter is 4 in. The d iam eter o f the die and the blank holder
is 7 .5 in. The d iam eter o f th e sheet is 3 .5 4 in. The height o f the die is 1 .81
in, and 0 .4 in for the blank holder. The radius of the surface of the die and
blank holder parallel to the sheet is 2 .3 in. The sheet is assum ed to have a
uniform thickness of 1m m . The initial distance betw een the die and the sheet
was taken to be zero, and th e one betw een the blank holder and the sheet
was taken to be 0 .5 m m to prevent any initial penetration . The initial
distance betw een the punch and the sheet was assumed to be 3 m m . The
radial distance betw een the punch and the blank holder was assum ed to be
0 .7 m m .
4.2.2: Element type and material models
For all parts the "Belytschko-Tsay" (Shell e lem ent num ber 2 in LS-DYNA)
was used, using 5 integration points for the sheet and 2 for the rest of the
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parts. The punch and the blank holder w ere m odeled as rigid m aterials
"Steel" (m ateria l num ber 33 in LS-DYNA) and constrained to m ove only
norm al to the initial plane of the sheet. The die was modeled as rigid "S teel"
but constrained to rem ain fixed during the form ing process. The sheet was
alum inum A A 3003 -H 111 and modeled to follow BARLAT-YLD2000 (user
m aterial option has been used) and assum ed to follow Voce and Sw ift
hardening rule.
4.2.3: Material properties
The m aterial constants fo r the alum inum and steel are shown below.
Steel
Young's modulus 210 GPA
Poisson ratio 0 .3
Density 7 85 0 k g /m 3Table 4: Properties of Steel
A A 3003 -H 111
Young's modulus 70 GPA
Poisson ratio 0.33
Density 2710 kg/m 3Table 5: Properties of AA3003-H111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Voce
A 1 4 4 . 0 1 5 M P A
B 7 6 . 2 1 7 M P A
C 1 3 . 0 5 8
Table 6: Constants for voce equation
S w i f t
5 . 7 E - 4
n 0 . 2 1 5 7
k 1 9 9 . 8 2 M P a
Table 7: Constants fo r sw ift equation
Barlat YLD 2000
a 8
L m 0 . 6 2 0 3 2 5 6 2 4
L112 - 0 . 3 1 0 1 6 2 8 1 2
L m - 0 . 3 6 5 9 6 5 1 0 6
Ll22 0 . 7 3 1 9 3 0 2 1 3
Ll66 1 . 0 6 9 5 3 3 1 3 1
L211 0 . 6 8 1 6 5 3 1 1 4
L212 - 0 . 3 3 1 2 9 0 1 7 1
L221 - 0 . 3 5 0 7 9 8 4 9 8
L222 0 . 6 9 9 9 8 0 0 7 5
L266 1 . 0 6 0 9 6 9 3 8
Table 8: Constants for Barlat Yield2000
See Appendix C for the definition of th e param eters above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2.4: Constraints and prescribed motion
The die was assum ed to follow a prescribed motion (d isp lacem ent), with
the corresponding curve shown below. A force was applied on the blank
holder to clam p the sheet to the die. This force started from zero and
increased until it reaches 4 5 0 KN a fte r nine seconds. A plot th a t describes
this motion is shown below. A picture of the full model is also shown below.
AA3003-H111, RT
Fig20: Model stretch stamping
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The plots show the prescribed motion for the punch and the blank holding
force.
Blank holder - force cuve600
400
200
25 30 3510 15 200 5Time ms
Fig21: Blank holder force
Punch - Prescribed motion
50
40tseo£atortacns
10
10 15 20 25 30 350 5Tim e ms
Fig22: Punch prescribed motion
4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.3: LS-DYNA
A fter calculating th e theoretical FLDs of the m aterial using th e program
described in th e previous chapter fo r both voce and swift hardening rules, the
more conservative curve was used to check for failure.
4.3.1: Swift and Voce FLDs
For this case the FLD curve based on voce hardening rule turned out to
give the m ore conservative FLD. Both FLDs w ere calculated w ith the larger
principal strain assumed to occur in the TD direction to be on the safe side.
The m aterial coefficients for swift and voce hardening rules are w ritten in the
previous paragraph. Both voce and swift FLDs are plotted below.
0.25 -
Swift Voce
0.3-0.3 - 0.1 0.1
RD Strain
Fig23: FLD AA3003-H111
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.3.2: LS-DYNA FLDs
In LS-DYNA, to open a FLD curve, th e points should be copied to a tx t file
starting w ith "fld_user" and followed by double the num ber o f points. For
A A 3003 -H 111 the input FLD file is w ritten below. In LS-DYNA the curve is
read and plotted. The FLD curve used in this sim ulation is plotted below.
Usually m any curves are generated from one data input file. The m ost useful
ones are the original FLD (Cracks curve) and a m ore conservative (Risk of
Cracks curve) curve to keep one on the safe side. Materials are considered to
be safe if they do not cross the crack curve. But it is b e tte r to be on the safer
side w here one should not cross the risk o f crack curve.
fid user360.178426 -0.089210.168248 -0.06730.159279 -0.047780.150106 -0.030020.141445 -0.014140.132489 0.0000020.137678 0.0110160.147395 0.0235850.15628 0.037510.1647 0.0527130.172611 0.0690680.180267 0.0865520.187824 0.1052360.195239 0.1249630.202804 0.1460840.210229 0.1682620.217641 0.1915880.221089 0.212251
Table9: FLD user
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Maj
or E
ngin
eerin
g St
rain
(%
)LS-DYNA FLD VOCE25
20
15
5 0 5 10 15 20
Minor Engineering Strain (%)Fig24: LS-DYNA FLDs
4 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.4: Experimental Findings
The pure-stretch stam ping tes t has been perform ed in the lab a t room
tem p eratu re . The picture below shows the fractured sheet a t the depth of 27
m m .
Fig25: Failed sheet
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.5: Numerical results
The com puter sim ulation was stopped when the strains in an e lem ent
crossed the form ing lim it d iagram . The plots below show th e strain
distribution o f all e lem ents a fte r 10 ms and a t the failure tim e (2 3 m s). The
strain paths range from plane strain for the e lem ent on th e sides of the
sheets to biaxial tension for the elem ents in the middle of th e sheet. The
displacem ent of the middle e lem ent is plotted too.
25 LS-DYNA FLD (L15 ms)
20
c2 15-COU)coc 10a>cLDi—o‘<5*
£-5 0 10 15 20
Minor Engineering Strain (%) Fig26: FLD AA3003-H111 (t: 15 ms)
5 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dis
plac
emen
t-mm
M
aJ°r
Eng
inee
ring
Stra
in
(%)
LS-DYNA FLD (L23 ms)25-:--------------- -
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Minor Engineering Strain (%)Fig27: FLD AA3003-H111 (t: 23 ms)
Middle Element
-10
-20
-25
-3050 10 15 20
Time - msFig28: Middle Element Displacement
5 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The fa ilure o f th e sheet has been found to take place in the cracks region
in the picture below. In this region th e strains in some of the e lem ents have
crossed the form ing lim it diagram and th e sheet was considered to have
failed due to the onset o f localized necking. A comparison of the actual and
predicted failed sheets indicates th a t a good qualitative match exists betw een
experim ental and num erical results.
Formability keyContours of Formability: Mid. Surface
Cracks
Risk of cracks
Severethinning
Good
Inadequatestretch
Wrinklingtendency
W rinkles
r xFig29: FLD contour at failure
5 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions
The experim ental and num erical results w ere very close. First the punch
depth a t fa ilure was 27 m m for the experim ent and 29 m m for th e num erical
sim ulation, which corresponds to a discrepancy of only 7 .5 % . More
im portantly , the fa ilure occurred in the sam e location in both experim ental
and num erical sim ulation. The results below show th a t form ing limits are a
very useful tool to check for th e failure of stam ped sheet m etals in num erical
sim ulations. Experim ental and num erical findings are com pared in the picture
below. The discrepancy betw een experim ental and num erical findings can be
a cause of som e accuracy issues or even because the strain paths in the
sheet are not linear for all e lem ents. For elem ents on the boundary o f the
deform ed sheet the deform ation could be assumed to be linear, how ever it
becomes non-linear as one m oves tow ard the center o f th e sheet. For the
pure-stretch stam ping it has been shown [1 0 ,1 1 ] th a t the FLD lowers, in
comparison with linear path deform ations. This m ight explain the difference
betw een the actual and predicted punch depth a t the tim e of fa ilure. And
finally in all the num erical sim ulations we have assumed fa ilure occurs when
the strain increm ent in the im perfection region is ten tim es th e value of the
strain in the hom ogeneous region, and by assuming an im perfection
p aram eter. All these assum ptions could be partially responsible fo r the
discrepancy betw een the experim ental and num erical fa ilure punch height.
5 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fig30: Experimental and numerical findings
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A - von Mises
I t is the yield function th a t describes th e yield locus of isotropic m ateria l.
A 1 - Y ie ld fu n c t io n e d
= = ^ + K +3a™ - ax*0'xy xx yy
W here cr is the yield stress and the variables are the Cauchy stresses in the
x-d irection , y direction and the shear stress respectively.
A 2 - F irst d e r iv a tiv e
2 - S a _ atda„ da.
W here n refers to xx, yy and xy.
d<j>da „
~ G y y
dtj>da y y
- ^ = 6av5 ( 7 .xy
A 3 - S eco n d d e r iv a tiv e
d2a
d°nd(Tp &
1 d2d> d a _ daY <g>-
2 d a d a , da, da .
W here n and p refer to xx, yy and xy.
d2(j)
deld2<f>
= 2
d24>
d^xxdayy dGyydaxx= -1
d2(f>da
= 2y y
d2</> d2<t>da daxx xy da daxy xx
d2(f>
da= 6
xy
d20 d2(j>d° yydaxy da xyd a yy
= 0
5 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B - Barlat Yld96
Many yield functions have been developed to describe m ore accurately
th e plastic anisotropy of sheet m etals. Barlat Y ld96 [1 8 ] has proven to
describe well the plastic behavior o f a lum inum alloys. Although its convexity
cannot be proven and has com plex derivatives, which m ake it a difficult yield
function to im p lem e n ta tio n it describes the behavior o f a lum inum alloys very
accurately.
B1 - Yield functioned
(/) = 2aa =a,\S2-S3\a + a 2\S3 - S . f + a 3|S, -S2\°
W here S i, S2 and S3 are the eigen values of a stress tensor m odified by a
linear operator to obtain anisotropic properties, cr is the m easure o f the yield
surface size, the coefficients ai, a2 and a3 are three functions of the angle (3
defined below and the exponent a, connected to the crystal structure , is
equal to 6 or 8 fo r BCC and FCC alloys respectively. For plane stress the
eight m ateria l coefficients needed to describe the anisotropy are
C i , C 2 , C 3 , C 6a x, ocy, clm clzX
5 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The stress tensor modified by a linear transformation is:
$ x x(C 2 + C3)/3 - C J 3 O ' a XX
Syy - - C J 3 ( C .+ C , ) / 3 0 CTyy
S». 0 0 C6_ a*y_
The eigen values of the modified stress tensor are:
1 2
s _ S XX + S yy
2 2
s3 = - i s l + s t )
S a + S „+ Sr
xx + yy + Sr
The coefficients ak are found using the transform ation rule:
ax = ax cos2 f3 + ay sin2 f3 a2 = ax sin2 f3 + ay cos2 /3 « 3 = az0 cos2 2/3 + azX sin2 2/3
W here (3 is the angle betw een the x direction (rolling direction) and the
direction associated with principal stress S i and is found easily by:
2/3 = tan 12Sxy
s „ - s yy
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B2 - First derivative
at _ at „ as, „ as, at v a«, v ap asr■ n- ■" i_ X x ... x ■don dSi dS d<7n da , dp dS d a n
2 a a<x _ a tScr dcr
W here n and p denote xx, yy and xy and i fo r 1, 2 and 3.
d<j>dS,
d(j)dS7
= -a a 2|53 -S ,|a 1sign(S3 — -Sj)+ aor3 |*S, x sign(Sl - 5 2)
= aor1|<S,2 - 5 ,3|fl l sign(S2 - 5 3)-ao:3|51 - 5 2|a 1 sign(Sl - S2)
= —<2<aTj|*S,2 — 531° 1 sign{S2 - 5 3)+<m2|>S3 -5,1° 1sign(S3 - 5 , )
I f A is not equal to zero the derivative below can be calculated:
A = (S - S ) 2 + 4 5V xx yy '
dS, _ 1 /1 +
V
c _ c >juc _yy ds2 1
a1
\as„ ~ 2 Va , as„ ~ 2
35, 1 (1 -
V
3S2 1 /1 +
V2 Va ^ 2
2SV dS2
V A 8S>y Va
$xx ~
Va
aSj
as3
as3a T
as,
ydsxx+ dsxxy
' as. ds2 dzT + ~dS~V yy yy J
' ds, as2 Ava ^ 3 5 ^ ,
= - i
= - i
= o
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dSdcr„
W here L is the linear transform ation m atrix used to find the modified stress
tensor.
(C2 + C 3) / 3 - C 3 / 3 0
- C 3 / 3 (C, + C3)/3 0
d(j> da1 d</>
da2 d(j> da ,
= i ^ - s . r
= i s , - s , r
- i s . - s , r
Sa,
~s^
S a 2
~d$da2~dp
= (ay - ax ) s i n 2/3
= i a x ~ tty ) s i n 2(3
■ = 2(azX - az0 ) s i n 4/3
dp_
dfi
dp_dSm
xyA
xy
A
S„-S„
B3 - Second derivative
a y a y . .a s , . . .a s , | e ;s, . .a s , | a y a a , ..ap j s ,da,da, dSfia, a s , CCT, as, as 0<r da, da,daq d/3 3Sp da.
I B<t>.. ay,- BP .. as, | a,* . ag, a2/? „as.0a , dpda dS da, da , a/? 35 3(7 0ct,
3 2<t r l- f l
v 2a So-, S c , S c r S c rn p J
Indices n, p and q denote for xx, yy and xy and i for 1, 2 and 3.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W here:
d2<j> _ d 24 dSt dSp d2</> dccj _ dj3 „ dSp8Si8aq 8S2 8Sp d<jq dSpaj dp dSp daq
d2S _ d2Si dSn
dSpdcrq dSpdSn daq
a y a y .. dSi .. dSrda jdaq dapS j dSp dcrq
d2a i = 82a i ^ dp „ 8Sp
dpdaq dp 2 8Sp dcrq
d2p _ d2p 8Sn dS pd(Tq 8Sp8Sn 8crq
• The second derivative o f function cp w ith respect to Si is a sym m etric
second order tensor (3 -3 ) . The e lem ents of this tensor are w ritten below.
dS2 V " J| ' Z|
^ = a(a- ifa, |S2 - S31°"2 + a 3\S, - S21°"2) = -a(a-1 )a2 \S3 - S, \a~28S
i = a(a- 4a, |S2 - S31fl“2 + a 2 |S3 - 5, f 2) -£*=- = -£*=- = - « ( « - !>», \S2 ~ S3
d2(j) d2<t>8Sl8S2 8S2dSl
d2(j> d2<f>dSxdS3 ds3ds,
d2<t> d2(/> a-2
8S2 v A 11 2 31 21 3 11 ' dS2dS3 8S38S2
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The second derivative of the stress vector Si with respect to the stress
tensor Sn is a third order tensor (3 -3 -3 ) . The non-zero elements of this
matrix are derived below.
d2s]dSi
d2sxdSBS
d2Sx
d S xxd S xy
S SdS
d2SxdSyydSxy
d2Sx
K= 2
" 4.S’2 ^
d % dS2„
d2S2dSJSxy
d2S2 'dS„8S„ =
d2S,
d2S2
K= -2
dSy>dS*y
f f 4S2 ^
w V a
ds dSxy xx dSxydSyy
d2s3 ( d2sx d2s2 "dStdSj ~ + dSfdSj^
- ^ = 0 dSfiSj
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• The second derivative of function cp with respect to aj and Sj are second
order tensor (3 -3 ). The elements of this tensor are written below.
_ n d2f _ d2<f> _ Jc c 0a ac o 30 — 3 3C — 2 3 s l S n i ^ 2oapS^ daldS2 da i8Si
d't -o 9,2 * lc c l - • ,o os- u = -------------= a\S-t - S. sign(S, - S,)da2dS2 da2dS2 da2dS1
gy - fl a y a y , c e r . .
Sa3dS3 da2dS\ da2dS2 ^ 1 1 2
• The second derivative of function aj w ith respect to (3 is a vector o f th ree
elem ents derived below.
d2a.
dp
d2a
dp 2
d2 a
= 2(ay - a x)cos2fi
= 2 (ax - a y) cos 2/?
= 8(a„ -orz0)cos4/?dp2
• The second derivative o f the angle (3 w ith respect to Sp is a second order
tensor (3 -3 ) .
S2f i _ e ‘ f i = 2 sv (sa - s „ )
asi as; a 2
d2p _ d2p
d S xx d S yy d S y y d S xx A2
d2p d2p - ( s xx- S X)' f + 4Sxy
dSa dS9 dS„dSv A2
d2p _ d2p - ( s^ - sJ + as ,
dSv dS„ dSxydSyy
d2pK A2
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C - Barlat Yld2000
This is a new yield function th a t has been proposed by F. Barlat [1 9 ] to
overcom e the weakness of y ie ld96 w here it is proven to be convex and its
m athem atical form ulation is less com plicated. This yield function was
developed for a lum inum alloys and has been shown to describe well the
anisotropic behavior o f alum inum sheets.
C l - yield functioned
^ = 2oa =\Xl- X 2\“ + |27, + Y 2|" + |272 +7,1°
W here X i, X2, Y i and Y2 are the eigenvalues of a stress tensor X modified by
a linear operator L to obtain anisotropic properties, the exponent a,
connected to the crystal structure, is equal to 6 or 8 for BCC and FCC alloys
respectively, a is the m easure of the yield surface size. For plane stress the
eight m ateria l coefficients needed to describe the anisotropy and the linear
operator L are w ritten below.
A n ■ 2 / 3 0 0 " A n ' - 2 2 8 - 2 0" a 3
A 12 - 1 / 3 0 0 a x An 2_ 1
9
1 - 4 - 4 4 0 a A
A 21 = 0 - 1 / 3 0 a 2 A 21 4 - 4 - 4 1 0 a,
A 22 0 2 / 3 0 a 7 A 22 - 2 8 2 - 2 0 «6
11 0 0 1 _^266_ 0 0 0 0 9 _ a s _
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The linear operator L is found by a linear transformation form the anisotropy
coefficients. The modified stress tensor X can be found by a linear
transformation with L:
X = La
< J „
x rvXX
xy= L yy
1
* y
The eigenvalues of th e modified stress tensor X are easily found:
X = ? * * + X yy
* 2 = '
2+ . ■x.
X xx + X yy■ X .xy
Y =■
2 =
Y + Yxx yy
2
Y + Yx x y y
+ .
Y + Yx x y y + r
r Y + Y Vxx yy + Y „xy
C 2 - F irst d e r iv a tiv e
d ( j> d</> 8 X i d X p
8 o „ d X , 8 X p 8 o n
2 ( 7- a - 1 S C T d(/>
d o - , d o •
W here i denote indices for 1, 2 and n, p for xx, yy, xy.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
d(f)
dx= a\Xx - X 2 p ' sign(Xx - X 2)
d(/>~dX\
= -a\Xx - Z 2 p ’ s ign(xx - X 2)
= 2a\2Yx + 72 p 1 sign(2Yx +Y2) + a\2Y2 + Yx\“~’ sign(2Y2 + y ,)
= 2a|2y2 + Yx p 1 sign(2Y2 +YX)+ a\2Yx + Y2\a~' «gw(27, + F2)
I f Ax and AY are not equal to zero the derivative below can be calculated:
A ^ = ( X „ - X w ) 2 + 4 Z xy A r =(X]a-Y„)2+4Y12xy
dXx _ 1
dX,
1
dXyy 2
dXx 2X
1 —X „ - X
V a
yy x J
xy
dx-, X
dX2 _ 1 Y X * - X yyXX V
/a y , 1
1 +7yy V
dX2
&
X ^ - X yy"\/A;
V a 7
8YX 1SY„ 2
ay, i ay,„ - 2
y - y** yy
V a7
a/ A y
ay2 iay„ 2
ay2 _ i
y - yI « yy
eyw 2i +
a/ a x
a/ A y
ay, 2 rv
3 ^ V a 7 ay^ ^ a 7
The first derivative o f X with the stress tensor is equal to L.
2 £ .a<r„
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C3 - Second derivative
a V _ 3 V ..ax, ax, | ,, a*jr, . .ay .d a nd a B dX-do dX d a 8Xi dX d a dan p i p q n i q p n
d2a
d°nd°p■ = a 1 a
1 d2<j>2 a d a nd a p
-(a-l) d(T ^ 8(J gra-1da„ da„
W here:
a V a V dxn■ X — X -
dXid a p dXtdXj dXn da p
d X; d2X cLT
dXqdXn da p
• The second derivative o f function cp w ith respect to Xi is a sym m etric
second order tensor (4 -4 ) . The non- zero elem ents are w ritten below.
dx2 dx2 A 2\a- 2
d24> d2(j)dXxdX2 dX2dXt
d2<f>
= - a { a - l ] X x - X ,i a - 2
dY2
d2
4127, +Y2r 2 + |272 + 7 , r )
dY2
d2
£- = a ( a - i j f \ 2Y2 + 7, f 2 + |27, + 72p 2)
a VdYxdY2 dY2dYx
2 a(a - \ j \ 2Yx + Y2 p 2 + 1272 + Yx p 2)
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• The second derivative of the stress vector X, with respect to Xn is a third
order tensor (4 -6 -6 ) . The non-zero elements are written below.
d2X l
d K
d2X ,
d2X , 82X , d2X , 1
ax; = 2 w
a2x, a2x, d2X,dX^dX^ dX^dX^ d X J X ^
= -2
/ / y v / a
W
a2x,axa2x2
a x T
a2x2a x ^ a x ^
f f 4x 2 N
vV yJ x J
d2X 0
/A,
S2X ,
a x « a x w a x ^ a x ^
a2x2ax;
fr
W
a2x, a2x, a2x0a x ^ a x ^ a x ^ a x „ a * v a * w
= 2
( x ~ - x j
yj^x
(Xjcx - xw ) x xy
W
y\
a2x,ax = - 2
" 4X 2 ^V ^ 7 -
xy
a2x,dY2XX
a2x,a x ^
/A,
a2x, a2x, a2x, 1ax axXX _yy axwax„ ax; 2 <JXy
w
a2x, a2x, a2xax ax ax ax ax axyy xy xy xx xy yy
= - 2
(X - X )2V xx xx /
~JXy
(x - X )xV xx yy 1 xy
w yj r
a2x,ax. = 2
xy w
a2x2ax2
a2x,y/ y
a2x, a2x,a x .a x yy ax ax ax2yy x t yy
r r
W
a2x, a2x, a2x, a2x,
d Y xxd Y xy WyydY" 8YvdY„ dYJ Y„
(x - X )\ xx yy 1
-\[Xy
(x - X )xV xx -1 yy ! xy
W yj y
a2x,ax. = -2
xy w yj y
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
[1 ] S. P. Keeler and W . A. Backofen, "Plastic Instability and Fracture in Sheets Stretched Over Rigid Punches" Trans ASM 56, pp. 2 5 -4 8 . 1963
[2 ] S. P. Keeler and W . A. Backofen, "Determination of Forming Limits inAutomotive Stampings" Sheet Metal Indust. 42, pp. 6 8 3 -6 9 1 . 1965
[3 ] Z. Marciniak, and K. Kuczynski , "Limit Strains in the Process of Stretch-Forming Sheet Metal" In t. J. Mech. Sci. 9, pp. 6 0 9 -6 2 0 . 1967
[4 ] W illiam F. Hosford and Robert M. Caddell, "Metal forming: mechanics and metallurgy" Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall, c l9 9 3 . IS B N - 0 1 3 5 8 8 5 2 6 4
[5 ] A. G raf, WF. Hosford, "Calculations of Forming Limit Diagrams",Metall Trans A 21 (1 ): 8 7 -9 4 Jan 1990 .
[6 ] A. G raf, WF. Hosford, "The Effect of R-value on Calculated Forming Limit Curves", Forming lim it d iagram s: Concepts, M ethods, andapplications: 1 5 3 -1 6 3 TM S 1989 IS B N -0 8 7 3 3 9 0 9 8 9
[7 ] F. Barlat "Crystallographic Texture, Anisotropic Yield Surfaces and Forming Limits of sheet metals" M ater. Sci. Eng., 91, pp. 5 5 -7 2 . 1987
[8 ] A. Barata da Rocha, F. Barlat, J. M. Jalinier "Prediction of the Forming Limit Diagrams of Anisotropic Sheets in Linear and Non-Linear Loading" M ater Sci Eng 68 (2 ) : 1 5 1 -1 6 4 1985
[9 ] A. G raf, W . HOSFORD "Effect of Changing Strain Paths on Forming Limit Diagrams of Al 2008-T4 Metall Trans A 24 (1 1 ): 2 5 0 3 -2 5 1 2 Nov 1993
[1 0 ] A. G raf, W . HOSFORD "Calculations of Forming Limit diagrams for Changing strain Paths" Metall Tans A 24 (1 1 ): 2 4 9 7 -2 5 0 1 Nov 1993
[1 1 ] A. G raf, W . HOSFORD "The Influence of Strain-Path Changes on Forming Limit Diagrams of A l 6111 T-4" In t J Mech Sci 36 (1 0 ): 8 9 7 - 910 Oct 1994
[1 2 ] M.C. Butuc, A. Barata da Rocha, J.J. Gracio and J. Ferrereira D uarte , "A more general model for forming limit diagrams prediction", J M ater Process Tech 125: 2 1 3 -2 1 8 Sp. Iss. S I Sep 9 2 00 2 .
[1 3 ] M.C. Butuc, J.J. Gracio and A. Barata da Rocha, "A theoretical study on forming limit diagrams prediction", J M ater Process Tech 142 (3 ) : 7 1 4 -7 2 4 Dec 10 200 3 .
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
[1 4 ] F. Barlat "Forming Limit Diagrams - Predictions Based on Some Microstructural Aspects of Materials" Forming lim it d iagram s: Concepts, M ethods, and applications: 2 7 5 -3 0 1 TM S 1989 IS B N -0 8 7 3 3 9 0 9 8 9
[1 5 ] M.M. Moshksar, S. M ansorzadeh "Determination of the Forming Limit Diagram for Al 3105 Sheet", J M ater Process Tech 141 (1 ) : 138 - 142 Oct 1 2 003
[1 6 ] Z. Marciniak, K. Kuczynski and T. Pokora "Influence of Plastic Properties of a Material on Forming Limit Diagram for Sheet-Metal in Tension " In t. J. Mech. Sci. 15 (1 0 ) , pp. 7 8 0 -7 8 9 . 1973
[1 7 ] K. S. Chan "Marciniak-Kuczynski Approach To Calculating forming Limit Diagrams" Forming lim it d iagram s: Concepts, Methods, andapplications: 7 3 -1 1 0 TMS 1989 IS B N -0 8 7 3 3 9 0 9 8 9
[1 8 ] F. Barlat, Y. M aeda, K. Chung, M. Yanagaw a, J. C. Brem , Y. Hayashida,D. J. Lege, K. Matsui, S. J. M urtha, S. H attori, R. C. Becker and S. Makosey "Yield Function Development for Aluminum Alloy Sheets" J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45, pp. 1 7 2 7 -1 7 6 3 1997 .
[1 9 ] F. Barlat, J. C. Brem , J.W . Yoon, K. Chung, R.E. Dick, D. J. Lege, F. Pourboghrat, S .-H . Choi, E. Chu "Plane Stress Yield Function for Aluminum Alloy Sheets—part 1: Theory" In t. J. o f Plast. 19, pp. 1 2 9 7 - 1319 . 2 00 3 .
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.