Journal of Materials Processing Technology 123 (2002) 6770

Design of a cruciform biaxial tensile specimen for limit strain analysis by FEM
Yong Yu*, Min Wan, Xiang-Dong Wu, Xian-Bin Zhou
School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, P.O. Box 703, 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, PR China Received 26 February 2001

Abstract This paper is focused on a study of the sheet forming limit under complex strain loading paths. A cruciform biaxial tensile specimen with a chamfer on the arms and the central region is optimized by FEM simulation in order to realize the complex loading and the limit-strain states of sheet metals in the cruciform biaxial tensile test. An optimal shape of specimen is obtained under the following conditions: the stress distribution in the central region is uniform and large deformation is obtained easily during the stretching of the specimen. Different strain paths in the central region can be realized by adjusting the velocity boundary conditions. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Biaxial tensile specimen; Complex strain path; Finite elements; Optimal design

1. Introduction The forming limit diagram (FLD) is an important criterion which reects the deformation capability of a sheet. It plays an important role in the eld of sheet forming. The traditional FLD is applied only to the judgement of the forming limit under linear loading paths. However, because of the limit of the geometry boundary and the friction condition, the actual strain path during sheet part forming always deviates from the linear loading path. This is more pronounced in a complex forming process such as reversal deep-drawing and multi-step forming, etc. Thus the FLD obtained from linear strain paths cannot predict accurately the situation when rupture occurs. Therefore, a cruciform biaxial tensile test, which can realize complex loading paths, should be researched. This paper is focused on nding how different strain paths affect the forming limits. Realizing complex loading by use of a cruciform biaxial tensile test was proposed in the 1960s, but there are still some pivotal problems to be solved [1]: (i) The design and preparation of the cruciform biaxial tensile specimen to solve the problems of the nonuniform stress distribution in the central region and small deformation, etc.
Corresponding author. Fax: 86-10-82316100. E-mail addresses: yuyong59@sohu.com, yuyong59@hotmail.com, yuyong59@china.com, yuyong59@263.net (Y. Yu). 0924-0136/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 6
*

(ii) The control of the manner of biaxial tensile loading and the plane-strain process to realize the complex loading. (iii) The determination of the stress and strain in the central region. The design of cruciform specimen is the main difculty that restricts application for the cruciform biaxial tensile test. The common cruciform specimen cannot be used for the restriction on geometry. Thus many kinds of specimen shapes have been designed such as narrow slots on arms, slots in the central region, improvement at blending radii, and their combinations [25]. In order to study the forming limit, a cruciform biaxial tensile specimen with a chamfer on the arms and the central region is designed. The cruciform biaxial tensile specimen is optimized by FEM simulation. This specimen can provide the basis for the study on the sheet forming limit under complex strain loading paths. 2. The optimization of the cruciform specimen 2.1. Design scheme The stress state in the central region of the conventional cruciform specimen is very complex. When a strip blank with a round corner transition and unequal width is under uniaxial tension, shearing stress occurs on the imaginary sides, which results in stress concentration. It is the same for

68

Y. Yu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 123 (2002) 6770

the cruciform specimen under uniaxial tension. Shearing stress and non-uniform stress exist in the central region of the cruciform biaxial tensile specimen. The arms of the specimen are under the uniaxial tension state and the central region of specimen is under the biaxial tension state. Because the deformation capacity of sheet under uniaxial tension is far smaller than that under biaxial tension, rupture always occurs on the arms of the specimen. Thus the purpose of optimizing is to determine an appropriate specimen shape, which can make rupture transfer to the central region of the specimen, to realize different strain paths by adjusting the velocity boundary conditions and to attain large deformation. The central region of the cruciform specimen has a small cruciform slot along the arms, the slot being symmetrical over along the thickness. The load-bearing capacity in the region of the small slot is far smaller than that in other regions, so the deformation of the arms will transfer to this small slot, either partly or wholly. Thus the occurrence of the rupture in the central region of specimen can be realized. According to this idea, the design scheme shown in Fig. 1 is presented. The load-bearing capacity in the central region is still very strong after simulation and optimization, i.e. there are some difculties to ensure that capture occurs in the central region. Therefore the central region of the cruciform specimen is chamfered symmetrically over the thickness, in order that the limit deformation concentrates in the central region of the specimen. According to the symmetry of the specimen, a quarter of the specimen is simulated here in consideration of simulation efciency. The model of the specimen is created by software IDEAS and the FEM calculation model shown in Fig. 2 is attained by GENERIS, which is the pre-generation module of PAM-STAMP. A four nodes quadrangular element is adopted during the simulation. 2.2. Optimizing the specimen Some specimen which satisfy the basic requirement are designed, and their parameters being shown in Table 1. The parameters of the specimen are the following: low carbon steel sheet of 3 mm thickness; of 1 mm thickness in

Fig. 2. Finite element simulated model.

Table 1 The geometrical dimensions of the specimens (mm) Specimen a b c d e L1 175 175 175 175 175 L2 45 50 45 45 45 L3 45 50 45 60 54 R0 10 10 10 10 10 R1 20 20 15 20 20 R2 10 10 10 15 15 R3 15 15 15 15 15

the small slot on the arms; and of 0.7 mm thickness in the central region. The conventional FLD is attained by measuring the deformation of the ellipses near to the aw but not including the region of necking. Thus, the more close are the strains of the elements lying in the central region, the more uniform is the stress distribution in the central region. Then the controllable range of the strains in the central region is larger and the forming limit attained by this method is closer to the real forming limit of the material. Additionally, the experimental results should cover a large deformable range. In order to obtain a optimal shape of the specimen, the dimensions of the specimen are altered, ve elements near the central region, shown in Fig. 3, being selected so as to be able to compare and analyze the deformation under the uniaxial-tension and the equal biaxial-tension condition. 2.2.1. Equal biaxial tension The variation of strains and their ratios with the central element distributions are shown in Fig. 4 for equal biaxial tension. According to the previous analysis and comparison, specimen (d) is optimal whilst specimen (a) is secondary. The strain states of all the elements and the strain path of element 1 are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 1. Preliminary design of the specimen.

Fig. 3. Numbers of center elements.

Y. Yu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 123 (2002) 6770

69

Fig. 4. The variation of strains with the element distributions.

From Fig. 5, the ratios of the main strains remain invariable, the value being almost equal to 1. Thus this state is assumed as the equal biaxial-tension state. 2.2.2. Uniaxial tension The variation of strains and their ratios with the central element distributions are shown in Fig. 6 for uniaxial tension, where the deformation value in the central region is 15.556 mm. From Fig. 6, specimen (d) is optimal whilst specimen (b) is secondary. The strain states of all the elements and the strain path of element 1 are shown in Fig. 7. From this gure, the ratios of the strains retain linearity, the value being almost equal to 0.5, thus the uniaxial-tension state can be realized.
Fig. 6. The variation of strains with the element distributions.

Fig. 7. The strain states of all elements and the strain path of element 1.

Generally, no matter whether under the uniaxial-tension condition or the equal biaxial-tension condition, specimen (d) is the optimal shape. 3. Strain paths under the complex loading conditions The strain paths of the central element shown in Fig. 8 are obtained by changing the loading manners under the

Fig. 5. The strain states of all elements and the strain path of element 1.

70

Y. Yu et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 123 (2002) 6770

Fig. 9. Relationship between the strain ratio and the velocity ratio.

relationship between the strain ratio and the velocity ratio is shown in Fig. 9. From this gure, there is an approximate correspondence between the strain paths of the central element and the velocity loading conditions, which can guide the variation of the strain paths in the actual test. 5. Conclusions 1. An optimal cruciform biaxial tensile specimen with a chamfer on the arms and the central region is obtained by FEM simulation. The deformation of the central region during stretching can reach limit states. 2. The strain ratios can be controlled by adjusting the velocity loading ratios, enabling complex strain paths to be realized, which provides the basis for further research. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Item No. 59975006) and the National Key Laboratory of Metal Forming Simulation and Die Technology at Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Item No. 99-2). The authors would like to take this opportunity to express their appreciation. References
[1] M. Wan, X.B. Zhou, Research progress on the yielding, hardening and forming limit of sheet metals under complex loading paths, J. Plasticity Eng. 7 (2) (2000) 3539 (in Chinese). [2] S. Demmerle, J.P. Boehler, Optimal design of biaxial tensile cruciform specimens, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41 (1) (1993) 143181. [3] W. Muller, K. Pohrandt, New experiment for determining yield loci of sheet metal, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 60 (1996) 643648. [4] W. Szczepinski, Experimental Methods in Mechanics of Solids, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990. [5] T. Kuwabara, I. Susuki, S. Ikeda, Identification of a yield locus of aluminum alloy sheet A5182-O by biaxial tensile tests using cruciform specimens, J. JSTP 39 (444) (1998) 5661.

Fig. 8. The strain paths of the center element: (a) uniaxial tensionbiaxial tension; (b) biaxial tensionuniaxial tension; (c) uniaxial tensionplane strainbiaxial tension.

following three loading conditions: (i) uniaxial tension biaxial tension; (ii) biaxial tensionuniaxial tension; (iii) uniaxial tensionplane strainbiaxial tension. From Fig. 8, under three loading conditions, there is an approximate correspondence between the strain paths of the central element 1 and the velocity loading conditions. The strain paths of the central element can be controlled by adjusting the velocity loading ratios of the arms. Thus complex strain paths can be realized by adjusting the velocity loading conditions of the specimen arms. 4. Relationship between the strain ratio and the velocity ratio The stretching process is controlled by adjusting the velocity loading conditions during the simulation. The