Influence of the Constitutive Law in the Superplastic Forming of In718

O. Gonzalo1, A. Mugarra2, K. Ostolaza2, and J.L. Alcaraz1

2

Dpt. of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Basque Country, 48013-Bilbao (SPAIN) Dpt. of Materials, Industria de Turbo Propulsores I.T.P. , S.A., 48170-Zamudio, Vizcaya (SPAIN)

Abstract: Superplastic forming of In718 alloy sheets allows the manufacturing of geometrically complex shape components for the aircraft industry. This work presents some improvement in the material simulation of the forming process, at a stage prior to the implementation on a production scale. The constitutive law is considered in detail, as well as its repercussion in the results stemming from the numerical analysis. The material model is obtained based on several lab scale tests and is introduced in ABAQUS through user subroutines. The maximum strain and thickness values are compared with the experimental ones at the same strain rate conditions. After the material model validation process, better adjustment is derived between the simulation results and the experimental tests.

1. Introduction
Superplastic forming is a recently developed technique applied to obtaining geometrically complex parts in a simple way and at relatively low cost (see for example Sherby, 1985). On the other hand, the finite element analysis makes it possible to derive the most adequate geometrical and material parameters for this process. In this work an Inconel 718 alloy is selected based on its high mechanical strength and corrosion resistant properties at high temperature (Huang, 2000; Ceschini, 1994). This alloy can be used in the hottest parts of aircraft engines and in pipelines with gas at high temperature. The paper is focused on the finite element model of thin sheets superplastic forming (Bonet, 1988; Xing, 1997). The aim is to improve the fitting of numerical results with lab-scale tests by means of a better material simulation. This has been accomplished by a feedback from several lab-scale results applied to the same alloy into the ABAQUS input.

2. Analysis
Some simulation analyses previously performed for Inconel 718 (Mugarra, 2000) will be the basis of the present analysis centered in the alloy material modeling. The die for the tests is shown in Figure 1. Results from the press machine provide the pressure-time variation during the test and the geometry of the formed sheet. These results can be used to readjust the initial geometrical parameters introduced in the simulation. Thus other more realistic simulations will then be carried out. 2002 ABAQUS Users Conference 1

The following parameters are taken into account in order to improve the simulations: a. Parameters in the material constitutive law. b. Contact pressure and clearance (*SURFACE c. Friction coefficient (*FRICTION option) d.
CETOL BEHAVIOR

option)

parameter and allowed time in the analysis.

e. Residual values for convergence (*CONTROLS option). f. Reference pressure in the loading process (*DLOAD option).

Results are compared at the lowest point of the deformed dome. On increasing the strain level a material softening can be deduced from a typical simulation. Actually the material is quite sensitive to the grain size growth, as the superplastic behavior is based on the grain size fineness. This feature gives rise to a higher pressure obtained in ABAQUS than that from the actual process. Sheet cracks can therefore be produced during the forming operation because the higher pressure implies a higher strain rate and the stress levels increase accordingly so as to cause fracture in some cases. The behavior just described has motivated the task of attaining a better fitting of the material parameters included in the constitutive equation. These parameters have been made variable. The constitutive equation used in the analysis is the following:

= K n m
A quite noticeable fluctuation in parameter m is obtained for considerable strain level variations. Furthermore the material softening is derived from changes in parameter n. Both variations will be implemented by user subroutines in ABAQUS. Two types of material behavior analyses have been carried out: 1. By using the ABAQUS expression:

(1)

= Ca ((b + 1) )
2. By Equation 1.

1 b b +1

(2)

There is obviously a relation between the material parameters in the two expressions. The second analysis is motivated by the scattered results in the material parameters obtained from Equation 2. For example, so small values for C as 10-25 are derived. However, from Equation 1 the parameters fluctuate less. Material parameter variations are introduced by means of user subroutines in FORTRAN (usdfld.f in the first analysis and creep.f in the second). These subroutines are briefly commented below.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

2.1

Usdfld.f subroutine

This subroutine allows to introduce a variable that assumes user defined values. The values obtained within the analysis can be used for this task. In our case the equivalent creep strain has been selected as the user defined variable. Material parameters will change according to this creep strain. The material parameters are included in a tabulated form at different strains for the uniaxial test. Consequently the equivalent creep strain is associated with the uniaxial test strain to obtain the material parameters. Once the user defined variable (USD) has been calculated, the *CREEP option is used based on the parameter values provided by USD. 2.2 Creep.f subroutine

This subroutine allows to create original creep laws (although special care should be taken to avoid numerical problems). Equation 1 has been defined by using this subroutine. As in the previous one, tabulated parameter values are taken as a function of some variable the equivalent creep strain, in our case-. ABAQUS performs this task automatically. Moreover the tabulated parameters are introduced in an external data file (not in the input or in the subroutine). The following three parameters are required by the subroutine:

DECRA (5) = They are obtained from the creep strain increment, which can be expressed as: DECRA (1) = DECRA (2) =

(3)

1 m 1 m = t = t K

1 m

(4)

3. Model validation
For the validation of the material model the following steps will be taken: 1) Estimation of the actual strain rate of the test. 2) Direct simulations with ABAQUS assuming the pressure variations applied to the press and the new data for the constitutive law from experimental results. The strain rate for the analysis and a comparable geometry of the deformed sheet are thus obtained. 3) Once the constitutive law and the strain rate have been adjusted, reversed cycles are performed to select the reference pressure parameter. This parameter will be very useful to derive the pressure-time variations in more complex geometry components. 3.1 Strain rate estimation.

Two tests have been carried out. By measuring the sheet thickness at the highest strain point and assuming a constant strain rate, the following values result:

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

a)

Test I: = 1,19 10 s

4 1 4 1

b) Test II: = 3,17 10 s 3.2

Direct simulations of the tests

A temperature of 950C and strain rates in the range of 10-4 s-1 are assumed. The strain rate in the superplastic forming tests differs from the tension test rate but the flow stress and parameter m do not change significantly within the 110-4 to 310-4 s-1 range, as deduced from Figure 2 (Chandler, 1984). a) Test I: In this test conditions were approximately those used in the tension test. The applied cycle is plotted in Figure 3. The Von Mises stress, equivalent creep strain, sheet thickness and strain rate contours are shown in Figure 4. It is observed that the sheet has been conformed more than expected. On the other hand the value of the maximum strain rate lies above that previously estimated (3,710-4 s-1 versus 1,1910-4 s-1). The difference between the actual cycle and the analysis is motivated by the different strain rate of the process.

b) Test II: For this test the estimated strain rate is about three times that of the tension test. The applied cycle is plotted in Figure 5. For this cycle, the Von Mises stress, equivalent creep strain, sheet thickness and strain rate contours are obtained and shown in Figure 6. Again the sheet conforms more than expected, with a maximum in the strain rate above the one estimated (6,610-4 s-1 versus 3,1710-4 s-1). In conclusion, direct simulations provide higher strains than those obtained in the tests. This behavior can mainly be attributed to the influence of the strain rate in the material parameters (although it may also affect the availability of parameter data only up to a maximum strain of 0,8). The higher strains are explained because the flow stress increases at higher strain rates. Higher pressures will then be applied and as a result the sheet will conform more than obtained in the test. In other words, at the strain rates originated by the applied pressure, the material will show a higher flow stress than that defined in the constitutive law for 110-4 s-1. Consequently a softener material definition is being used, and a strain increase results. 3.3 Inverse analyses

Once the material constitutive law has been adjusted according to the geometry obtained from the tests, the next step will be to select ABAQUS parameters so as to obtain pressure cycles similar to those applied in the superplastic forming tests. The most relevant parameter is the reference pressure in the *VISCO option. Adjusting this parameter, along with the initial amplitude in *AMPLITUDE, will lead to controlled pressure-time variations. Test II has been selected to do the adjustment. Later verification will be performed for the two tests. If the reference pressure changes, different pressure-time cycles will result, but the sheet geometry seems to be unaffected. Comparing different simulations, the strain levels and the thickness contours are quite similar. The pressure-time cycle is adjusted to the actual one by using the reference pressure that provides a similar maximum pressure. This value is 1,1 MPa.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Next these results are verified in the two tests: a) Test I: The target strain rate is 110-4 s-1 and the reference pressure 1,1 MPa. Results are shown in Figure 7. The dome height is about 88 mm (versus 94 mm obtained in the test), the maximum strain in the sheet is 0,99 (versus 1,20 in the test) and the final thickness is 0,27 mm (versus 0,22 mm in the test). The difference between the obtained contours and the original ones can be explained by noting the different pressure-time cycles applied (see Figure 8). In the actual cycle a time of 1120 s has elapsed without pressure. Failure is obtained in the test because the pressure value is too high. As commented before the material softening at high strains can be the main reason for this behavior.

b) Test II: The target strain rate is 310-4 s-1 and the reference pressure 1,1 MPa. This test gives rise to better results than Test I (see Figure 9), as the former was selected for the adjustment. The dome reaches a height of 95 mm (versus 91 mm in the test), the maximum strain is 1,13 (versus 1,20 in the test), and the final thickness in the lowest point is 0,24 mm (versus 0,22 mm in the test). A very good agreement is thus obtained. In Figure 10 the two pressure-time cycles are compared. The maximum pressure is similar. The pressure fall is due to the material softening in the calculated cycle.

4. Conclusion
In this paper the superplastic forming of Inconel 718 alloy sheets has been presented. A material constitutive law adjusted to actual results from several experimental tests has been obtained. To attain this, material parameter variation has been allowed by implementing user subroutines in ABAQUS. Results for the geometry, thickness and strain level provide a verification of the improvement obtained after the material adjustment. On the other hand, the reference pressure has played an important role in the validation of the model.

References
1. Bonet, J., Wood, R.D. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. Finite Element Modeling of the Superplastic Forming of Thin Sheets, in Superplasticity and Superplastic Forming, edited by C.H. Hamilton and N.E. Paton, pp. 291-295, 1988. 2. Ceschini, L., Cammarota, G.P., Garagnini, G.L., Persiani, F. and Afrikantov, A. Superplastic Behaviour of Fine-Grained In-718 Superalloy, Materials Science Forums, vol. 170-172, pp. 351-356, 1994. 3. Chandler, W.T., Ghosh, A.K. and Mahoney, W.M. Superplastic Forming and Diffusion Bonding of INCO 718, Journal Spacecraft, vol. 21, n. 1, 1984. 4. Huang, Y., Strangwood, M. and Blackwell, P.L. Superplastic behaviour of Inconel 718 sheet. Materials Science and Technology, vol. 16, n. 11, 2000. 5. Mugarra, A. and Alcaraz, J.L. Finite element results of sheet superplastic forming, in Metal Forming, edited by M. Pietrzyk et al., pp. 707-712, 2000.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

6. Sherby, O.D. and Wadsworth, J. Superplasticity and superplastic forming processes, Materials Science and Technology, vol. 1, pp. 925-936, 1985. 7. Xing, H.L. and Wang, Z.R. Finite-element analysis and design of thin sheet superplastic forming, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, v. 68, pp. 1-7, 1997.

Figures

Figure 1. Die model for the tests.

Figure 2. Flow stress and parameter m as a function of the strain rate.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 2000 4000 6000 Time (sec) 8000 10000 12000

Figure 3. Pressure-time variation for the press machine in Test I.

a)

b)

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

c)

d)

Figure 4. Results for Test I: a) Von Mises stress, b) Equivalent creep strain, c) Sheet thickness, d) Strain rate.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Time (sec) 2500 3000 3500 4000

Figure 5. Pressure-time variation for the press machine in Test II. a)

b)

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

c)

d)

Figure 6. Results for Test II: a) Von Mises stress, b) Equivalent creep strain, c) Sheet thickness, d) Strain rate.

10

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

a)

b)

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

11

c)

Figure 7. Results after the material law adjustment for Test I: a) Von Mises stress, b) Equivalent creep strain, c) Sheet thickness.

Pressure (MPa) 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0

Ref. Press.: 1,1 Original Cycle

200

400

600 800 Time (s)

1000

1200

Figure 8. Comparison between two pressure-time cycles. Test I.

12

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

a)

b)

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

13

c)

Figure 9. Results after the material law adjustment for Test II: a) Von Mises stress, b) Equivalent creep strain, c) Sheet thickness.

Pressure (MPa) 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0

Ref . Press.: 1,1 Original Cycle

100

200 300 Time (s)

400

500

Figure 10. Comparison between two pressure-time cycles. Test II.

14

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference