This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Materials Processing Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec
Determination of the ﬂow stress of ﬁve AHSS sheet materials (DP 600, DP 780, DP 780-CR, DP 780-HY and TRIP 780) using the uniaxial tensile and the biaxial Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) tests
A. Nasser, A. Yadav, P. Pathak, T. Altan ∗
Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA1
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Room temperature uniaxial tensile and biaxial Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) tests were conducted for ﬁve Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) sheet materials, and the resulting ﬂow stress curves were compared. Strain ratios (R-values) were also determined in the tensile test and used to correct the biaxial ﬂow stress curves for anisotropy. The pressure vs. dome height raw data in the VPB test was extrapolated to the burst pressure to obtain the ﬂow stress curve until fracture. Results of this work show that the ﬂow stress data can be obtained to higher strain values under biaxial state of stress. Moreover, it was observed that some materials behave differently if subjected to different state of stress. These two conclusions, and the fact that the state of stress in actual stamping processes is almost always biaxial, suggest that the bulge test is a more suitable test for obtaining the ﬂow stress of AHSS sheet materials for use as an input to Finite Element (FE) simulation models. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 23 April 2009 Received in revised form 30 September 2009 Accepted 6 October 2009
Keywords: AHSS Uniaxial tensile test Biaxial bulge test Flow stress Formability Dual Phase (DP) Transformation-Induced Plasticity (TRIP)
1. Introduction This study is concerned about two types of AHSS; Dual Phase (DP) steels and Transformation-Induced Plasticity (TRIP) steels. The microstructure of DP steels is composed of ferrite and martensite, while the microstructure of TRIP steels is a matrix of ferrite, in which martensite and/or bainite, and more than 5% retained austenite exist. The increased formability of AHSS is the main advantage over conventional HSS. DP steels, for example, have high initial strain hardening and a high tensile-to-yield strength ratio, which accounts for the relatively high ductility, compared to conventional HSS. This issue was pointed out (a) by ASTM (2007) which discusses the standard test methods for obtaining the tensile strain hardening components and (b) by ASTM (2006) that explains the test methods used for measuring the plastic strain ratio ‘r’ for sheet metals. Nevertheless, compared to Draw Quality Steels (DQS), AHSS steels have relatively low ductility. In the stamping industry, running Finite Element (FE) simulations is an important
step in the process/tool design. A critical input to FE models is the mechanical properties (ﬂow stress curve) of the sheet material used. Usually, ﬂow stress curves are obtained using the uniaxial tensile test. Although accurate and convenient, two main limitations exist for this test. First, values of strain attained in this test are generally less than the values observed in stamping processes. As a result, data obtained in a tensile test, is usually extrapolated in conducting FE simulations. Second, the state of stress in actual stamping is usually biaxial, which raises questions on the suitability of using ﬂow stress data obtained under a uniaxial loading condition. Based on these considerations, the biaxial bulge test was used extensively in the Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM), for obtaining ﬂow stress input to FE models. The ERC/NSM bulge test uses viscous material as the pressurizing medium. Therefore, it is called the “Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB)” test. This test was originally developed by Gutscher and Altan (2004) and further developed to include anisotropy by Palaniswamy and Altan (2007).
∗ Corresponding author at: Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM), The Ohio State University, 339 Baker Systems Building, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Tel.: +1 614 292 5063. E-mail address: email@example.com (T. Altan). 1 www.ercnsm.org. 0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.10.003
2. Background on the VPB test Fig. 1 is a schematic of the tooling used in the VPB test. The upper die is connected to the slide and the cushion pins support the lower die (the blank holder) to provide the required clamping force. The
1990) were used in the simulations. the viscous medium is pressurized by the stationary punch and the sheet is bulged into the upper die. Eqs. When the tooling closes. outlined by (Hill. punch in the lower die is ﬁxed to the press table and therefore stationary. a series of FE simulations with different material properties (different n-value) were conducted using the commercial FE software PAMSTAMP to generate a database.1. Now that all the information needed are available. 2. ¯n ¯ = Kε (1) face area so that the bending stresses can be neglected as discussed by (Gutscher and Altan (2004) in detail. ¯ = r = p 2 Rd +1 td td to (2) ¯ = −εt = − ln ε (3) The effective stress and strain equations from the classical membrane plasticity theory are used (Eqs. . Consequently. the ﬂow stress curve obtained in the bulge test may not be accurate if the material is assumed to be isotropic. The VonMises yield criterion and the constitutive modeling of plasticity.e. All symbols used in this paper are summarized in the nomenclature. Continuously during the test. At this moment. (2) and (3) above contain two other unknowns.430 A. the iterations are stopped. mechanical properties vary from one direction to another). This database shows how the thickness and radius of curvature at the dome apex change with the dome height. the sheet is bulged under balanced biaxial stress. and the bulging pressure is measured using a pressure transducer. Nasser et al. the membrane theory equations can be used to calculate the effective stress and strain. Hill (1990)’s anisotropic yield criteria is used in this section. Since the tools are axisymmetric. An excel macro was then developed to iteratively determine the ﬂow stress curve of the material using both the database and the experimental pressure vs. 1(a)] between the upper and the lower dies using a lockbead to prevent any material draw-in in order to maintain the sheet in a pure stretching condition throughout the test. To determine these unknowns. 3.001. While Von-Mises yield criterion is used in the methodology described above. the radius of curvature and thickness at the dome apex are calculated. 3. Anisotropic materials Since sheet materials are usually anisotropic (i.2. Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) test tooling. An initial guess of the n-value is made. Isotropic materials The methodology used for determining the ﬂow stress of the sheet assumes that the material follows the Hollomon power law (Eq. Inverse analysis methodology for determining the ﬂow stress curve 3. the tooling is open and the viscous material is ﬁlled into the area on the top of the punch. 3. the calculated ﬂow stress curve using the methodology described in Section 3. given at the end of the paper. 1. The clamping force (the selected press cushion force) depends on the material and thickness tested. Following is the correction factor used to correct for anisotropy: ¯ anis = R90 + R0 ¯ R90 (R0 + 1) iso (4) Fig. 2 shows the details of the geometrical features of the VPB test tooling. The power law is then used to represent the resulting curve. dome height curve. (2) and (3)). / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 Fig. the dome height is measured using a potentiometer. A ﬂow chart describing the FE-based inverse analysis methodology is shown in Fig. At the beginning. the thickness and radius of curvature at the dome apex. The slide then moves down together with the upper die and blank holder. Geometrical features of the VPB test. These equations are derived under the assumptions that the bulge (dome) shape is spherical and that the sheet thickness is small compared to the sur- In addition to the bulging pressure and dome height which can be easily measured in the test. Another iteration is performed with a different n-value. and the process continues until the difference in the n-value between two subsequent iterations becomes less than or equal to 0.1 was corrected for anisotropy. the sheet is totally clamped [Fig. Using the measured dome height and the database. (1)). Fig. Therefore in this study. and the ﬂow stress curve is extracted and reported.
Subtracting the elastic strain from the total strain will not have a considerable effect on the R-values and therefore the total strain values were used in the calculations. at least three samples were prepared at each of the three orientations (0◦ . 45◦ .67 × 10−3 s−1 ) which is also according to the previously mentioned standard. . and TRIP 780.01 mm (±0. For each of the ﬁve AHSS materials (DP 600. The detailed objectives are to: (1) Compare the ﬂow stress curves obtained under balanced biaxial state of stress with those obtained under uniaxial condition (tensile test) for the materials tested. The width true strain was calculated from the measured width. DP 780-CR. 2004).e. both the load and the measured engineering strain were recorded to be used in calculating the true stress and strain. R-value is the same in all directions). εax + εw + εt = 0 (6) For each material. tensile test specimens were prepared by wire EDM process. was used for testing. 5. described in ASTM (2007) was followed. A micrometer with a minimum division of 0. Experimental procedure 5. (5): ¯ anis = 2 ¯ ¯ + 1) iso R (5) 4. (2) Study the effect of anisotropy correction on the ﬂow stress curves obtained by the VPB test. Specimen dimensions speciﬁed in the International Standard ASTM E 646-07 were used. DP 780-CR. If the material does not have any planar anisotropy (i. the test was stopped at about 7% since this grade at this direction has less uniform elongation). Formulas 7 through 9 were used in the calculations and the International Standard ASTM E 517-00. Nasser et al. DP 780. and 90◦ ) with respect to the rolling direction. A hydraulic wedge grips and a 2-in. A ﬂow chart describing the FE-based inverse analysis methodology used to determine the ﬂow stress curve of sheet materials (Gutscher and Altan.5%) where the test was stopped and the sample width was measured for the purpose of determining the Strain Ratio (only for DP 780-HY at 90◦ . Using the axial true strain at which loading stops and the calculated width true strain. MTS 810 FlexTest Material Testing Machine. TRIP 780.A. The following formulas were used to calculate the true stress–true Table 1 The test matrix used for the tensile and VPB tests. Objectives of the study The main objective of the study is to determine the ﬂow stress curves of ﬁve AHSS materials: DP 600. Epsilon extensometer were used in all the tests. Samples were loaded to an engineering strain of 8% (±0. the thickness true strain was calculated from the principle of volume constancy (Eq. the sample is loaded again until failure. S. However.7 mm × 1 mm). the specimen was properly aligned with the loading axis and gripped carefully to avoid twisting. Before starting the test. 100 KN in capacity. The test matrix is summarized in Table 1. the strain ratio (R-value) in each direction was calculated. and DP 780-HY). some samples were lost during the initial trials and therefore not included in this table. Samples were loaded at a strain rate of 0.1.1 min−1 (1. and then the average normal anisotropy and planar anisotropy were calculated. (6)). After measuring and recording the width. Throughout the test. was calculated by dividing the measured load by the original cross sectional area (12. (4) simpliﬁes to Eq. (3) Investigate the strain hardening characteristic and formability of the materials tested. then Eq. Tensile tests To eliminate edge effect problems associated with shearing operations. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 431 Fig. # Material Thickness Number of samples tested Tensile testa 0 1 2 3 4 5 DP 600 DP 780 DP 780-CR DP 780-HY TRIP 780 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm ◦ VPB test 90 4 4 4 2 3 ◦ 45 3 2 3 3 3 ◦ Total 6 10 7 7 7 Burst 1 4 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 a It was originally planned to test at least three samples for each condition. The engineering stress. R= ¯ = R εw εt R0 + 2R45 + R90 4 R0 + R90 − 2R45 2 (7) (8) (9) R= Note: the ASTM standard E517 states that the plastic component of the total strain should be used in calculating the strain ratio. DP 780. 3. DP 780HY.005 mm) was used to measure the width at three locations within the gauge length (as recommended by the standard ASTM E 646) and the average width was calculated.
.811 0.221 Fig. Experimental pressure vs. strain data from the engineering data: (these formulas were used up to the instability/necking point) ε = ln(1 + e) = S × (1 + e) (10) (11) Table 2 Comparison of anisotropy ratios of various AHSS grades. Uniform and total elongation of various AHSS grades (gauge length: 2 in.498 0.874 1.001 −0. 45◦ . Fig.942 0.869 0. 8. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 Fig.01 0. 10.70625 0.064 0.872 1.802 0.90275 0. UTS and 0. Example tested specimens for TRIP 780 sheet material (a) sample burst and (b) sample not burst.9975 R 0. Fig.925 0.08 0. Fig.1835 −0.583 0. True stress–true strain curves of DP 780-HY at 0◦ . 7. Nasser et al. Comparison of engineering stress–engineering strain curves of various AHSS grades obtained by the tensile test.0105 0.3315 −0.2% offset yield strength of various AHSS grades (average UTS values are shown).843 45◦ 1.432 A. Fig.) (average values are shown).062 0. 9.9 0. time curve for sample 1 of TRIP 780 steel sheet material.108 90◦ 1. 4. 0◦ DP 600 DP 780 DP 780-CR TRIP 780 DP 780-HY 0. 5. 6. Fig. and 90◦ with respect to rolling direction obtained by tensile test.931 ¯ R 1. Comparison of true stress–true strain curves of various AHSS grades obtained by tensile test.
Fig. 16. Comparison of true stress–strain curves of DP 780 determined by the tensile test and VPB test (curves are not extrapolated). Experimental pressure vs. All samples are 1 mm thick and were prepared from the same sheets from which tensile testing Fig. 14. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 433 Fig. Comparison of the ﬂow stress curves of the ﬁve AHSS materials tested using the VPB test (these curves are neither corrected for anisotropy nor extrapolated). 13.A. Comparison of true stress–strain curves of DP 780-CR determined by the tensile test and VPB test (curves are not extrapolated). Comparison of true stress–strain curves of DP 600 determined by the tensile test and VPB test (curves are not extrapolated). Fig. 12. 17. at least six 10 in. Fig.2. square samples were sheared. VPB tests Fig. Comparison of true stress–strain curves of TRIP 780 determined by the tensile test and VPB test (curves are not extrapolated). × 10 in. Pressure vs. dome height curves obtained from the VPB test for the ﬁve AHSS sheets materials tested (these curves are the measured curves without any extrapolation). The ﬂow stress curve of TRIP 780 (sample 6) obtained from both experimentally measured and extrapolated pressure vs. 5. dome height curve (for TRIP 780. sample 6) extrapolated from last measured datapoint (212 bars) up to burst pressure (226 bars) using higher order polynomial approximation. Nasser et al. For each of the ﬁve AHSS materials. 18. 11. Fig. dome height curves. Fig. 15. .
160 metric tons in capacity. the retained austenite transforms to martensite (the strain at which phase transformation takes place depends mainly on the amount of carbon in the alloy). 6. The clamping force was set to 100 metric tons to ensure no draw-in of the sheet material in the die cavity.7). while TRIP 780 has the lowest value (about 0. 2001). TRIP 780 at 45◦ .1. As an example. the data obtained from these samples was not discarded. National Instrument (SCXI) Data Acquisition System (hardware: SCXI-1000 and software SCXI-1520) was used to collect the data.25 in. DP 600 has the highest post-uniform elongation (about 10%). 13 shows the pressure vs. Results 6. Nasser et al. 4 and 5 show a comparison of the engineering and true stress–strain curves obtained by the tensile test. Since a large clamping force (100 metric tons) was used. since the main objective of the study was not to evaluate the formability. Since it is not possible to obtain experimental data up to the burst pressure. dome height curves of the ﬁve AHSS materials obtained by the VPB test. 14 shows the ﬂow stress curve of TRIP 780 (sample 6) obtained from both experimentally measured and extrapolated pressure vs. when the material starts to loose its hardening characteristics. VPB test Fig. sheet thickness. DP 600 has the highest average anisotropy ratio (strain ratio) of about 1. Thus. However. which explains the delayed necking of TRIP 780 in uniaxial tensile test as compared to other DP steels with the same UTS (see Figs. The curves of both DP 600 and DP 780-HY were obtained up to bursting since a sample accidently burst during the test. Figs. it has the second highest post-uniform elongation of about 9. Table 2 summarizes the strain ratios of the ﬁve AHSS materials in the three orientations.434 A. Fig. Although DP 780-HY has the lowest uniform elongation. Thus. 5 and 7). and in order to get a rough estimate of the material formability under balanced biaxial condition. while DP 600 has the lowest value (about 0. Comparison of tensile and VPB tests Figs. as well as. Table 3 shows the comparison of the K and n-values obtained from the two tests. dome height raw data. The extrapolated curve was then used in the excel macro to obtain the ﬂow stress curve. Honeywell (S-model) pressure transducer and ETI (LCP 12 S-100 mm) potentiometer were used to measure the bulging pressure and dome height. 45◦ . making it difﬁcult to visually identify the instability point (the UTS and uniform elongation). Tensile test Figs. Later.5%.161 in (105. Tensile tests Fig.33.2. total elonga- . Pressure vs. As seen in Figs. To obtain the ﬂow stress curve assuming the material is isotropic. Discussion and conclusions 7. 10 shows a picture of a burst sample (a) and a sample bulged but not burst (b) for TRIP 780. No considerable variation of the ﬂow stress curves between different samples orientations was observed. these values that are clearly identiﬁed for low carbon steels are difﬁcult to determine for AHSS. The burst pressure was about 225 bars for sample 1 and 226 bars for sample 2. 4 and 5 that the ﬂow stress curves of TRIP 780 have relatively low slope Fig. Fig. and 0.7 mm) and the die corner radius is 0. One of the problems faced during tensile testing is that necking and failure for some materials at certain orientations occurred outside the gauge length. The dome height of the burst samples can be used as a measure of material formability under balanced biaxial condition. value of one was used for both R0 and R90 . / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 tion. Minster Tranemo DPA-160-10 hydraulic press. UTS. As seen in Table 2. they were pressurized to 90–95% of the burst pressure while the potentiometer was used to measure the bulge height. The corresponding ﬂow stress curves are compared in Fig. non-uniform ﬂow in the ﬂange region (earing) when forming TRIP 780 sheet can be an issue. To avoid bursting the other samples. was used for the test. Since deformation is uniform before the instability point and since the presented true stress–true strain curves are plotted up to this point. 6. the data was extrapolated to the burst pressure using a higher order polynomial approximation. The potentiometer used is a delicate device and cannot withstand impact loading at the burst of the specimen. 7. Table 1 summarizes the test matrix for both the tensile and the VPB tests.1. 11 shows a comparison of the experimental pressure vs. strain hardening at the beginning takes place by the interaction of dislocations with second phases existing in the matrix as discussed by (Shaw and Zuidema. the true stress–true strain curves of DP 780-HY for the three orientations are shown in Fig. respectively. 15–19 show the comparison of the ﬂow stress curves determined by the tensile and VPB tests for the ﬁve AHSS materials tested. for each material. 7 and 8. coupons were prepared. 7 and 8 compare the average values (0◦ . The die cavity diameter of bulge test tools available at the ERC/NSM is 4. Fig. 6. at least one sample was burst without a potentiometer to know the bursting pressure. the average strain ratio and planar anisotropy. 12. and both DP 780-CR and DP 780-HY in all orientations. the number of samples burst and measured was not sufﬁcient from the repeatability point of view. This was the case for some samples of DP 780 at 45◦ and 90◦ .3. 4 shows that the engineering stress–strain curves of the ﬁve AHSS grades tested become almost ﬂat around the UTS for a wide strain range. 6. Thus the ﬂow stress curves for all materials and orientations are not presented. time curve for TRIP 780 from which the burst pressure was obtained. Thus. It can be seen from Figs. 9 shows a sample pressure vs. As an example of experimental data extrapolation to the burst pressure. (6. Comparison of true stress–strain curves of DP 780-HY determined by the tensile test and VPB test (curves are not extrapolated). TRIP 780 has the highest planar anisotropy ( R) of about 0.35 mm).2% offset yield strength of the ﬁve AHSS tested by the tensile test. the alloy retains it hardening characteristic. and strain ratios at 0◦ and 90◦ were used as inputs to the excel macro (see Section 3) to calculate the ﬂow stress curve. no material draw-in was observed in all tests.001). dome height curves. these results are not presented in this paper. Thus. 19. dome height curve of TRIP 780 (sample 6) with and without extrapolation. and 90◦ ) for the uniform elongation. For TRIP steels. respectively. Fig.01. As a result. Measuring devices were calibrated before the test to ensure accurate measurements.
15–19 that there is almost no difference between the anisotropy-corrected and uncorrected ﬂow stress curves for both DP 780 and DP 780-HY.183 R2 b 0. Depending on R0 Fig. this alloy has the largest values of both uniform and total elongation.208 0. Burst pressure of the ﬁve AHSS materials tested.7% 12.508 564% . 7. DP 600 True strain at instability (in the tensile test) Maximum true stress level obtained in the tensile test (MPa) True stress level in VPB test (MPa) (at a strain value equals to the instability strain in the tensile test) Maximum percent difference between tensile test and bulge test 0. Moreover. R2 is the square of the correlation coefﬁcient. pressure curves.765 0. not many samples were burst in this study so that burst height cannot be considered to be reliable in describing and/or comparing the formability of the different AHSS grades tested. The burst pressures in the VPB test for the ﬁve AHSS materials are shown in Fig. the stress levels obtained from the tensile test is lower than the levels obtained from the VPB test.9613 0.A. if used in drawing applications.3.187 0. The negligible variation in the dome height vs. Still. Thus.116 0.765 911 956 9.188 0.545 254% DP 780 0. the corrected ﬂow stress may increase. indicate the consistency in their deformation behavior. This illustrates how correcting for anisotropy may be important for some materials.237 137% TRIP 780 0. the effective strain at instability under balanced biaxial loading is twice the instability strain under uniax- Table 4 Comparison between the stress levels in the tensile and VPB tests at a strain values equal to the true strain at the onset of necking in the tensile test. Theoretically speaking.167 0.175 0. c The n-value in the VPB test was obtained by ﬁtting the power law in the strain range from about 0.84 0.9544 0.154 681 747 DP 780 0.04 to the last datapoint available without extrapolation (note that the range in which the curve is ﬁt affects the ﬁt parameters). The dome height at fracture (bursting) in the VPB test can be used as a measure of formability and therefore used as a quick and reliable acceptance test of incoming raw material in the stamping plant.356 324% DP780-CR 0. It can be seen from Figs. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 Table 3 Comparison of the K and n-values obtained using both the tensile and VPB tests for the ﬁve AHSS materials.258 88% DP 780-HY 0.9% Table 5 Comparison between the maximum true strain that can be obtained in the tensile test and that obtained in the VPB test. among different samples of the same material. 7.155 0.10 0. while the biggest difference is for TRIP 780. these ﬁgures illustrate the high strain values which can be attained under balanced biaxial condition.9701 0. Nasser et al. TRIP steels shows relatively good performance since the transformation strengthens the side wall. Bulge tests Figs. This particular point was selected for comparison because the difference in the stress level between the two tests reaches it maximum at this point. at lower strains compared to other grades with the same UTS.138 935 1094 DP 780-HY 0.097 0. Table 4 compares the stress levels in the tensile test and the bulge test at a true strain value which corresponds to the instability point in the tensile test.9877 0. while the ﬂange region stays soft and easy to draw. 13 and 14 show how much ﬂow stress data is lost when ending the test at a pressure value slightly below the burst pressure. Material Tensile test K (MPa) DP 600 DP 780 DP 780-CR DP 780-HY TRIP 780 a b 435 Bulge test (w/o correcting for anisotropy) n a R 2b K (MPa) 1056 1382 1437 1220 1454 nc 0.84 946 1062 DP780-CR 0.9755 952 1541 1436 1332 1444 0. Shaw and Zuidema (2001) reported that the austenite-tomartensite transformation of TRIP steels is easier under biaxial tension than under compression.3% 17% 4.9882 0. and R90 .10 904 979 TRIP 780 0. DP 600 Maximum true strain that can be obtained in tensile test (at instability point) Maximum true strain obtained in the bulge test (without extrapolation) Percent difference 0.3% 8. This maybe attributed to the transformation mentioned above. and corresponding ﬂow stress curves. 20.9816 0. However. or stay the same.9736 0.2% offset yield point to the instability point.2.142 0. It can be seen that the percentage difference in stress level between the VPB and the tensile tests can be as high as 17% as is the case for TRIP 780.9975 0.138 0.9934 The n-value in the tensile test was obtained by ﬁtting the power law in the range from the 0. decrease.154 0. 20. Comparison of tensile and VPB tests For all materials.
In addition. the need to have the FE-based database prior to the analysis is eliminated. ASTM Committee E28/Subcommittee E28. Special thanks to Mike Bzdok of A/S P and Ming Chen of USS for their support and valuable feedback.. Standard Test Method for Tensile Strain-Hardening Exponents (n-Values) of Metallic Sheet Materials... Gutscher.02. 1990. It can be seen from Table 5 that data in the bulge test can be collected up to a very high strain values compared to the tensile test.org) gratefully acknowledges the Auto-Steel Partnership (A/S P) for sponsoring this study and United States Steels for providing the AHSS test materials. 405–417. This emphasizes the importance of the bulge test because of its capability to provide data for a bigger range of strain compared to the traditional tensile test. 2001. This is an advantage of the bulge test. some materials may behave differently (especially from the formability point of view) under different loading conditions.. 2007. especially if the ﬂow stress data is to be used for FE simulation. Future work In addition to the inverse analysis methodology used in this paper. References ASTM Committee E28/Subcommittee E28. Journal of Mechanical Physics of Solids 38. This new methodology was proven to work well for room temperature bulge test. However. ASTM E646-07. Flow stress determination using viscous pressure bulge (VPB) test. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146 (1). Palaniswamy. Steel Research International 78. H. dc e Fc hd K n p S R diameter of die cavity engineering strain in axial direction (tensile test) clamping force dome height strength coefﬁcient strain hardening exponent bulging pressure engineering stress in axial direction (tensile test) strain ratio (plastic anisotropy or normal anisotropy) . and is still based on the idea of inverse analysis. Affordability.4. SAE 2001-01-3041. T. J. The new methodology uses the commercially available FE software LS-DYNA. Altan. Nasser et al. 116–123. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 429–436 ial loading. 7. Although we expect the percent difference to be about 200% (should be 100%). T. Process simulation and optimization in metal forming—selected examples and challenges. ASTM E517-00. B. Constitutive modeling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. 2004.. 2007. Shaw. we can see that it can be as low as 88% (for TRIP 780) and as high as 564% (for DP 780-HY). Zuidema. and it is still under development for elevated temperature to provide reliable data for warm sheet forming of light-weight materials such aluminum and magnesium alloys. In addition. Fuel Efﬁciency and Environmental Responsibility. R. Nomenclature ¯ R R R0 R90 Rc Rd to td average strain ratio planer anisotropy strain ratio in the rolling direction strain ratio in the transverse direction die corner radius radius of curvature at dome apex initial sheet thickness thickness at dome apex Greek letters ¯ ε effective strain εax or ε true strain in axial direction (tensile test) εt true strain in thickness direction (tensile test) εw true strain in width direction (tensile test) true stress in axial direction (tensile test) ¯ effective stress 1 and 2 principal stresses in the sheet surface effective stress corrected for anisotropy ¯ anis ¯ iso effective stress not corrected for anisotropy stress in the radial direction r Acknowledgements The Engineering Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing—ERC/NSM (www. 733. 2006. Hill. G. and the optimization tool LS-OPT..02.436 A. tested by the bulge test. New High Strength Steels Help Automakers Reach Future Goals for Safety. a new optimization methodology to determine the ﬂow stress of sheet materials. was developed at the ERC/NSM. the membrane theory equations used in the current methodology which assumes the bulge shape to be spherical are not used in the new methodology.ercnsm. Standard Test Method for Plastic Strain Ratio r for Sheet Metal. DP 780-HY is an obvious example.. Altan. since no extrapolations is needed as is the case when using tensile data.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.