Mise en Forme Par D - Formation Plastique 1 Cours 3 Materials Characterisation PDF

07.12.
2020
Mise en forme par déformation plastique 1
MECA 2
Lecture 03: Materials Characterisation
2020-21
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Sami Chatti
Content
L03 – Materials Characterisation

Determination of flow curves
Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
Hydraulic bulge test
Hardness measurement
2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.1
1
07.12.2020
Summary of plasticity (1)
True strain Equivalent plastic strain

 
1
d d 2 2
d 

     ln  1 


3
1  22  32 
0  0 
True stress Stress tensor
F   xx  xy  xz    1 0 0 
  
A  ij    yx  yy  yz    0  2 0 
 
   
 zx  zy  zz   0 0  3 
The flow stress is the stress that is necessary to cause

the plastic flow of the material.
Yield criterion (v. Mises)

1
kf    1   2 2   2   3  2   3   1 2 
2
Summary of plasticity (2)
The flow curve specifies the flow stress as a function of the

equivalent plastic strain. In addition, the flow stress is dependent on
the temperature and the strain rate.
k f ( , , T )
The strain rate can be described by the Levy-Mises flow rule:
     
ij ij
3
07.12.2020
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
Material properties in metal forming

in N/mm²
Stress-strain curve
Elastic region
Yield strength
• Young’s modulus E
Plastic region Necking

• 0.2% proof stress Rp0,2

• Poisson’s ratio ν
Plastic region Elastic region Fracture

Rm
• Flow curve kf (φ) (HOOKE´s line)

R p0,2
• Anisotropy coefficients r , r
(established in the tensile test) E E
ep ee e in %
R p0,2 Yield stress  Stress
Rm Tensile strength e Strain e  et  ee  ep = Au
E Youngs modulus et Total strain
Au Uniform elongation ee Elastic strain A
A Elongation at fracture ep Plastic strain At
At Total elongation
5
07.12.2020
Tests to determine flow curves
Bulk forming Sheet metal forming
Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
Hydraulic bulge
test
There are many more tests, which are not discussed here.
Standard test method
Special test method
Required range: Sheet metal forming:0    1 ; 0    0.1 s

1
Bulk forming: 0    4 ; 0    100 s 1
Range that can be determined

(example: sheet metal forming):
Biaxial tensile test
Tensile test
Flow stress kf
Upsetting test
Shear test
Torsion test
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Equivalent plastic strain 
7
07.12.2020
Extrapolation approaches
Cold forming: k f  C n (Ludwik/Hollomon)
 K (0   )n (Swift)
...
Flow curves
 k f    k f   k f 0  e c (Voce)
Warm forming: k f  K n m K = K(T)

n = n(T)
m = m(T)
Hot forming: k f  K m

n: Hardening exponent
m: Strain rate sensitivity exponent
Extrapolation of flow curves
600
Material: DC04
Swift
500 Swift Voce
Flow stress kf in N/mm2
K (MPa) 𝑘 (MPa)
Voce
400 553.5 403.7
300 𝜑0 𝑘 (MPa)
0.0059 179.1
Swift:
n
k = K ( 𝜑 + 𝜑)
200 f 0
Voce: n c
- ( c 𝜑) 0.245 10.19
kf =𝑘 - (𝑘 - 𝑘 ) e
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Equivalent plastic strain 
9
07.12.2020
Typical flow curves in cold forming
Material kf0 (MPa) C (MPa) n Material kf0 (MPa) C(MPa) n
St38* * Pöhlandt 730 0.100 42CrMo4 420 1100 0.149

** Tschätsch
St42* 850 0.230 16MnCr5* 810 0.090
St60* 890 0.150 20MnCr5* 950 0.150
C10* 800 0.240 100Cr6* 1160 0.180
Ck10*,** 260 730 0.216 Al99.5* 110 0.240
Ck15** 280 760 0.165 Al99.5** 60 150 0.222
Ck22** 320 760 0.157 Al99.8** 60 150 0.222
Ck35* 960 0.150 AlMgSi1** 130 260 0.197
Ck35** 340 950 0.178 AlMg3* 390 0.190
Ck45** 390 1000 0.167 CuZn10** 250 600 0.331
Cf53** 430 1140 0.170 CuZn30** 250 880 0.433
15Cr3* 850 0.090 CuZn37** 280 880 0.433
34Cr4** 410 970 0.118 CuZn40* 800 0.330
10
Typical flow curves in hot forming
Material m K (MPa) T (oC) Material m K (MPa) T (oC)

C15** 0.154 99/84 1100/1200 CuAl5** 0.163 102 800
C35** 0.144 89/72 1100/1200 Al99.5** 0.159 24 450
C45** 0.163 90/70 1100/1200 AlMn** 0.135 36 480
C60** 0.167 85/68 1100/1200 AlCuMg1** 0.122 72 450
X10Cr13** 0.091 105/88 1100/1250 AlCuMg2** 0.131 77 450
X5CrNi189** 0.094 137/116 1100/1250 AlMgSi1** 0.108 48 450
X5CrNiTi189** 0.176 100/74 1100/1250 AlMgMn** 0.194 70 480
E-Cu** 0.127 56 800 AlMg3** 0.091 80 450
CuZn28** 0.212 51 800 AlMg5** 0.110 102 450
CuZn37** 0.201 44 750 AlZnMgCu1,5** 0.134 81 450
CuZn40Pb2** 0.218 35 650
CuZn20Al** 0.180 70 800

* Pöhlandt
CuZn28Sn** 0.162 68 800 ** Tschätsch
11
07.12.2020
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
12
Tensile test
Clamping device
F   Fmax
Length
measuring
system
l  e 
Specimen
kf
 

max 0.2
13
07.12.2020
Tensile specimen
Flat specimen
Necking
Fracture
Round specimen
Necking
Fracture
14
FEM simulation of tensile test
Distribution of strain rate Distribution of equivalent plastic strain

Simple Tension Test Simple Tension Test
Equivalent Plastic Strain Rate Distribution Equivalent Plastic Strain Distribution
Material: Stainless Steel Gage Initial Diameter: 7.54 mm Gage Length: 48 mm Material: Stainless Steel Gage Initial Diameter: 7.54 mm Gage Length: 48 mm
Clamp Diameter: 10 mm Speed: 1 mm/s Clamp Diameter: 10 mm Speed: 1 mm/s
15
07.12.2020
Tensile test
(ELLI tele-operative testing cell)
16
Tensile test: Instability (1)

Extrapolated
True stress-strain
curve
Fracture
Stress
Fracture
Necking starts at the
maximum engineering
Onset of
necking stress and maximum
Engineering stress-strain curve
load, respectively.
Homogeneous forming Necking
Strain
17
07.12.2020
Static equilibrium:
d xx dA
F   xx  A  dF  A  d xx   xx  dA 0  (1)

    xx A
Verfestigung
Hardening Querschnittsminderung
Reduction of cross-
section area
Constant volume condition:

dA d
A0   0  A      dA  A  d   0     dxx  d (2)
A 
y A
F F x
Flow curve:
dk f n dk f n
 xx  k f  C n   nC n1  kf   d (3)
d  kf 
18
d xx dk f
(1) and (2) give:  d and accordingly:  d (4)
 xx kf
n
(4) and (3) yield: d  d

Or:  n → Onset of plastic instabilities.
Thus, the tensile test can only be evaluated up to an

equivalent plastic strain of n. This value is in the range of
0.1 < n < 0.4 for most metals.
19
07.12.2020
Evaluation until fracture
After onset of necking:

d
d 
  2  ln  0 
d
with d0 : initial diameter
F 
Siebel: kf  with A  d2
 d  4
A  1  
 8r 
F r
Bridgman: kf 
 4r   d 
A  1    ln1  
 d   4r 
20
Tensile test at high temperatures (1000+ C)
YouTube
21
07.12.2020
MFDP interactive
Question: How does the stress-strain curve at high temperature (T2) change
qualitatively compared to the test at room temperature (T1)?
a) The stress increases 1
𝑇2
σ0 0,9
𝑇1 0,8
0,7
ε
0,6
b) The stress is reduced A
0,5
B
𝑇1
σ0 0,4 C
𝑇2
0,3
0,2
ε
0,1
c) The curve remains unchanged
0
σ0 A B C
𝑇1 = 𝑇2
ID = sami.chatti@udo.edu
Vote has not been started yet
Start Vote
ε
22
Example 1: Material characterisation by tensile test

F
A specimen with a diameter d0 of 8.5 mm is tested by tensile
F0
loading. The initial measurement length is taken as l0 = 50 mm.
a) The change in length of the specimen is Δl
= 0.06 mm which is subjected to a tensile
load of F = 4.85 kN at the moment when the
l
l0
sample starts to deform plastically. Determine

the elastic modulus and the yield stress.
b) The change in length of the specimen is Δl Spannung
Stress
= 2.51 mm which is subjected to a tensile  in MPa F0 F
load of F = 8.5 kN. Determine the Rm
engineering as well as true stress and strain
values at this point.
R p0,2
c) The sample fractured after a change in

length of Δl = 13.75 mm with the diameter of E= e
5.3 mm. Determine the elongation at fracture
Ag
A (%) and the reduction of area Z (%).
Stress-strain graph in uniaxial Dehnung
Strain
d) What kind of material could it be? e in %
tensile test (schematic)
23
07.12.2020
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
24
Upsetting test (1)

(also: compression test)
F
A0 Attainable true strains

A(F) kf
h0
z
h(F)
 rr 0 0  0 0 0
   
   0 zz 0     0 zz 0    0.8 – 1.0
 0 0 θθ  0 0 0
   
 zz  2 rr  2
25
07.12.2020
Upsetting test (2)

10 mm
Aluminium
Steel
20 mm
Specimen before Specimens after

forming forming
Problem: Forming is inhomogeneous due to friction effects

(barrel-shaped bulge of the specimen)
26
Influence of friction
Specimen before
forming Specimens after forming
μ=0 μ = 0.1 μ = 0.5
Finite Element Simulations 0 0.38 0.75 1.13 1.5 
Friction conditions too high ideal (μ=0)

deformation inhomogeneous homogeneous
stress tensor multidimensional one-dimensional
evaluability challenging (under simplifications) relative simple
27
07.12.2020
Upsetting test according to Rastegaev (1)
Lubricant Advantages:
u0 Good lubrication due to pockets
Homogeneous forming for the most part
Higher true strains possible:  = 1.2 ... 1.5
Drawbacks:
h0
t0
Increase of measuring inaccuracy

d0 End faces do not remain flat
Recommendation: Lubricants:
Room temperature: Paraffin
Up to 300°C: Teflon
u0 = 0.05 d0 (Steel) Up to 400°C: Graphite
Not recommended = 0.03 d0 (Copper) Up to 800°C: Boron nitride
for hot forming t0 = 0.02 d0 800 – 1300°C: Glass
28
Upsetting test according to Rastegaev (2)
Edge
Paraffin
Before forming After forming
Conventional Rastegaev Severely deformed
29
07.12.2020
Determination of flow curve in Rastegaev test (1)
Stress and strain increments:

F
 zz   ,  xx   yy   xy   yz   zx  0
A
dh d
dzz   , dxx  dyy   zz , dxy  dyz  dzx  0
h 2
1
         
 6  xy2   yz2   zx2    zz
2 2 2
k f   v.M .   xx   yy   zz   xx
2 
yy zz

  
d 
2  2
3     
dzz  dxx2  d yy2   2 dxy2  d yz2  dzx2    d
 zz
 0.25dzz2 0.25dzz2  
30
Determination of flow curve in Rastegaev test (2)
Thus, the flow stress, the equivalent plastic strain and strain rate are:
F h  v
kf  ;   ln  0  ,   tool
A h h
The reduction of height h is measured during the test. Hence:
4 F  h   1   vtool
kf   1   ;   ln   ,  
 d02  h0   1  h h0  h0  h
31
07.12.2020
Upsetting test with friction
For the upsetting test, specimens having h < d/2, the following equations
can be approximately used to determine the flow curve:
F  h0  d
d2 /4   ln   or   2ln  
k f    h  d0 
 1 d
1      (Problem: which d ?!)
 3 h
The following must apply for a constant strain rate:
Wz  t   h0 e
vtool   t (Plastometer)
32
Ring upsetting test

(also: ring compression test)
10 mm
20 mm
Initial specimen Compressed specimen
33
07.12.2020
MFDP interactive
Question: Which statement about the influence of friction on the ring

compression test is correct?
1
Answer options: 0,9
0,8
A) The inside diameter at high friction
0,7
is larger than at low friction
0,6
𝜇 ↑⇒𝐷 ↑
0,5
B) The inside diameter at low friction 0,4

is larger than at high friction 0,3
𝜇 ↓⇒𝐷 ↑ 0,2
0,1
C) The inner diameter is not influenced
0
by the friction A B C
𝐷 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡. ID = sami.chatti@udo.edu
0 votes
Reset Vote
34
Simulation of ring compression test
Ring Compression
Equivalent Plastic Strain Distribution
Material: Ck15 Specimen Outer Diameter: 20 mm Specimen Inner Diameter: 10 mm
Specimen Height: 7 mm Fiction Coefficient: 0.1 & 0.5
µ = 0.1
µ = 0.5
35
07.12.2020
Example 2: Material characterisation by cylinder

compression test
Consider the shown structure of an upsetting test. Assume that there is
no friction between workpiece and tool. The material shall be characterized
until an equivalent plastic strain of 𝜑 = 0.5.
The testing machine can afford a maximum force of 𝐹 = 750 kN.
You know an approximated flow curve for a similar material from the
literature. It is described by 𝑘 = 𝐶 𝜑 with 𝐶 = 195 MPa and 𝑛 = 0.15.
Check, if the planned material characterization can be carried out on this
testing machine. Assume isotropic material behavior.
ℎ = Initial height
𝑑 = Initial diameter
ℎ = Current height
𝑑 = Current diameter
𝐹 = Upsetting force
36
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
37
07.12.2020
Torsion test
Stress state:
The only non-zero component
of the stress tensor
(cold forming)
r
1  T 
 z    z   3
3 T  z 
2 R    z 
Strain state:
The only non-zero component
z of the strain tensor
R 1 R
d  z  tan  d   d  d z  d z  d z  d
 2 2
R R
It is:   z   d  z     z  
 2
38
Stress and strains at torsion test
Applying v. Mises flow criterion:

  
1
       
2 2
kf   xx   yy   zz   xx
2
 6  xy2   yz2   zx2   3
2   
yy zz z
  2z 

 k f  3 z
  
d 
2
3
2
 2 2
  
dxx  d yy  dzz  2  dxy2  d yz2  dzx2 

  d2z 
2 R
 d  d z consequently:   
3 3 
39
07.12.2020
Experimental setup of torsion test
High strength steel: Mild Steel:

brittle ductile
Experimental setup
Helical Planar
fracture fracture
Specimens
Chen & Ferguson Jeff Thomas, 1997
40
Torsion test for sheet metal forming
Inner fixation
Wrinkles
ri
T
Thickness t ro
Outer fixation
Tekkaya & Pöhlandt
41
07.12.2020
In-plane torsion test (1)
gripped
undeformed
line of
material
ri
T material T
line ro
T formed

ri
rotating
T
ro
T ( )
Stress, differing from zero:  r (r, ) 
2 r 2t
2  T ( )
Strain, differing from zero at the inner gripping:  r (ri , ) 
 dT d 
Tekkaya & Pöhlandt
42
In-plane torsion test (2)
With v. Mises yield criterion at r = ri:
  
1
       
2 2
kf   xx   yy   zz   xx
2
 6  xy2   yz2   zx2   3
2   
yy zz r
   r2 
 k f  3 r r ri
  
d 
2
3  
dxx  d yy  dzz  2  dxy2  dyz2  dzx2
2 2 2
    = 2 𝑑𝜑
 3
  dr2 
2 2  T ( )
 d  dr  r r 
3   dT d 
therefore: i
3
Tekkaya & Pöhlandt
43
07.12.2020
Flow curve in in-plane torsion test
Determination of the flow curve with optical strain measurement:
Optical strain Calculation Point cloud

Attribution
measurement of  or kf 
to kf and 
 and r (x,y) from T and r Flow curve

120
Flow stress kf in MPa

100
80
Point cloud
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Recording GOM Argus, Al99.5; sheet thickness 1mm Equivalent strain 
44
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
45
07.12.2020
Measurement head
Inductive displacement encoder
(height)
(vertical)
(horizontal)
Die Sheet metal segment
Ring piston
Clamping tool
Pressure transducer
( according to F. Gologranc )
46
Stress and strain state in hydraulic bulge test
Pole
Sheet
Clamping
r t
Stress state in pole: Strain increment in pole:
pr 1 dt
    , d  d   dtt  
2t 2 2t
 tt  0
47
07.12.2020
Flow curve from hydraulic bulge test
 2
 
2
  
2 
kf 
1 
 xx   yy     yy   zz
2  p   
      6 2  2  2
  zz xx xy yz zx  

 r  2 t  p r  2t    pr  2t    pr  2t   
pr
thus: kf 
2t
Similar for the equivalent strain:
2
𝑑𝜑̄ = 𝑑𝜑 + 𝑑𝜑 + 𝑑𝜑 + 2 𝑑𝜑 + 𝑑𝜑 + 𝑑𝜑
3
/ /
dt t
d  dtt     ln 0
t t
48
Example 3: Material characterisation by hydraulic

bulge test
The hydraulic bulge test is available to characterize a forming material (see figure).
Pole
Free surface
Sheet
Clamping
Initial sheet position
Look at the pole of the sample on the free surface. Determine the corresponding
three-dimensional stress tensor as a function of the flow stress kf. Assume that the
sample is in a state of homogeneous plastic deformation. The von Mises yield
criterion must be used.
Equivalent stress according to VON MISES:
𝜎 . . = 𝜎 −𝜎 + 𝜎 −𝜎 + 𝜎 −𝜎 + 6(𝜏 +𝜏 +𝜏 )
49
07.12.2020
Content

Tensile test
Upsetting test
Torsion test
50
Hardness
Definition:
The resistance of a material against the
penetration of another body
Hardness measurement gives information about

strength
wear resistance of a material
When hardness values are given, the hardness measurement

technique must also be mentioned, since the penetration
capability depends on the shape and the hardness of the other
body as well as on the type and the magnitude of the load.
51
07.12.2020
Hardness measurement techniques

(static test)
Brinell indentation test Vickers indentation test
F D
22°
Brinell hardness: Vickers hardness:

0.102  F 0.102  2  F  136 
HB   F  2  sin  
A

  D D  D2  d 2  HV  0.102 
F
 0.102 
 2   0.189  F
F=[N], D=[mm], d=[mm] A d2 d2
F=[N], d=[mm], A=[mm²], d d
d 1 2
Advantages of Vickers test A ≡ Surface area of indentation 2
Superior resolution compared to spherical indenters
Indenter is self-similar (hardness is ideally independent of indentation
load and indentation depth)
52
Measurement of flow stress by means of

Vickers hardness
Specimen produced by forward rod extrusion (See lecture Cold Forging)
Billet Extrudate  is exactly known in

the axis of the
extrudate
16MnCr5
 = 1.60
240 mm 190 mm
(Tekkaya)
53
07.12.2020
Relation between Flow stress and Vickers hardness
HV  c  k f ,rep (at*)
where,
HV: Vickers Hardness in kg/mm2
c: Constant with value 2.475
kf,rep: Representative flow stress in kg/mm2
at strain *
FEM simulation of indentation test
*: Offset equivalent plastic strain
(* = 0.112)
(Tekkaya)
54
Utilisation of hardness measurement
• Obtain an accurate flow curve of the

material up to high plastic strains Flow stress
• Measure the Vickers hardness (HV) kf,rep

at a given location of the product
kf
• Compute the representative flow
stress (in MPa) from the proposed
formula as
kf,rep (at 𝜑 *) = 9.81  HV / 2.475
• Find from the flow curve the point

with the flow stress kf,rep corres-
ponding to a plastic strain of 𝜑 * Equivalent plastic strain
• The actual flow stress kf at the

respective location is the one
corresponding to 𝜑 = 𝜑 * - 0.112 Vickers indentation test
55
07.12.2020
Example 4: Material characterisation by hardness test
You want to characterise a material at a

certain location using a machine for
Vickers indentation test. From material
supplier, you got the given flow curve of Flow stress
this material. You applied a force of 16693 600
N on the this location and you measured
an indentation of d1 = d2 = 5 mm. 500
determine the Vickers hardness (HV) of
the material and the value of the flow 400
stress at the corresponding location.
300
200
22°
100
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Vickers indentation test Equivalent plastic strain
56
Further procedures
• Biaxial tensile test • Compression test for sheets • Shear test
• Layer compression test
• High speed tensile test

• Inverse methods
57
07.12.2020
Appendix: French for Production Engineers
English Français English Français

Biaxial tensile Essai de traction
Hardness Dureté
test biaxiale
Bulging Gonflage Helical fracture Rupture hélicoïdale
Elongation at Allongement à la High speed Essai de traction à
fracture rupture tensile test grande vitesse
Courbe High strength Acier à haute
Flow curve
d'écrouissage steel résistance
Hydraulic bulge Essais d‘emboutissage
Formability Ductilité
test hydraulique
Fracture, Layer Essai d'écrasement en
Rupture
Rupture compression test couches
Hardening Durcissement Mild steel Acier doux
Hardening Coefficient
Necking Rétreint / Striction
exponent d'écrouissage
58
Appendix: French for Production Engineers
English Français English Français

Essais de
Planar fracture Rupture plane Torsion test
torsion
Essais de torsion Allongement
Plane Torsion Test Total elongation
planaire total
Uniform Allongement
Ring upsetting test Test de l‘anneau
elongation uniforme
Essai de Essai de
Shear test Upsetting test
cisaillement compression
Vitesse de Critère de
Strain rate Yield criterion
déformation plasticité
Strain rate Coeff. de sensibilité Limite
Yield strength
sensitivity exponent à la vitesse d'élasticité
Résistance en Young’s Module
Tensile strength
traction modulus d'élasticité
Tensile test Essai de traction
59

Mise en Forme Par D - Formation Plastique 1 Cours 3 Materials Characterisation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mise en Forme Par D - Formation Plastique 1 Cours 3 Materials Characterisation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07.12.

Mise en forme par déformation plastique 1

Lecture 03: Materials Characterisation

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Sami Chatti

L03 – Materials Characterisation

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.1

Summary of plasticity (1)

True strain Equivalent plastic strain

The flow stress is the stress that is necessary to cause

Yield criterion (v. Mises)

Summary of plasticity (2)

The flow curve specifies the flow stress as a function of the

The strain rate can be described by the Levy-Mises flow rule:

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.3

L03 – Materials Characterisation

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.4

Material properties in metal forming

• 0.2% proof stress Rp0,2

Plastic region Elastic region Fracture

• Flow curve kf (φ) (HOOKE´s line)

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.5

Tests to determine flow curves

Bulk forming Sheet metal forming

Standard test method

Special test method

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.6

Determination of flow curves

Required range: Sheet metal forming:0    1 ; 0    0.1 s

Bulk forming: 0    4 ; 0    100 s 1

Range that can be determined

Biaxial tensile test

Cold forming: k f  C n (Ludwik/Hollomon)

Warm forming: k f  K n m K = K(T)

Hot forming: k f  K m

Extrapolation of flow curves

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.9

Typical flow curves in cold forming

Material kf0 (MPa) C (MPa) n Material kf0 (MPa) C(MPa) n

St38* * Pöhlandt 730 0.100 42CrMo4 420 1100 0.149

Typical flow curves in hot forming

Material m K (MPa) T (oC) Material m K (MPa) T (oC)

C35** 0.144 89/72 1100/1200 Al99.5** 0.159 24 450

C45** 0.163 90/70 1100/1200 AlMn** 0.135 36 480

C60** 0.167 85/68 1100/1200 AlCuMg1** 0.122 72 450

X10Cr13** 0.091 105/88 1100/1250 AlCuMg2** 0.131 77 450

X5CrNi189** 0.094 137/116 1100/1250 AlMgSi1** 0.108 48 450

X5CrNiTi189** 0.176 100/74 1100/1250 AlMgMn** 0.194 70 480

E-Cu** 0.127 56 800 AlMg3** 0.091 80 450

CuZn28** 0.212 51 800 AlMg5** 0.110 102 450

CuZn37** 0.201 44 750 AlZnMgCu1,5** 0.134 81 450

CuZn40Pb2** 0.218 35 650

CuZn20Al** 0.180 70 800

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.11

L03 – Materials Characterisation

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.12

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.13

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.14

FEM simulation of tensile test

Distribution of strain rate Distribution of equivalent plastic strain

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.15

2020-21 L03 – Materials Characterisation 3.16

Tensile test: Instability (1)

Homogeneous forming Necking

C35 0.144 89/72 1100/1200 Al99.5 0.159 24 450

C45 0.163 90/70 1100/1200 AlMn 0.135 36 480

C60 0.167 85/68 1100/1200 AlCuMg1 0.122 72 450

X10Cr13 0.091 105/88 1100/1250 AlCuMg2 0.131 77 450

X5CrNi189 0.094 137/116 1100/1250 AlMgSi1 0.108 48 450

X5CrNiTi189 0.176 100/74 1100/1250 AlMgMn 0.194 70 480

E-Cu 0.127 56 800 AlMg3 0.091 80 450

CuZn28 0.212 51 800 AlMg5 0.110 102 450

CuZn37 0.201 44 750 AlZnMgCu1,5 0.134 81 450