Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • At 3 Manual

    Uploaded by

    muji
    11 views56 pages

    Original Title

    at3manual

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views56 pages

    At 3 Manual

    Uploaded by

    muji

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 56
    Aluminum for Automotive Body Sh The Aluminum Association Aluminum for Automotive Body Sheet Panels Automotive & Light Truck Committee Sponsors Alcon Aluminum Corporation Aluminum Company of America Aluminum Precision Products ARCO Aluminum, Inc Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation Hydro Raufoss Automotive, Holland, Ml Koiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. Nichols Aluminum Noranda Aluminum, Inc, Reynolds Metals Compony Southwire Company VAW. of America, Ine Wabash Alloys Publication AT3. * December, 1998 The information in this publication has been prepared by the member companies and is believed to be accurte a the time of publicetion. The Aluminum Association and its member companies ossume no responsibilty for its uses. No warranties, ‘xpr655 oF implied, by The Aluminum Associaton or its member companies accompany this information. © Copyright 1998 The Aluminum Associfon Table 10 20 3.0 40 5.0 70 of Contents Irroducton Proprtes of Abminum Aloys for Adoratve Body Panel Shot Design Comideratins 1 DentResitonce 3.2 Panel Deletion 3.3 Bending and Torsional Sifness 3.4 Flange Design 35 Vbretor 36 Fotioue 3.7 Aluminum Dasign Mon Forming Aluminum Auto Body Shot 4.1 Fermabilly Cheracerisis of Aluminum Alleys 4.2. Pat Too, ond Process Datign for Manslachabiliy 43 Process Soup Joining Comideration in Design 5.1 Spot Welding 5.2 Urroione Welding 5.3 Wolebooding 5.4 Inet Gos Waleng Proceses 55 Sud Welding 5.6 loser Welding 5.7 Adhesive Bonding 5.8 Nockonical Fastening 5.9 Nechonical Fosening Pus Adhesive Bording 5.10 Joining Dissinlor Mees Fishing 6.1 Cloring 6.2 Phosphating 63 Elchceating 6.4 Parkrmonce Reguitoments 6.5 Alorsatve Methods ‘Summary 18 23 25 25 a 28 31 35 36 “37 39 a2 43 43 45 46 46 46 “a7 9 30 eerie This technical publication has been prepared by The Aluminum Association to assist automotive companies and their suppliers in the selection and effective application of aluminum alloy sheet materials for body panel and closure components In this publication, the focus is on those specific aluminum cheet alloys recommended for body components, and it covers all relevant aspects of design and application During the past decade, alu- rninum body sheet has been used for specific applications such as hoods on afew high-volume production vehicles in North America. On a ‘worldwide basis, aluminum panels have been used on a large number of specialty vehicles in similar pplica- tions. The use of aluminum saves ‘weight, 40 t0 60% compared to. steel, e., about 11 kg (24 Ib) for the hood of a mid-sized sedan, In recent years, this weight s ing potential has enabled cars to be kept within a certain weight class while safety and environmental functional improve ments, sich as air bags and anti-lock braking systems, have been added to the vehicles, ‘The overall benefits of aluminum for weight reduction and fuel savings ave being increasingly recognized by the automotive industry. Many more aluminum body panels are now being specified for vehicles ar the conceptual design stage se that designers can take advantage of the auditional weight savings in design of other systems like aking and suspension. Aluminum body sheet has the advantage that it ean be han- dled, formed, joined, and finished in much the same ways and using largely the same equipment and syp- tems that are used today for steel sheet panels. However aluminum has its own unique characteristics, and it is the purpose of this publication to provide specific information on: + the mechanical properties, phys cal properties and formability of the curtent generation of alu ‘minum alloy + design considerations, blanking and forming information, and rel= evant die design considerations; + joining technology, including spot welding, fusion welding, mechan- ical fastening, and adhesive bonding technologies; and + finishing processes, including both conventional phosphating and electro-coating, plus newer alkernative methods now becom ing available, Aluminum pandls have excellent corrosion resistance. When they are cused and finished in ways that recog: nize the unique characteristics of aluminum alloys, they will provide outstanding performance and long: term durability. The purpote of this publication is to aid designers and ‘manufacturers in using aluminum sheet to its maximum advantage in A listing of the applications of aluminum body sheet in current pro- duction applications is provided in the Annex, page 50. Properties of od ree rere) Cees ‘A combination of low density, high strength, and excellent corrosion resistance makes aluminum alloys arteuct ane applications. While a nurnber of aluminum alloys may be used for for many automobile body such applications, several alloys have emerged 2s being particularly atrac- tive for body panel designs they are listed in Table 2.1 with their com mercial composition limits. Other properties, discussed below, are pre sented in Tables 2.2 to 2.8, and in Figure 2.1. 2.17 Three types of aluminum alloys are available for body panel applies tions, aluminum-copper alloys, alu- minum: nd alu- ragnesium allo sminum-magnesium-silicon alloys: 2, Dex (Al-Cu) alloys ~ 2008, 2020, and 2036 are the principal alu- sminum-copper (Al-Cu) or 2x Notes: oy M00 a @ w series of alloys used in body panel applications. They are heat-tres able, and typically are supplied in the T4 (solution heat-treated and natucally aged) temper. In that condition, 2008 and 2010 will experience some strengthening. from precipitation aging during. typical automotive paint bake cycles. Oftthe 2nxe alloys, 2036 has the highest strength before and after paint baking, though relatively high temperatures (higher than those in most paint bake eyeles) ace required to achieve additional ngthening. Alloys 2008 and 2010 were designed to provi improved formability over 2036, and they also have better general A special emper of 2010, desig- nated TAI, is resistant tothe for- ration of ridging lines (paint brush fines) which may otherwise coccur upon th transverse strain during stamping. application of bb, Sxx(Al-Mg) alloys - 5182, 5454, and 5754 are the principal alaminum-magnesium (Al-Mg) or Sx series alloys for auto body panels; they abo contain man- ganese. These alloys are not pre- cipitation hardenable and so do not strength during the paint bat sole. They may experience some additional strengthening from Forming, but much of that may be lost during paint bake 20 their annealed (-0) temper prop- certes provide a conservative est mate of ther strength for most ‘The Succ alloys are exceptionally formable and have very high resistance to corrosion, Because the Stor alloy ue susceptible to 1 formation of Lakler’s bands during forming, they may not be good candidates for outer panels. Note also that Sve alloys with magnesium contents above about 3 percent, inchuding 5182, may be subject to stress-eorrosion crack: ing after forming and subsequent PEW Race ee eee 2008 14 250136) 135 28 las 2) 162 300 aay 240 13180. (26) 7 IO 240135) 130 25 las 2 wa] 5S 162" i 160 (23) we 20501 a 10s (24) 160123) 1301191 1191 120 (20) 135 2a) 3254 lec! 280 142) 7 = 270 oe 762 300 sal @ti0o (0) Ober» 02% (2) Aro fr mete ond conprenie lasing (9 Antaly aged theo 200210 °C (392.4107) hom te 14 temper 1 Anti aged 1/2 h of 200210 °C [982-4107] hon te T4 von (9 Bea por Alminim Sorts & Doty 1997 TABLE 2.3 TENTATIVE TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES—ALUMINUM BODY SHEET ALLOYS 23.4130) 010650 272/098) 4 26145.5) 86 (149) 11301205) 23.4 (130) 005050 272/098) 111201205) 14, Tai Tez i128) 25143) 83 (143) 20% 23.4 (130) 555650 275{0.100) 4 15911100) Mii) 781035) 110301200) 5182 24.1134) 57564) 265(0.096) ° 121 (e40) TIT) 6a (1104 {1070711855 - sas 2361131) e00sa5 o 134 680 Did ewiiiai T5195) 3758 23.8132) 590685 o 132116) 19193) [109511957 08 5650. TET Riad) ea aa i120" OR 2.41130) 580650 269100071 74 ~ == (1075-1205) ait 24130) 385650 271 10.098) 14,14 7 Bo] 7113 10901200) (1) Evoctc meting my be canplely late by homogenization ay 0 pe Ainam Sandor & Data. 1997 long-term exposure to high tem ‘The T41 temper, resistant to the ‘The tensile properties of repre- peratures above 150'F, such as formation of ridging (paint brush) sentative lots of several of the body ‘proximity to exhaust or etalytic lines which may otherwise occur panel alloys after 2 percent stretch systems; however, stessrcorresion upon the application of transverse and a subsequent heating cycle of 30 susceptibility is not generally a strain during stamping, is also avail- ‘minutes at 17 (350°F), intended practical consideration in most able for 6111. to represent a forming operation fol- body panel applications. lowed by atypical paint bake eycle, are shown in Table 25, As noted ‘&. Gxxx (AL-Mg-Si) alloys - 6009, Propertios above; the lower stengen 200% alloys (6022 and 6111 are aluminum ‘The typical mechanical and physical (2008 and 2010) and the 6x00« alloys -magnesium-silicon (Al-Mg-Si) or properties of aluminum body panel ‘experience some strengthening asa Goce body pand alloys, andare heat alloysare shown in Tables 2.2 and eeu of the paint bake alone and a trcaible They too espondto pre 2.3, espetively, and the tensile eerie trcrege if cold norte cipitation hardening during paint propecty limits are shown in Table before the paint bake ‘bake cycles. Of the three alloys, 2.4. The properties shown for some ‘The fatigue properties of repre- {6111 has highest strength; 6009 alloys are identified as tentative.” sentative lots some of the alloys are had dighaly grant Becabitsyin This indicates that these propert shown in Table 2.6 for consaat-load bending, while 6111 has superior hhave been established from limited flexure or axal-stress testing, and in stretch-forming characteristics dara and are subject to change. Figure 2.1 for controled strain test 2008 4 20031.50 __9.0259.059) (32.0 los 115.0) 2 Z010-14" 30031.80 _9.9250.070) 132.0, io 110.0) 2 30031.80 __9.0259.070} 132.0 lio (16.0) 2 2030 30.038.20 142.0, (23.0) 20 5182< = ".0250.125), 157.0)" 0116.0), 18 5540 0500.89 9.0200.031) 112.0) 2 3080127 10.0320.050__ 112.0) 1s 72.87.0510. 52.0) 16 37540 10.0300.055), 112.0" 7 —__0.0560.087) (9.0880.138) 008 Ta 210.070) 19.125) wate —9.0209.120} ein Ta 1p.0200.070) Tai (p.0250.070) (1 Ober 20.28 (2) nome (2) Maxime = 225 470) Ut Meir = 285 (0) (5) Moumon = 270 (990) ene rerrin are eT eT eT eee ey 255971 14521) 235 (34) 130_(19) 315 (46) 180126) 275_(40)___130_[19) 50 G6) 115 LI) 220 (32) 95 ‘(Nal 75 0) 180 275140) 170 (25), 310145) 200 (29) 29042) 180 (26) ing. Though not all of the alloys are Pecrinrriae ae represented in any one test condition, the dita are sufficient, especially those in Figure 2.1, to illustrate that ‘ : there are only small and possibly \ 2008 = = ‘unimportant differences in the 16 = 200 29 209 fatigue properties of the various alloys 201074 = at reltively high numbers of lo 25118] = = fait = = repetitions and long service lives 05 113) = = Formability data for the alu~ 20112) = = ‘minum body pane! alloys are shown 1307 186.227) CANO) in Table 2.7. Alloys 2008, 5182 and 7 oR Seng) 5754 are best in this respect, though all of the alloys have useful combina: tions of strength and formability General consensus rankings of the alloys are presented in Table 2.8 based upon resistance to corrosion general formability, fasion weldability and spot weldabilty. References 2.1. Aluminum Standasds 8 Dara, 1997, The Aluminum Associaion, Inc., Washington, DC; for sources of properties not covered in Aluminum Standards & Data, Aluminum Association, TABLE 2.7 TENTATIVE TYPICAL FORMABLILTY PARAMETERS FOR ALUMINUM BODY SHEET ALLOYS" Radius for Radius for Alley & Temper 90" Bend Down Flangor Hom ” eo 2) 3) er erry reer res Peery Ere aeCUtr err) oe eer yer COT met ETS nea Tee strate For the most efficient and economi- cal application of aluminum for romotive panels or assemblies, itis necessary t0 optimize the design of the part specifically for the proper: ties and characteristics of aluminum, This requires knowledge of the physical and mechanical properties of aluminum alloys as well as an understanding of the forming and joining characteristics. When designing an automotive panel or assembly, the performance requirements for the component rust be considered. Issues such as dent resistance, local stiffness, and cverall tonional and bending stiff ness shoul be addressed scrength rect or d panel iad vibration effects must aceed design criteria Fatigue resistance, barrier perfor ‘mance and attachment strategy are typical concems for automotive exterior pane! applications, Topi sider aluminum as a lightweighting an engineer will con: option. In some situations, i is pos- eel panel sible to take an existing design and make minor modifi tions to the thickness and/or eross- sectional area to compensate for the lower modulus of elasticity of alu- minum and a lightweight a minum pane! with performance cquivalent to that of the steel panel However, to obtain the maximum weight savings, it is de approach the design with the char rable to acteritics of aluminum io mind right from the start. A weight sav- ings of approximately 40-50% can bye obtained simply by converting an existing steel design toa similar design in slurninum, while a design ‘optimized for aluminum has provid- ced weight savings up t 65% over 2 ccomparible stel panel Tis also important to consider the manufac- turing requirements early in the design stage. sion will ‘The following dis provide guidance for the use of alu- minum in automotive panel and assembly applications. Additional valuable information is contsined in References 3.1 through 3.4 Dent resiscan pecially under impact conditions, is a complex issue, and the following comments will serve asa guideline to the more important factors, Reference 4 is valuable for additional treatment of this subject. The dent resistance of an outer panel is governed by the yield strength f the material, its thickness, the shape, and the unsupported panel area. Since the outer panel design typically cannot be altered by the engineer, thickness and yield strength are the available variables In such cases, the following relation- ship should be used to obtain equiv- alent dent resistance between alu- ‘minum and steel where fy 4, = thickness of aluminum and steel, cespectively ya, Zyi= eld strength oF aluminum and steel, respectively. “i ng dent performance of automo- are two methods for com- P tive body panels: threshold velocity and equivalent depth of dent ‘Threshold velocity isthe minimam impact velocity required to initiate a perceptible dent (or the maximum impact velocity that will not produce a perceptible dent), Threshold veloc itis are typically determined exper: mentally. Various test have been per formed in laboratories using steel balls to impact the surface of si lated bedy panels and actual peoduc~ tion hoods, with the velocity of the steel ball ranging from 32.2 km/h (20 mph) to greater than 96.6 km/h (60 mph). The results of these stud- pane! contributes to improved dent resistance, as does incr thi nother technique establishing, dent performance is to consider depth of dent developed in compo: nents at a given velocity and mass of CERN eC ee TT) There are ewo approaches for minimizing the deflection of an alu- ov kien. minum assembly. Either the outer ss. 16 Hoi 2 pone thickness is increased, or the span between inner panel supporting ast a beans is decreased. The second approach is much more efficient. zo Ose Equal deflection can be obtained i 201674 with an aluminum panel witha span : is[ ste 70% that ofa tel panel of equal 7 600814. thickness. This does not require a i elon clange in the depth or width ofthe TOP sooo inner panel beam section, Figure 3.2 son demonstrates te flect of reducing eed the span by 50% between two sup- fetes acs porting beams onthe deflection of ° 1 1 hi 0 an alrninum hood design Although ° 708 70 00 the equation used is actually for a oe simple beam, it is adequate to demonstrate the concept described above. Using this equation, the deflection of the aluminurn oute: abject. Testing was conducted on panel may be reduced by a factor of schon wun bol component 1 2.67 ifthe thickness of the alu- determine this relationship. Trinur and tel panel are the Figure 3.1 shows the test results (of 0.23 kg (0.5 Ib) steel ball ‘This concept can be extend imptcting a hood at 28 kav (17.3 For exterior panel applications, further ifthe inner panel is designed mph). As shown in che graph, dent deflections of the panel in the imme- asa membrane with multiple contact Performance is proportional to the diate vicinity ofthe applied load are points bonded to the ouver pane! yield strength(o,,) and the gauge‘ ofa part (dent an important design consider on. (see Figure 3.3). This membrane “Typically, the deflection of a compo- design, often scferved toni a muld- nent or subassembly under load must VE). By using this relationship to determine the cone ora teacup design has the be controlled to avoid contact with jotsadal ef nedacing both tnaatand mp proper gauge for the alloy selected, it is possible to design aluminum and tis the other parts. Equally outer panel thicknesses and mini- steel hoods with equal dent resis “fel? or deflection of « panel, when itiding seetion dept’ comparhoa snes. a customer applies pressure to it:'The to a conventional beam design. The geometry of the outer panel, along sak son ga fan pods with the design af the inner panel, 2506 weight savings over aa al are important factors in local panel minum conventional beam design, stiffness. The overall curvature of the hile providing equivalent or pane, the span between supports, improved performance. The local and the panel thickness should sll be stiffness of the outer panel is alzo considered in the inner panel desiga. substantially improved since the ‘unsupported outer panel areais also minimized. The multi-cone concept has been shown to be more efficient, cort-effective design for an aluminum hood or decklid assembly in compasi- son to the traditional inner panel design with lightening holes or Steet Hood cutouts. va Ar. 1 Bending and ) Sten Eros steel 1. eee ey [A related performance criterion is ‘nonteeet _ Kmy2y OL the bending and torsional stiffness of Deflection = Tae an automotive panel or assembly 31 Sulfite of inaiviual pi Canceling out the common terms ofthe two equations, the results: dy = 0.375 day els s required for in-plant handling. i cpbicag lps sa oid apt a For components such as hoods, deck lids and doors, the stiff the entire assembly must also be consid ered, Bending and torsional siffness is dependent on panel thickness, the geometry of the cross-sectional bear and the beam pattern, In certain exte tor panel applications, such asa fend cr or a quarter panel, there is no inne: panel for support. In these cases, the cengincer can maintain pane! stiin only by increasing the thickness of the pan 1. Assumin onted panel, the thickness of an aluminum design would noed to be nearly 44% greater than a steel part to obtain U resistance to deflection. This Uupgauge would sil achieve appro mately 50% weight savings. For applications where thee is an inner panel ot reinforcement, it is possible to maintain bendin 10 ‘moment of inertia for the particular beam cross-section. As it turns out, this method is much more efficient than simply increasing the thickness ofthe panels. Figure 3.4 illustrates the relative gains in stiffness by both of these approaches. In comparison to steel, the effec- tive moment of inertia for an alu ‘minum design would need to increase by a factor of three. The depth of the section would need to inevesse by approximately 44% to match the performance of a steel part In certain situations, the pack- aging constraints do not allow for a deeper section. For these applica tions, either the width of the section for the material gauge mus To maincain an equivalent level of pecformance to a steel panel, the width of the beam cross-section should be increased by approximately 50%, These changes would provide approximately 50-60% weight sav- ings over steel, while maintaining the same bending and torsional stiffness, The multi-cone design has been evaluated for both torsional and bending stiffness. For the same panel thickness, the multi-cone design exhibits much less deflection than the conventional design, Figur shows the results for torsional load- ing of these two hood designs, while Figure 346 shows the results for bending loading, These tests substan: tiate the earlier statement that itis often possible to decrease the gauges for an aluminum multi-sone desi and still maintain the performance of an aluminum conventional design. In comparison to a steel desiga, the alu- ‘minum mulki-cone design can yield a weight savings of 50-55%, Pee ae Pere OU RC MCT CTS onic ons = Lo po | jh ont {+ ee ee | {clei | i ee eee Bern Eres reer rw crn res 140 120 FECT Cronos 16 He o-ign ab [EBT mtn cone Design #1 2 TEI tt cane Design 42 a 6 4 2 ° As ‘508 Side Poll Down tnstalled ond Rear ‘Overload For the design of exterior subascem- biies, the flange condition must be considered, Typical 5 either a down- standing flange or a hemmed flange nd decldids. When designing a hemmed is used for panels such as hoods flange, itis important ro note whether the aluminum alloy chosen able of being flat hemmed or thether a roped hem is necessary Guidelines for several alloys are included in the material properties section (See Tab! 12 Excessive panel vibration, or flutter, is another design consideration for automotive exterior panels, especially for horizontal panel applic ‘The natural lequency of vibration for a part in a free-free state is pro: portional tits siffaess(k) and is inversely proportional o its mass(m) ‘The stiffness is dependent on both the geometry of the panel and the modalus of elasticity ofthe material used. Since both the modulus of ccsticity and the density of alu- minum are one-third that of stel the ratio used to calculate the natural frequency, Wm, is not affected. Therefore, the vibration response of aluminum and steel parts with the some geometry and thickness in a free state is identical. It is important to recognize that the geometry of the part and the stamp- ing tool design ace significant factors in controlling flutter, regardless of Whether aluminum or ste is used. By using a stretch process, the additional cokl-working. Which the m ceial experiences will inherently increase the stiffness of the panel Components subjected to repeated loads should be carefully checked for possibility of fatigue fire ‘Typical endurance limits for alu ‘minum alloys based on a minimum (of 5 million cycles are presented in ‘Table 2.6. An S/N curve representing full advantage of an aluminum alloy esign detail is required to take when designing for fatigue. Carefil design can eliminate concentrations in highly stressed areas, thereby mak- ing the most efficient use of materi als. Connections, holes or other fea- tures that cause stress concentration are areas most subject to fatigue. All changes benween different ross sec tions within a component should be gradual, as smooth transitions pro- duce an improvement in the fatigue life of a component, In the assess ment of fatigue, it is useful to com pare available test di ilar to those of interest eed Characteri: Oe ee ries ty The Aluminum Association Aluminum body sheet alloys can be Geneeett Aluminum Design Manual provi successfully formed into automotive Formability of sheet metals varies a broad reference of design proper- components using existing high vol- considerably depending on the base Ges specifications and gaidelines for __—_ume, production press line equip metal (steel, aluminum, copper), but aluminum alloys ment, Weight savings of 40-6596 also for a particular grade, as for compating to steel components are ‘example high strength vs, draw qual sinchude pars sich as ovtersond able in various combinations of 3, RL RolfM.L. Sharp, endW. inners for hoods, deck lds, and strength and formabiliy depending C. Herbein, “Minimizing the Aes, taligares; Buenpers croseniéan «on alloy composition, processing, Weight of Aluminum Body bets and flor pins, Alumimam bas heat treatment or cold work and Panels”, SAE Paper 790164, afte eri prpanice han gauge. The specific application February, 1979 séeal nd will defies difterly doe should define the most suitable alloy 3.2, N.W. Smith and J.B. Grant, ing the stamping process."Thus, the To provide a general compatison i “Reducing the Cost of part, die, and process should be can be estimated that formabilty of Aluminum Body Panels", SAE desigted bor the propetties and ai’ rmedium-strength aluminum is about Paper 800931, September 1980 siteratce of shsicianih es echtive two-thirds that of drawing quality 3.3. W.C., Herbein and N.P.Welf, opal material utilization and a low-carbon steel. This will usally Minimizing the Weight and robust stamping process. result in a comparable stamping suc Cost of an Aluminum Deck The most critical variables during 88 rate for typical shallow drawn Lid”, SAE Paper 810783, June forming ate: 1) ormability character. _—_~arts, Generally, deep-drawability 1981 istics of the material, 2) geometry of scretchabilty, and bendabilty ae 3.4. H. Thorburn, “Comparative the part and tools sling from the reduced with respect to steel. This Tests of Stiffness and Dent part and tool design, and éifference should be taken into Resistance on Aluminum and 4) press serup inciting Iobitéaon account during design of the par Steel Fenders’, 1994 IBEC ssid coarrol ofthe Binder preenure, tool, and process setup and Conference Proceedings “These issues will be brie fy discussed sequence. Another important differ elon: fleeces between ait ‘ence is the elastic springback beha rmicauntand stet-will be pointed oat ior of aluminum resulting from the for the beneft of readers experienced _flerence inthe elastic modulus, in stamping steel material, For more Empirical springback tables devel- ia-depeh lntoeuation Wheeden ia ‘oped for steel will not work for alu- referred to the handbooks (4.1, 4.2, ‘minum, General methods for deal 43] oi'ts the @iieaaie teview pape ing with shape fixability problems, [4.4], where farther references willbe however, are the same as for stel found. Finally a good overall lubrication on both sides of the blank is more eriti- cal for aluininum because of the increased tendency to gal (compared to steel, the need for more deaving to avoid excessive stretching, and simply because aluminam is typically supplied with only light protective oil from the mill Material Properties Tests: “Tests for determining formabiliy fall nto two main groups: those which measure material properties and those which attempt to simulate actual press forming operations ‘Material tests provide information that is insensitive to the thickness and frictional conditions including surface characteristics and lubricant. Examples include: Tensile, Bulge, Hardness, Plane Strain Tensile, and ‘Marciniak Biaxial Stretch tests. Simulative tests provide informa tion which is usually sensitive to the fiction conditions, material thickness and geometry, hence relating to the particular type of forming operation Some examples of the simulative tests include: Bend test (Bending); Streich bend test (Stretching and bending); Hole expansion test (Strewch flanging); Limiting draw ratio test (Shrink flanging): Yoshida buckling test (Weinkling tendencies); *] + Draw bead test (Friction evalua tion): + Swift cup test (drawing); + Englehardt draw-fracture test (drawing); + Olsen dome test (stretching); + Erichsen test (stretching); + Limiting dome height (LDH) test (stretching); + Fakui test (stretch-draw combina- tion); and + Marciniak test (stretl Formability tests are limited in value for the evaluation of the sheet ‘metal formabil ing operations. Their value is for ‘comparing various materials and asa SPC tool for controlling variability of the incoming material. The main industrial form- reason for limited applicability is that the individual stampings ean be sub- stantially different in geometry and in the pattern of metal flow during various stages of the stamping. “Therefore identical materials can perform differently. Asa result, there is no single test which can be ‘employed to determine how well a ‘material wil doin all forming appli- cations. Depending upon the parti ular design and forming process, cer~ tsin tests may be more suitable than orhess. Frequently tests can be used in conjunction with one another. The tests which are most widely used in automotive panel formability asiess- ment are the tensile text; the LDH test, and bend tests. ‘The Uniaxial Tensile Testis used to determine the commonly reported properties such as yild strength, tensile strength, and elon gation. The true stress-true strain ‘curve which can be obtained fom the tests a source for three parame ters especially important in forming: rn.r,and K values. The » and K val- ues describe the shape of the true stress-strain curve for materials that approximately follow the Holloman constitutive equation = Ke: It is known that the fitting of this equation to the aluminum stress-strain curve resus in certain approximations, and that other con- stitutive equations are currently the subject of the research work. This curve is used traci ally for steel, and will be used here for aluminum for comparison. ‘The n value is known as the strain hardening exponent. A higher value implies greater stretchabiliy. A typical m value reported for a low carbon drawing quality stel is 0.23. In aluminum, » increases with increasing strain to 4 maximum then falls off with further strain. Usually an average n value over a representa tive strain range is reported. A typi- cal n value for heat treated alu~ ‘minum body sheet is 0.23, and a corresponding stress-strain curve is given in Figure 4.1, providing a ‘comparison with the curve for low carbon deep-drswing antonctive sted “The vale, called the plastic strain ratio, describes the resistance cof the material to thinning daring «

    You might also like