How To Extract More Information From A Basic Tensile Test With The Aid of FEA?

FENet Annual Industry Meeting, Dec 3, 2004
M. Juwet and D. Debruyne, KaHo St-Lieven
Associatie KULeuven
How to extract more information

from a basic tensile test with the
aid of FEA?
Marc Juwet and Dimitri Debruyne

KaHo St.-Lieven - KULeuven
Belgium
1
Associatie KULeuven
“Basic” tensile test?

•Initial geometry of specimen
•Tensile force Fload (⇒ σload)
•Elongation ∆L/L0 (⇒ e)
↓
2
Associatie KULeuven
Uniform plastic deformation
σtrue = Fload/A = σload (1+e)

εtrue = ln(A0/A) = ln(1+e)
Valid only before necking

(ultimate tensile strength)
3
Associatie KULeuven
A growing interest in complex FEA modelling
•Availability of powerful computers

–CPU: speed (allows shorter computing times)
–RAM: model size (allows higher accuracy)
•Better understanding of FEA in general
•Availability of sophisticated FEA software

⇓
Increasing demand for complex FEA calculations
(plastic deformation, contact modelling, crash simulations, etc.)
4
Associatie KULeuven
Material is everything!!!
Every FE simulation starts with the input of material data

(elastic and plastic behaviour for a mechanical problem)
↓
For the metalforming industry the input of correct
material data is vital to the success of the FE simulation
↓
From a basic tensile test one obtains the true plastic
behaviour before necking
↓
This is sufficient for many applications, but not all
5
Associatie KULeuven
Plastic deformation beyond necking

Example 1: tubehydroforming
Necking can occur without fracturing of the tube
6
Associatie KULeuven

Example 2: border rolling
Circumference of initial hole is enlarged by 100%
7
Associatie KULeuven

Example 3: rupture disc (pressure relief)
Deformation up to fracture at the nodes
8
Associatie KULeuven
Goal of this investigation
We have (from basic tensile test)

true plastic behaviour before necking
and engineering stress strain relation beyond necking
↓
We need true plastic behaviour of material beyond
necking (ultimate tensile strength)
↑
We can use
Analytical corrections: Bridgeman (not suited for thin plate)
FE simulation of the tensile test (geometry independent)
9
Associatie KULeuven
Research so far
Most theoretical studies deal with the question:

“Given a certain material model (true stress true strain behaviour),
how does necking occur and evolve up to fracture?”
Material model ⇒ Theoretical stress strain diagramma
↔
Very few studies deal with the far more interesting
question:
“Given an engineering stress strain diagramma, what is the true stress
strain behaviour of the material?”
Measured stress strain diagramma ⇒ Material model
10
Associatie KULeuven
Basic Idea of a FE approach
Step 1: Propose a material model

(based on reasonable assumptions)
↓
Step 2: Simulate the tensile test and construct
the engineering stress strain curve
↓
Step 3: Compare to experiment and
correct the material model
(go back to step 2 until convergence is reached)
11
Associatie KULeuven
Every day practice
•Given a certain geometry

•Given certain material properties (i.e. conventional stress
strain curve)
•Given a certain failure mode
⇒ Redesign in a matter of days
⇒ We need a quick way to improve material data input
12
Associatie KULeuven
Simple approach
(fracture is not relevant)
13
Associatie KULeuven
Tensile test on thin plate specimen
→ C = 540 MPa
ε0 = 0,57%
n = 0,237
Krupkowski Power law: σ = C(ε0 + ε)n
14
Associatie KULeuven
FE simulation of tensile test
→
More strain hardening is required beyond necking, but
already a good description up to strain values of 30%
15
Associatie KULeuven
Propose a new material model
Plastic behaviour is
adjusted beyond necking
Apply Voce equation:
σ = K (1 – m e-nε)
Taken into account that

σ|ε = ε(uts) = σ(uts)
dσ/dε|ε = ε(uts) = σ(uts)
16
Associatie KULeuven
Iterative FE simulation
Find optimum fit

(e.g. least squares)
Satisfactory description
up to engineering strain
values of 45%
Local true strain in the
Uniqueness?
necking zone is 85% !!!
This should be sufficient for

most metalforming apps
17
Associatie KULeuven
Extra check with different probe distances
Probe distance up to
now was 40 mm
What happens if this

distance is altered?
⇓
Extra information!
↓
How to deal with this???
18
Associatie KULeuven
Less simple approach

(fracture is relevant)
19
Associatie KULeuven
Incorporating fracture
•Many ways to do this

– from very simple to very complex
– physical and non-physical
•For FE simulation purposes we need

– plastic behaviour of the material (stress vs. strain)
– ánd damage accumulation (leading to fracture)
•Only relevant for high strain applications
20
Associatie KULeuven
Example: Void material model

(proposed by Gurson and extended by Tvergaard)
Cu2O inclusions
Based on physical grounds in a Cu matrix
Damage is accumulated by
– Void growth
– Void nucleation
– Void coalescence
↓
Critical void volume fraction
⇓
Loss of stress carrying capacity ⇒ Fracture
21
Associatie KULeuven
Void material model – new yield function
Stress state in a material separates into

– hydrostatic part p (volume change)
– deviatoric part s (plastic deformation)
These combine into the Von Mises stress q
New yield function

– Material parameters q1, q2 and q3
– Void volume fraction f
Hydrostatic stress contributes to plastic deformation for large void

volumes (↔ Von Mises yield criterion)
22
Associatie KULeuven
Void material model – void growth and nucleation
Change in void volume fraction f

during plastic deformation:
Due to growth:
Due to nucleation:
Material parameters fN, sN and εN

(fN ≅ 0.04 sN ≅ 0.05 - 0.1 εN = 0.1 - 0.3)
23
Associatie KULeuven
Stress vs. strain

Less material has to
withstand the same
amount of load Fload
⇓
Actual stress in the
material grains becomes
much higher as more
voids are formed
24
Associatie KULeuven
Other stress strain behaviour is required
e.g. quadratic polynomials

(by lack of a better alternative)
25
Associatie KULeuven
Resulting engineering stress strain relations

(after iterative FE simulations)
26
Associatie KULeuven
Conclusion
FE simulation of a basic tensile test can provide
additional information, but …
–from the experimental side: input is needed from more

sophisticated tests for comparison purposes (e.g. determination
of void material parameters, true stress strain beyond necking)
–from the theoretical side: as for material modelling beyond
necking and towards fracture, much is available, few is widely
applicable
–from the FEA view: uncertainties on element choices, implicit or
explicit scheme, uniqueness of the solution … (e.g. many authors
use shell elements → incorrect!)
27
Associatie KULeuven
Ongoing work: IUCE
Usage of optical camera measuring

device in non-standard tensile tests
(f.e. GOM, Limess)
→ Strain fields (more information!)
Combined with iterative FE analysis

(f.e. LCRS method) and
refined experimental data processing
→ Unique solution?
28
Any questions?
marc.juwet@kahosl.be
dimitri.debruyne@kahosl.be

How To Extract More Information From A Basic Tensile Test With The Aid of FEA?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

How To Extract More Information From A Basic Tensile Test With The Aid of FEA?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FENet Annual Industry Meeting, Dec 3, 2004

M. Juwet and D. Debruyne, KaHo St-Lieven

How to extract more information

Marc Juwet and Dimitri Debruyne

“Basic” tensile test?

Uniform plastic deformation

σtrue = Fload/A = σload (1+e)

Valid only before necking

A growing interest in complex FEA modelling

•Availability of powerful computers

•Better understanding of FEA in general

•Availability of sophisticated FEA software

Every FE simulation starts with the input of material data

Plastic deformation beyond necking

Necking can occur without fracturing of the tube

Plastic deformation beyond necking

Circumference of initial hole is enlarged by 100%

Plastic deformation beyond necking

Deformation up to fracture at the nodes

Goal of this investigation

We have (from basic tensile test)

Most theoretical studies deal with the question:

Basic Idea of a FE approach

Step 1: Propose a material model

Every day practice

•Given a certain geometry

⇒ Redesign in a matter of days

⇒ We need a quick way to improve material data input

Tensile test on thin plate specimen

Krupkowski Power law: σ = C(ε0 + ε)n

FE simulation of tensile test

Propose a new material model

Apply Voce equation:

Taken into account that

Find optimum fit

This should be sufficient for

Extra check with different probe distances

What happens if this

Less simple approach

•Many ways to do this

•For FE simulation purposes we need

•Only relevant for high strain applications

Example: Void material model

Void material model – new yield function

Stress state in a material separates into

New yield function

Hydrostatic stress contributes to plastic deformation for large void

Void material model – void growth and nucleation

Change in void volume fraction f

Material parameters fN, sN and εN

Stress vs. strain

Other stress strain behaviour is required

e.g. quadratic polynomials

Resulting engineering stress strain relations

–from the experimental side: input is needed from more

Ongoing work: IUCE

Usage of optical camera measuring

Combined with iterative FE analysis

You might also like