Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258

11th International Conference on Technology of Plasticity, ICTP 2014, 19-24 October 2014,
Nagoya Congress Center, Nagoya, Japan

Analysis and experiment of 7075 aluminum alloy tensile test

Dyi-Cheng Chen*, Ci-Syong You, Fu-Yuan Gao
Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 500, Taiwan

Abstract

True stress-strain values were obtained from tensile tests of 7075 aluminum, and by performing a finite element simulation
analysis. The results revealed that various ductile fracture criteria resulted in different levels of accuracy in the simulation.
Moreover, factors affecting ductile fractures, such as stress, strain, and damage value were analyzed. The normalized Cockcroft
and Latham ductile fracture criterion used in the finite element analysis simulation resulted in a higher accuracy than that of
other ductile fracture criteria. In the future, finite element simulation analyses applying the A7075 fracture criteria could be
used for cutting and stamping materials.

© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection
Selection and
and peer-review under responsibility
peer-review under responsibilityofofthe
Nagoya University
Department and Toyohashi
of Materials Science University of Technology.
and Engineering, Nagoya University
Keywords: 7075 aluminum alloy; Ductile fracture criterion; Tensile test

Nomenclature

V true stress
H true strain
S engineering stress
G engineering strain
V max maximum tensile stress
V effective stress
H effective strain

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-06-5055-338; fax: +39-06-5055-452.

E-mail address: l.langellotto@c-s-m.it

1877-7058 © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Nagoya University
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.106
 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258 1253

Hf fracture strain
C damage index (damage value)

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+886-4-7232105; fax:+886-4-7211287.

E-mail address: dcchen@cc.ncue.edu.tw

1. Introduction

Aluminum 7075 exhibits a high strength to weight ratio, and is widely used in construction materials and
aerospace materials such as wings and fuselage. Because of the great strength and light weight of this alloy, it is
also used in other areas such as rock climbing equipment and bicycle components. However, there are still many
challenges worthy of discussion.
Therefore, in this study, a tensile test of aluminum 7075 was performed to determine the true stress and strain
values of this material, and to determine its finite element ductile fracture criterion according to a simulation
analysis. Previous studies have performed tensile tests to determine the ductility of materials. Jain et al. (1999)
performed a tensile test to determine the ductile fracture criteria of aluminum. Weng and Sun (2000) discussed the
destructive standards of ductile materials, using finite element analysis and forecasting. Komori (2005) analyzed
the finite element nodes separated by a ductile failure criterion to predict shear of sabotage. Yang et al. (2005)
determined the fracture criterion of various materials, and performed failure analysis. Hambli and Reszka (2002)
calculated the experimental and simulated values of various ductile fraure criteria (C value), and determined that
the most effective normalized Cockcroft and Latham (C & L failure criterion (C) was 0.455. In Freudenthal, C was
4260; in Ayada, 0.52; in Rice and Tracey, 1.6; in Brozzo, 1.85; and in Oyane, 2.455. The analysis of six types of
failure criterion produced an outcome similar to that of the experimental results. Hoa et al. (2005) predicted metal
formation, using a finite element fracture zone.

2. Experimental method

Several techniques are used to determine the mechanical properties of a material. The more commonly used
techniques are the uniaxial tensile test, uniaxial compression test, plane strain compression test, compression test
(such as using a ring), and particularly, the tensile test. Engineering stress (engineering strain curves and
engineering stress-engineering strain curves) and true stress (true strain curves and true stress-true strain curves) are
critical data.
When processing plastic, to derive the flow stress of the material obtained from the stress-strain relationship,
finite element software is used because it can simulate realistic results. After obtaining an engineering strain
diagram by performing a tensile test of stress, the following formula can be used to identify true stress and obtain a
true strain diagram:

V S 1  G  ,  (1)
H ln 1  G  . (2)

x V = true stress
x S = engineering stress
x G = engineering strain
x H = true strain
1254 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258

3. Finite element analysis

In the metal forming process, because of plastic deformation, large defects in a workpiece appear because of its
ductility. Brittle fractures of metallic materials appear in the grain boundary surface between split atoms combined
with each other. Ductile failure is partly caused by the crystalline grain boundary sliding caused by shear damage.
Ductile failure can be defined as the plastic deformation caused to the nonmetallic material present in the
inclusions, which precipitates fine particles as a starting point, forming voids, growing, and ultimately destroying
the laminate. Ductile failure is caused primarily because of processing parameters such as the rate of deformation
and molding conditions, lubrication, and friction. Alterations to the chemical composition of the alloy affect its
microstructure and the uniformity of its surface. Kim et al. (1994) used the finite element simulation DEFORMTM,
and performed mechanical tests (such as the nonuniform compression test, tensile test, and ring crush test),
applying the Cockcroft and Latham criterion in Equation (3).
The maximum damage value obtained (max damage value) and the value corresponding to the critical damage
of the material (critical damage value) can successfully predict the ductility of the arrow-shaped cracks resulting
from molding damage. The maximum value of the damage and destruction is attained when the material is formed
under the maximum tensile stress condition, as shown in Equation (3). Chen et al. (1979) modified the criteria for
the C & L criterion, producing a dimensionless (nondimensional) form of Equation (4), called the normalized C &
L ductile fracture criteria:
Hf
³ 0
V max dH C, (3)

Hf V max
³ dH C. (4)
0 V
Other studies have used the Freudenthal ductile failure criterion, Equation (5) (Hartley et al., 1992: Clift et al.,
1990):
Hf
³ 0
V dH C. (5)

The Ayada ductile failure criterion, Equation (6), is as follows (Hambli and Reszka, 2002):
Hf Vm
³ dH C. (6)
0 V
The Rice and Tracey ductile fracture criterion, Equation (7), is as follows (Hambli and Reszka, 2002; Rice
and Tracey, 1969):
1.5V m
Hf
³0 e V dH C. (7)

The Brozzo ductile failure criterion, Equation (8), is as follows (Hartley et al., 1992; Clift et al., 1990):

Hf 2V max
³ dH C .
3V max  V m 
0
(8)

The Oyane ductile failure criterion, Equation (9), is as follows (Hambli and Reszka, 2002; Hartley et al., 1992;
Clift et al., 1990):
Hf § 0.424V max ·
³ 0
¨1 
© V
¸dH
¹
C. (9)

x V max = maximum tensile stress

x H = effective strain
x V = effective stress
x H f = fracture strain
x C = damage index (damage value)
 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258 1255

When applying the maximum tensile stress, the effective strain is the effective stress required to destroy the
material, and C is the damage index (damage value) of the average effective stress.
The DEFORMTM software is based on the design and processes of the analytic two-dimensional or three-
dimensional flow deformation model, which is used to simulate the material in the mold that forms on the metal,
for determining ductile failure, after deformation temperature, plastic flow speed, and stress and strain distribution
have been set. This software simulation not only saves time and money, but also provides crucial information, such
as the effects of different materials on the shaping and thermal heat conduction effect of the entire finished product.
DEFORMTM has been widely used in forging, extruding, pulling, rolling, stamping, heading, and other precision
metal forming. This software is the combination of multiple modules; the main structure can be divided into a
preprocessing module, simulation engine, postprocessing modules, and multifunction modules.

4. Results and discussion

To determine the aluminum and plastic flow stress of aluminum 7075, a tensile test was performed. For this
purpose, a standard test bar (Fig. 1) was used; the inner diameter D was 14 mm and L was the length of the narrow
segment (60 mm). An adhesive was coated on the surface of the strain gauge, and the bar was loaded onto a
universal testing machine (Fig. 2). The data obtained was converted into a true stress-true strain diagram, and the
flow stress was then calculated, as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 1. Tensile test bar size.

Fig. 2. The strain gauge affixed position. Fig. 3. True stress - true strain diagram.

The finite element software DEFORM 3D was used to perform the tensile test simulation. To improve
simulation speed, the central axis of the symmetry model was used in the simulation. The parameters of the 7075
aluminum alloy were used; the plastic flow stress values of the tensile test substituted those of the 7075 aluminum
alloy materials database. The main set of material parameters, load paths, and different ductile fracture criteria.
Fig. 4 displays a schematic diagram of the tensile test simulation, with the ends of the rod bearing the pulling
force. Fig. 5 displays a 7075 aluminum effective strain diagram, revealing that the maximum effective strain occurs
1256 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258

at the midpoint over the top, which is also the point of maximum deformation and the most prone to fracture. Fig. 6
exhibits the effect sought for the 7075 aluminum alloy, revealing that the maximum point of stress and the
maximum effective strain are produced similarly, which might generate a stress concentration point, causing the
material to crack.
Fig. 7 displays the damage value for the 7075 aluminum alloy, obtained when the normalized C & L criterion
had a C value of 0.454. A damage value over 0.454 would produce grid separation (fracture), resulting in rupture
of the test rod at the starting point. Fig. 8 displays the temperature of the 7075 aluminum alloy, resulting from the
stress and strain concentration of stretch friction and heat. As observed, the temperature increases, and the
maximum temperature corresponds to the largest area of stress and strain. As shown in Figs. 5–8, when the
effective stress and effective strain exhibit their maximum values in the same area, damage occurs, and the
material is prone to fracture. Fig. 9 displays a 7075 aluminum fracture situation, in which the experimental results
were consistent with the simulation results.

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the tensile test simulation.

Strain-Effective(mm/mm) Stress-Effective(MPa)

0.100 746

MAX 0.080 MAX 597

0.060 448

0.040 298

0.020 149

0.000 0.00

Fig. 5. 7075 aluminum effective strain diagram. Fig. 6. 7075 aluminum effective stress diagram.

Damag
Temperature(C)
0.454
MAX
0.363 88.3

0.272 MAX 75.9

0.182 63.5

0.090 51.0

0.000 32.4

20.0

Fig. 7. 7075 aluminum alloy damage value. Fig. 8. 7075 aluminum alloy temperature.
 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258 1257

Fig. 9. 7075 aluminum fracture situation.

Table 1 lists the ductile failure criterion parameters (Hambli and Reszka, 2002). According to Hambli and Reszka (2002),
the value of the C parameter for the normalized C & L failure criterion C is 0.454, Ayada used a C value of 0.52, Rice and
Tracey used a C value of 1.6, Brozzo used a C value of 1.85, and Oyane used a C value of 2.455.

Table 1. Ductile failure criterion parameters (Hambli and Reszka, 2002)

Ductile failure criterion C
Normalized C L criterion 0.455
Ayada 0.52

Rice and Tracey 1.6

Brozzo 1.85

Oyane 2.455

Fig. 10 displays cross-section diagrams of simulations using various ductile fracture criteria. The normalized C
& L criterion standards were more in line with the shape of the cross-section of the test rod than other standards, as
the irregular cross-section obtained with DEFORM 3D shows. The sections applying the Freudenthal, Ayada,
Brozzo, Oyane, and Rice and Tracey guidelines did not meet the criteria for the cross-sectional shape of the test
bar.

Tensile test bar Normalized C Oyane Brozzo Rice and @

L criterion Ayada
@ Tracey
Fig.10. Cross-section of various ductile fracture criteria simulative diagram.

5. Conclusion

When the maximum value of the effective stress and effective strain occur in the same area, damage occurs, and
the material becomes prone to fracture. This experimental simulation of various ductile failure criteria revealed
that the normalized C & L ductile fracture criterion was the most accurate, because the cross tension test agreed
with the simulation results. In the future, to piece, stamp or cut a material, a finite element simulation can be used
as the basis for selecting the molding criteria of A7075 aluminum.

References

Chen, C.C., Oh, S.I., Kobayashi, S., 1979. Ductile fracture in axisymmetric extrusion and drawing, J Eng. Ind. 101-102, 36.
Clift, S.E., Hartley, P., Sturgess, CEN., Rowe, G.W., 1990. Fracture prediction in plastic deformation process. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 32(1), 1-17.
Hambli, R., Reszka, M., 2002. Fracture criteria identification using an inverse technique method and blanking experiment. International Journal
of Mechanical Sciences 44, 1349-1361.
Hartley, P., Pillinger, I., Sturgess, CEN., 1992. Numerical modeling of material meformation processes research. Development and
Applications, Berlin: Springer.
1258 Dyi-Cheng Chen et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 1252 – 1258

Hoa, V.C., Seo, D.W., Lim, J.K., 2005. Site of ductile fracture initiation in cold forging: a finite element model. Theoretical and Applied
Fracture Mechanics 44, 58-69.
Jain, M., J. Allin, J., D. J. Lloyd, D.J., 1999. Fracture limit prediction using ductile fracture criteria for forming of an automotive aluminum
sheet. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 41, 1273-1288.
Kim, H., Yamanaka, M., Altan, T., 1994. Prediction of ductile fracture in cold forging by FE simulations. Engineering Research Center for the
Net Shape Manufacturing. Report No. ERC/NSM-94-42.
Komori, K., 2005. Ductile fracture criteria for simulating shear by node separation method. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 43,
101–114.
Rice, J.R., Tracey, D.M., 1969. On the ductile enlargement of voids on triaxial stress fields. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 17,
201-217.
Weng, T.L., Sun, C.T., 2000. A study of fracture criteria for ductile materials. Engineering Failure Analysis 7, 101-125.
Yang, X., Chen, C., Hu, Y., Wang, C., 2005. Damage analysis and fracture criteria for piezoelectric ceramics. International Journal of Non-
Linear Mechanics 40, 1204 -1213.