NORUL ASHIKIN (D63020008)

Advisor : Dr. Wei-Chih Lin

Outline
• Introduction

• Experimental Details

• Finite element analysis with LS-DYNA

• Results and Discussion

• Conclusions and Future work

Introduction
 Sheet metal springback – technical challenges in practical
application
 Methods of springback prediction of sheet metal
• Finite element method
simulate sheet metal forming processes
predict springback of sheet products
• Split-ring test
• Hardening laws and Young’s modulus with plastic strain
 material hardening directly affected springback simulation
accuracy
 Experimental details
• In-plane biaxial tensile tests - yield loci MP980

Stress components of sheet metal during deformation at

specific levels of plastic work

Biaxial tensile tests of cruciform specimens - ISO 16842

Digital image correlation (DIC) techniques – to measure

displacement and strain field during testing
 Experimental details
• Tension-compression tests

Bauschinger effect and cyclic hardening behavior -

significant factors in springback prediction

The Y-U non-linear kinematic hardening model

The parameters of the Y-U model, tension-compression

(T-C) tests - a uniaxial tensile testing system MTS
E45.105-ATBC with DIC system
 Experimental details
• U-bend drawing tests

Fig. 1(a) Tension-compression testing system with DIC system, (b) dimensions of the
forming tools and the blank position

 U-bend drawing tests based on Benchmark #2

 Three different die entry radii (6, 8, and 12 mm) were tested
 Experimental details
• Digital image correlation techniques
To obtain full field strain measurements of specimens in
biaxial (cruciform) testing and T-C testing

To apply speckle patterns for DIC analysis,

i. specimen surfaces were cleaned with chloroform
ii. a thin layer of flat, white paint was sprayed onto the
cleaned surface
iii. drying several minutes to a ‘tacky’ condition,
iv. a random pattern of black speckles ~0.5 mm in size
was applied to the white paint
 Finite element analysis with LS-DYNA
• Y-U model parameter fitting
 Uses two surface to describe the hardening rule, the
yield surface moves within the bounding surface

LS-OPT feature :
• Parameter identification (calibrate material model)
• capable of determining the Y-U model parameters using the true
stress-strain data from the tension-compression tests and
uniaxial tension tests

SRSM method (sequence optimization response surface)

• To minimize the difference between experimental and calculated
stresses.
 Finite element analysis with LS-DYNA
• Springback prediction with LS-DYNA

 Numerical analyses : using an explicit solver for forming and an

implicit solver for springback simulation

 LS-DYNA of simulation software : yield criteria and behaviour

of MP980 and compare with AHSS, Hill48, Barlat89 and
Barlat2000
 Results and Discussion
• Yield loci and comparison of different yield criteria

The experimental yield loci are plotted for plastic strains of

0.002, 0.005, and 0.01

Compared to predictions using yield functions from Hill48 (with

full anisotropy), Barlat89, and Barlat2000 (with different orders
of 6 and 8)
 (a)

(b)
 (c)
Fig. 2 Comparison of yield loci with different yield functions at (a) w=1.32 N/mm2
(𝜀𝜀0𝑃𝑃=0.002), (b) w=3.81 N/mm2 (𝜀𝜀0𝑃𝑃=0.005), and (c) w=8.36 N/mm2 (𝜀𝜀0𝑃𝑃=0.010)
 Results and Discussion
• Tension-Compression test results

• Raw stress-strain data from T-C tests were corrected for the
effects of friction and through-thickness stress induced by the
fixture.
• The parameters in the MAT125 and MAT242 material models
were obtained using LS-OPT
 Results and Discussion
• Springback prediction

Fig. 3 (a) U-shaped specimens with die radii of 6, 8, and 12 mm. (b) Scanned cross-sectional
profiles of the parts shown in (a). (c) Illustration of ΔZ value used to evaluate the error of
springback prediction
 Results and Discussion
• Springback prediction

̅̅̅̅
Fig. 4 Comparison of Δ𝑍 ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ values from the four material models
Conclusions and Future work
Barlat2000 yield function with order of 8
describes the yield behaviour of MP980
accurately according to the comparison
between the experimental yield loci

Only considering an advanced Barlat2000

yield criterion (MAT133) or only the Y-U
non-linear kinematic hardening model
(MAT125) does not improve springback
prediction (Hill48 isotropic model, MAT37)

Further study is required to improve

springback prediction for the larger die
radius of 12 mm.