Validation of material models for sheet metals using new test equipment
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Validation is an important step after a calibration of models in order to assess their quality. In this work, new test equipment is presented that provides a comprehensive database for validation of material models for numerical analyses using FE simulation in sheet metal forming: the MUC-Test (acronym for Material Under Control). The introduced validation strategy is based on a comparison of experimental results with a numerical representation of the MUC-Test in terms of punch force and major and minor strain. The data comparison approach uses a full-field comparison over a wide range of punch stroke and thus considers the hardening behavior of the models. Extensive parameter studies are performed to investigate numerical, process and material model parameters regarding their influence on the test results. The presented validation method is applied to three materials of different material classes: The microalloyed steel HC340LA, the dual-phase steel DP590HD and the aluminum alloy AA5754. Furthermore, different material models based on the same database are compared for the DP590HD, showing the potential to identify suitable material models for specific requirements. Finally, equivalent material models based on different calibration strategies are compared. In conclusion, it is shown that the MUC-Test can be used to evaluate and compare different material models in terms of their ability to represent real material behavior in an effective and efficient way.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. Ablat MA, Qattawi A (2017) Numerical simulation of sheet metal forming: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89:1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9103-510.1007/s00170-016-9103-5 ↗
2. Volk W, Groche P, Brosius A, Ghiotti A, Kinsey BL, Liewald M, Madej L, Min J, Yanagimoto J (2019) Models and modelling for process limits in metal forming. CIRP Ann 68:775–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.00710.1016/j.cirp.2019.05.007 ↗
3. Banabic D (2010) Sheet metal forming processes. In: Constitutive modelling and numerical simulation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88113-110.1007/978-3-540-88113-1 ↗
4. Bruschi S, Altan T, Banabic D, Bariani PF, Brosius A, Cao J, Ghiotti A, Khraisheh M, Merklein M, Tekkaya AE (2014) Testing and modelling of material behaviour and formability in sheet metal forming. CIRP Ann 63:727–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.00510.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.005 ↗
5. Manopulo N, Raemy C, Hora P (2018) A discussion of the associated flow rule based on the FAY model and Nakajima tests. J Phys Conf Ser 1063:12090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1063/1/01209010.1088/1742-6596/1063/1/012090 ↗
6. Pilthammar J, Banabic D, Sigvant M (2021) BBC05 with non-integer exponent and ambiguities in Nakajima yield surface calibration. Int J Mater Form 14:577–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-020-01545-010.1007/s12289-020-01545-0 ↗
7. Hippke H, Berisha B, Hora P (2020) A full-field optimization approach for iterative definition of yielding for non-quadratic and free shape yield models in plane strain. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 967:12084. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/967/1/01208410.1088/1757-899X/967/1/012084 ↗
8. DIN EN 10027–1:2016 (2017) Designation systems for steels. Part 1: Steel names.
9. DIN EN 10027–2:2015 (2015) Designation systems for steels. Part 2: Numerical system.
10. VDA 239–100 (2016) Sheet steel for cold forming.
11. Wagoner RH (1980) Measurement and analysis of plane-strain work hardening. Metall Trans A 11:165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0270045310.1007/BF02700453 ↗
12. An YG, Vegter H, Elliott L (2004) A novel and simple method for the measurement of plane strain work hardening. J Mater Process Technol 155–156:1616–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.34410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.344 ↗
13. Lademo OG, Engler O, Keller S, Berstad T, Pedersen KO, Hopperstad OS (2009) Identification and validation of constitutive model and fracture criterion for AlMgSi alloy with application to sheet forming. Mater Des 30:3005–3019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.12.02010.1016/j.matdes.2008.12.020 ↗
14. Zhang C, Leotoing L, Zhao G, Guines D, Ragneau E (2010) A methodology for evaluating sheet formability combining the tensile test with the M-K model. Mater Sci Eng, A 528:480–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.09.00110.1016/j.msea.2010.09.001 ↗
15. Souto N, Andrade-Campos A, Thuillier S (2017) Mechanical design of a heterogeneous test for material parameters identification. Int J Mater Form 10:353–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-016-1284-910.1007/s12289-016-1284-9 ↗
16. Aquino J, Andrade-Campos AG, Martins JMP, Thuillier S (2019) Design of heterogeneous mechanical tests: Numerical methodology and experimental validation. Strain 55:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/str.1231310.1111/str.12313 ↗
17. Zhang Y, Coppieters S, Gothivarekar S, van de Velde A, Debruyne D (2021) Independent Validation of Generic Specimen Design for Inverse Identification of Plastic Anisotropy. ESAFORM 2021. https://doi.org/10.25518/esaform21.262210.25518/esaform21.2622 ↗
18. Zhang Y, van Bael A, Andrade-Campos A, Coppieters S (2022) Parameter identifiability analysis: mitigating the non-uniqueness issue in the inverse identification of an anisotropic yield function. Int J Solids Struct 111543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.11154310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.111543 ↗
19. Lossau S, Svendsen B (2009) Forming simulations based on parameters obtained in microstructural cold rolling simulations in comparison to conventional forming simulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th European LS-DYNA Conference. https://www.dynamore.de/en/downloads/papers/09-conference/papers/C-I-01.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2022
20. Wisselink HH, Niazi MS, Huetink J (2011) Validation of advanced material models using the crossdie test. In: 15th International Deep Drawing Research Group Conference 2011. https://iddrg.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C_2_11.pdf. Accessed 17 July 202210.22266/ijies2022.0831.31 ↗
21. Duncombe E (1972) Plastic instability and growth of grooves and patches in plates or tubes. Int J Mech Sci 14:325–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(72)90087-210.1016/0020-7403(72)90087-2 ↗
22. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 193:281–297. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.004510.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
23. Volk W, Kim JK, Suh J, Hoffmann H (2013) Anisotropic plasticity model coupled with strain dependent plastic strain and stress ratios. CIRP Ann 62:283–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.05510.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.055 ↗
24. Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon JW, Chung K, Dick RE, Lege DJ, Pourboghrat F, Choi S-H, Chu E (2003) Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy sheets—part 1: theory. Int J Plast 19:1297–1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-6419(02)00019-010.1016/S0749-6419(02)00019-0 ↗
25. Banabic D, Kuwabara T, Balan T, Comsa DS, Julean D (2003) Non-quadratic yield criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under plane-stress conditions. Int J Mech Sci 45:797–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00139-510.1016/S0020-7403(03)00139-5 ↗
26. Banabic D (2005) An improved analytical description of orthotropy in metallic sheets. Int J Plast 21:493–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.04.00310.1016/j.ijplas.2004.04.003 ↗
27. Vegter H, van den Boogaard AH (2006) A plane stress yield function for anisotropic sheet material by interpolation of biaxial stress states. Int J Plast 22:557–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2005.04.00910.1016/j.ijplas.2005.04.009 ↗
28. ISO 6892–1 (2019) Tensile testing - Part 1. Method of test at room temperature.
29. ISO 16808 (2014) Determination of biaxial stress-strain curve by means of bulge test with optical measuring systems.
30. Lăzărescu L, Nicodim I, Ciobanu I, Comşa DS, Banabic D (2013) Determination of material parameters of sheet metals using the hydraulic bulge test. Acta Metall Slovaca 19. https://doi.org/10.12776/ams.v19i1.8110.12776/ams.v19i1.81 ↗
31. Mulder J, Vegter H, Aretz H, Keller S, van den Boogaard AH (2015) Accurate determination of flow curves using the bulge test with optical measuring systems. J Mater Process Technol 226:169–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.06.03410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.06.034 ↗
32. Merklein M, Kuppert A (2009) A method for the layer compression test considering the anisotropic material behavior. Int J Mater Form 2:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-009-0592-810.1007/s12289-009-0592-8 ↗
33. Flores P, Tuninetti V, Gilles G, Gonry P, Duchêne L, Habraken AM (2010) Accurate stress computation in plane strain tensile tests for sheet metal using experimental data. J Mater Process Technol 210:1772–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.06.00810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.06.008 ↗
34. ISO 10113:2020 (2020) Metallic materials - Sheet and strip - Determination of plastic strain ratio.
35. Benkert T, Hartmann C, Eder M, Speckmaier F, Volk W (2019) MaterialModeler - From experimental raw data to a material model. SoftwareX 10:100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.10024910.1016/j.softx.2019.100249 ↗
36. Logan RW, Hosford WF (1980) Upper-bound anisotropic yield locus calculations assuming <111> -pencil glide. Int J Mech Sci 22:419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(80)90011-910.1016/0020-7403(80)90011-9 ↗
37. ANSI H 35.1/H 35.1M (2017) Standard Alloy and Temper Designation Systems for Aluminum.
38. DIN 1725–1:1983 (1983) Aluminium alloys; Wrought alloys.
39. ASTM E 527 (2016) Standard Practice for Numbering Metals and Alloys in the Unified Numbering System (UNS).
40. EN 573–2:1994 (1994) Aluminium and aluminium alloys - Chemical composition and form of wrought products. Part 2: Chemical symbol based designation system.
41. Eder M, Gruber M, Manopulo N, Volk W (2021) Potentials for material card validation using an innovative tool. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng 1157:12067. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1157/1/01206710.1088/1757-899X/1157/1/012067 ↗
42. ISO 12004–2 (2021) Determination of forming-limit curves - Part 2: Determination of forming-limit curves in the laboratory.
43. Felippa CA (2004) Introduction to Finite Element Methods. Material assembled from Lecture Notes for the course Introduction to Finite Elements Methods (ASEN 5007) offered from 1986 to date at the Aerospace Engineering Sciences Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Last updated Fall 2004, Boulder, Colorado, USA
44. Yang K-H (ed) (2018) Basic finite element method as applied to injury biomechanics. Academic Press, Amsterdam
45. Courant R, Friedrichs K, Lewy H (1928) Über die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen. Physik Math Ann 100:32–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0144883910.1007/BF01448839 ↗
46. DYNAmore: LS-DYNA User’s Guide. Time step size. https://www.dynasupport.com/tutorial/ls-dyna-users-guide/time-step-size. Accessed 08 Mar 2022