Characterization of a superplastic aluminium alloy ALNOVI-U through free inflation tests and inverse analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Numerical methods are widespread in forming applications since a deeper understanding and a finer calibration of the process can be reached without most of the assumptions used in analytical approaches. In this calibration procedure the characterization of the material behaviour is an important preliminary step that cannot be avoided. Experimental tests can be numerically modelled and material constants can be found by inverse methods making numerical results as close as possible to experimental ones. In this work material parameters of a superplastic aluminium alloy have been found by experimental forming tests and an inverse analysis. Constant pressure free inflation tests were firstly performed to find the optimal range for temperature and strain rate values. Material constants were then calculated, on the basis of these tests, minimizing errors between experimental and numerical data through a gradient based optimization iterative procedure. Constant strain rate experimental tests were finally used to refine material parameters and to gain a better agreement between experiments and numerical simulations.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Numerical methods in engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Chandra N (2002) Constitutive behavior of superplastic materials. Int J Non Lin Mech 37:461–48410.1016/S0020-7462(01)00021-X ↗
2. Bonet J, Gil A, Wood RD, Said R, Curtis RV (2006) Simulating superplastic forming. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 195(48–49):6580–660310.1016/j.cma.2005.03.012 ↗
3. ISO 20032:2007 - Method for evaluation of tensile properties of metallic superplastic materials
4. Sorgente D, Tricarico L (2007) Analysis of different specimen geometries for tensile tests in superplastic conditions for an aluminium alloy. Mater Sci Forum 551–552:123–12810.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.551-552.123 ↗
5. Carrino L, Giuliano G, Polini W (2003) A method to characterise superplastic materials in comparison with alternative methods. J Mater Process Technol 138(1–3):417–42210.1016/S0924-0136(03)00110-9 ↗
6. Giuliano G (2009) Thickness and strain rate at the sheet dome apex in superplastic bulge forming tests. Int J Mater Form 2(1):375–37810.1007/s12289-009-0456-2 ↗
7. Franchitti S, Giuliano G, Palumbo G, Sorgente D, Tricarico L (2008) On the optimisation of superplastic free forming test of an AZ31 magnesium alloy sheet, Int J Mater Form Suppl 1:1067–107010.1007/s12289-008-0203-0 ↗
8. Kappes J, Wagner S, Schatz M (2010) Superplastic sheet metal forming with focus on the warm bulge test and its in-process monitoring. Int J Mater Form 3(1):1135–113810.1007/s12289-010-0972-0 ↗
9. Enikeev FU, Kruglov AA (1995) An analysis of the superplastic forming of a thin circular diaphragm. Int J Mech Sci 37(5):473–48310.1016/0020-7403(94)00081-T ↗
10. Sorgente D, Scintilla LD, Palumbo G, Tricarico L (2010) Blow forming of AZ31 magnesium alloy at elevated temperatures. Int J Mater Form 3:13–1910.1007/s12289-009-0411-2 ↗
11. El-Morsy AW, Manabe KI (2002) FE simulation of rectangular box forming using material characteristics from the multi-dome test. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:772–77710.1016/S0924-0136(02)00389-8 ↗
12. Liu GR, Han X (2003) Computational inverse techniques in nondestructive evaluation. CRC Press10.1201/9780203494486 ↗
13. Gavrus A, Massoni E, Chenot JL (1996) An inverse analysis using a finite element model for identification of rheological parameters. J Mater Process Technol 60(1–4):447–45410.1016/0924-0136(96)02369-2 ↗
14. Yang HS (1997) A new light optical metallographic technique for revealing grain structures of common 2000, 5000, and 7000 series aluminum alloys. Mater Charact 38(3):165–17510.1016/S1044-5803(97)00040-5 ↗
15. Abaqus User Subroutines Reference Manual, Version 6.10, section 1.1.45 User subroutine to redefine field variables at a material point. Dassault Systèmes, 2010
16. Giuliano G, Franchitti S (2007) On the evaluation of superplastic characteristics using the finite element method. Int J Mach Tool Manuf 47:471–47610.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.06.009 ↗
17. Giuliano G (2012) Superplastic Constitutive Modelling of AA-5083. TECHNISCHE MECHANIK 32(2–5):221–226
18. Giuliano G (2012) AZ31 Magnesium Alloy Parameters Identification through Inverse Analysis at 713 K. Key Engineering Materials 504–506:643–64610.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.504-506.643 ↗
19. Chen Y, Kibble K, Hall R, Huang X (2001) Numerical analysis of superplastic blow forming of Ti-6Al-4V alloys. Mater Des 22:679–68510.1016/S0261-3069(01)00009-7 ↗
20. Ridley N, Bate PS, Zhang B (2005) Material modelling data for superplastic forming optimisation. Mater Sci Eng, A 410–411:100–10410.1016/j.msea.2005.08.108 ↗
21. Sorgente D, Palumbo G, Tricarico L (2007) Material superplastic parameters evaluation by a jump pressure blow forming test. Key Engineering Materials 344:119–12610.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.344.119 ↗