0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Effect of Yield Criterion on Numerical Simulation Results Using a Stress-Based Failure Criterion

[+] Author and Article Information
Aaron Sakash, Sumit Moondra

Mechanical Engineering Department,  University of New Hampshire, 33 College Road, Durham, NH 03824-3591

Brad L. Kinsey1

Mechanical Engineering Department,  University of New Hampshire, 33 College Road, Durham, NH 03824-3591bkinsey@unh.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 128(3), 436-444 (Mar 19, 2006) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2204951 History: Received November 23, 2005; Revised March 19, 2006

Determining tearing concerns in numerical simulations of sheet metal components is difficult since the traditional failure criterion, which is strain-based, exhibits a strain path dependence. A stress-based, as opposed to a strain-based, failure criterion has been proposed and demonstrated analytically, experimentally in tube forming, and through numerical simulations. The next step in this progression to the acceptance of a stress-based forming limit diagram is to demonstrate how this failure criterion can be used to predict failure of sheet metal parts in numerical simulations. In this paper, numerical simulation results for dome height specimens are presented and compared to experimental data. This procedure was repeated for various yield criteria to examine the effect of this parameter on the ability to predict failure in the numerical simulations. Reasonable agreement was obtained comparing the failure predicted from numerical simulations and those found experimentally, in particular for the yield criterion which has been shown to best characterize the material used in this study.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Strain-based forming limit curves for various uniaxial (U), equibiaxial (E), and plane strain (P) prestrain cases. See Appendix for specific prestrain values (3).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Eleven strain-based FLDs (3) degenerate to one curve in stress space when analytically converted using the (a) Barlat 1989, (b) Hill 1948, and (c) von Mises yield criteria

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Stress-based forming limit curves for various yield criteria

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

FEA mesh of two quarter blank geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Strain-based FLC (for the no prestrain case) and different strain paths for various dome height specimen geometries (i.e., 25–200mm) shown in the strain space

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Stress-based FLC (obtained from the no prestrain case) and different stress paths for various dome height geometries (i.e., 25–200mm) shown in the stress space

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Stress path directly from numerical simulations and one analytically converted from strain path data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Flowchart of the methodology to generate a strain-based forming limit curve from numerical simulations using a stress-based failure criterion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Numerical simulation generated data points for the Barlat 1989 yield criterion and experimental strain-based forming limit curve (3) for the no prestrain case

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Numerical simulation generated with the Barlat 1989 yield criterion and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for uniaxial prestrain of 0.12 (U2) parallel to the rolling direction and 0.05 (U4) and 0.12 (U5) perpendicular to the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Numerical simulation generated with the Barlat 1989 yield criterion and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for equibiaxial prestrains of 0.04 (E1), 0.07 (E2), and 0.12 (E3)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Numerical simulation generated with the Barlat 1989 yield criterion and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for plane prestrains of 0.13 (P2) parallel to the rolling direction and 0.08 (P3) perpendicular to the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Numerical simulation generated data points for various yield criteria and experimental strain-based forming limit curve (3) for the no prestrain case

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Numerical simulation generated (using various yield criteria) and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for uniaxial prestrain of 0.12 (U2) parallel to the rolling direction and 0.05 (U4) and 0.12 (U5) perpendicular to the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Numerical simulation generated (using various yield criteria) and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for equibiaxial prestrains of 0.04 (E1), 0.07 (E2), and 0.12 (E3)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Numerical simulation generated (using various yield criteria) and experimental (3) strain-based FLD curves for plane prestrains of 0.13 (P2) parallel to the rolling direction and 0.08 (P3) perpendicular to the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Stress versus strain curves for two different sets of power hardening law material parameters. A moderate amount of stress saturation effect is shown on curve with n=0.1.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

The no prestrain strain-based forming limit curve for Al 2008-T4, and this curve shifted by 0.01, 0.02, and 0.10

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Stress-based forming limit curves (FLCs) derived by analytically converting the strain-based FLCs in Fig. 1 to stress space using the Barlat 1989 yield criterion

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In