0
Research Papers

Constitutive Modeling and Finite Element Analysis of the Formability of TRIP Steels

[+] Author and Article Information
J. Serri

Laboratoire de Physique et Mécanique des Matériaux, Université de Metz, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 Metz, France

M. Cherkaoui1

UMI, GerogiaTech-CNRS 2958, Georgia Institute of Technology, George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405mcherkaoui@me.gatech.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 130(3), 031009 (Jun 10, 2008) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2931146 History: Received March 16, 2007; Revised August 20, 2007; Published June 10, 2008

The semiphysics constitutive model developed by Cherkaoui (2006, “From Micro to Macroscopic Description of Martensitic Transformation in Steels: A Viscoplastic Model  ,” Philos. Mag., in press;Philos. Mag. Lett. in press) has been implemented in the user’s material subroutine of the finite element code ABAQUS∕EXPLICIT (2006, Version 6.6 Manuals, Dassault Systemes) to predict the thermomechanical behavior of unstable transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) steel sheets under conditions of forming, which are essentially composite materials with evolving volume fractions of the individual phases. These steels undergoing α martensitic phase transformation exhibit an additional inelastic strain resulting from the phase transformation itself and from the plastic accommodation in parent (austenite) and product (martensite) phases due to different sources of internal stresses. This inelastic strain known as the TRIP strain enhances ductility at an appropriate strength level due to the typical properties of the martensite. A numerical analysis of the effects of the martensitic phase transformation on formability is performed. A validation of the stress-strain behavior and the volume fraction of the martensite are carried out in the case of multiaxial paths at various temperatures. The effects of the stress state and of the kinetics of the martensite phase transformation are analyzed in the case of the cup drawing test. Finally, the numerical predictions are compared to experimental tests on type AISI304 austenitic stainless steels and TRIP800 multiphase industrial steels.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Evolution of the volume fraction of martensite predicted in uniaxial tension at different temperatures for a 304 stainless steel. Experimental points taken from Iwamoto (7) are shown for comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Effective stress-strain curves predicted in uniaxial tension at different temperatures for a 304 stainless steel. Experimental points taken from Iwamoto (7) are shown for comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) Evolutions of the fraction of martensite and (b) effective stress-strain curves predicted at 298K for the different tests listed in Table 1 for 304 stainless steels

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Punch load-displacement curves predicted during deep drawing for an austenitic TRIP steel (at various temperatures) and for a stable austenitic steel (without martensitic transformation at 298K). (b) Radial distributions of the volume fraction of martensite predicted for a cup drawn at various temperatures for different values of the punch strokes for an austenitic TRIP steel.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Radial distributions of thickness strain predicted for a cup drawn for an austenitic TRIP steel (at various temperatures) and for a stable austenitic steel (at room temperature)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Radial distributions of volume fraction of martensite predicted for a cup drawn at 298K for a drawing ratio of DR=2.1. The experimental fractions of martensite are taken from Sumitomo (59).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) Effective stress-strain curves and (b) the evolution of the volume fraction of martensite in uniaxial tension at 298K. Comparison between simulation and experimental results for TRIP800.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Stress-state effect at 298K for the different tests listed in Table 1 for a TRIP800 steel: (a) kinetics of phase transformation and (b) multiaxial behaviour

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of the effective stress-strain curves predicted at 298K in uniaxial tension and shear and experimental results of Furnemont (47) for a TRIP steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of the evolution of the volume fraction of residual austenite predicted at 298K for different tests listed in Table 1 experimental results of Furnemont (47) for a TRIP steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Radial distributions of the volume fraction of residual austenite at 298K. Comparison between simulations and experimental results (62) for a TRIP800 steel for three values of the punch stroke (50mm, 70mm, and 90mm).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

(a) Radial distributions of thickness strain predicted for a cup drawn at different values of the punch stroke and (b) punch load-displacement curve predicted during stamping for TRIP800 at 298K

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.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
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