0
Research Papers

Comparison Between Two Experimental Procedures for Cyclic Plastic Characterization of High Strength Steel Sheets

[+] Author and Article Information
G. B. Broggiato

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, “Sapienza”  Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana, 18 – 00184 Rome, Italygiovanni.broggiato@uniroma1.it

F. Campana

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, “Sapienza”  Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana, 18 – 00184 Rome, Italyfrancesca.campana@uniroma1.it

L. Cortese

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, “Sapienza”  Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana, 18 – 00184 Rome, Italyluca.cortese@uniroma1.it

E. Mancini

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, “Sapienza”  Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana, 18 – 00184 Rome, Italyedoardo.mancini@uniroma1.it

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 134(4), 041008 (Aug 24, 2012) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006919 History: Received November 21, 2011; Revised April 20, 2012; Published August 24, 2012; Online August 24, 2012

In finite element analysis of sheet metal forming the use of combined isotropic-kinematic hardening models is advisable to improve stamping simulation and springback prediction. This choice becomes compulsory to model recent materials such as high strength steels. Cyclic tests are strictly required to evaluate the parameters of these constitutive models. However, for sheet metal specimens, in case of simple axial tension-compression tests, buckling occurrence during compression represents a serious drawback. This is the reason why alternative set-ups have been devised. In this paper, two experimental arrangements (a cyclic laterally constrained tension-compression test and a three-point fully reversed bending test) are compared so as to point out the advantages and the disadvantages of their application in tuning the well-known Chaboche’s hardening model. In particular, for tension-compression tests, a new clamping device was specifically designed to inhibit compressive instability. Four high strength steel grades were tested: two dual phases (DP), one transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) and one high strength low alloy material (HSLA). Then, the Chaboche’s model was calibrated through inverse identification methods or by means of analytical expressions when possible. The proposed testing procedure proved to be successful in all investigated materials. The achieved constitutive parameters, obtained independently from the two experimental techniques, were found to be consistent. Their accuracy was also been assessed by applying the parameter set obtained from one test to simulate the other one, and vice versa. Clues on what method provides the better transferability are given.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Tension-compression sheet specimen (units of length: millimetres)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Anti-buckling clamping device: upper and lower fasteners; (b) fastener components

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Dowel pins for specimen-fasteners alignment (1); dowel pins for plates reciprocal alignment (2)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Anti-buckling clamping device: FEA model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Anti-buckling clamping device: FEA results in terms of relative displacement between fasteners and von Mises equivalent stress

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Three-point bend test: schematic representation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Schematic configurations of the left roller constraint during cyclic bend

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Three-point bend test: details of a roller constraint with two cylinders 16 mm in diameter (on the left) and of the central punch 2 mm rounded (on the right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Cyclic tension-compression results: stress–strain engineering curves

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Cyclic three-point bend results: load–displacement curves of three replications

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Inverse calibration procedure with FEA: experimental versus numerical cyclic tension-compression curves (engineering stress–strain curves)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Inverse calibration procedure with analytical functions: experimental versus numerical cyclic tension-compression curves (engineering stress–strain curves)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Inverse calibration procedure with FEA: experimental versus numerical cyclic three-point bend curves (load–displacement curves)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

DP1: experimental-numerical match

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Cross-comparison results: three-point bend test simulated with calibrated parameters of tension-compression test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Cross-comparison results: tension-compression test simulated with calibrated parameters of three-point bend test

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