Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 8 – uploaded by roya darabi

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 7 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet

Figure 7 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet

Related Figures (16)

Table 1 Chemical composition of aluminum alloy Al3105 sheet
Table 1 Chemical composition of aluminum alloy Al3105 sheet
Fig. 1 Geometries of 8 specimens used in the present study Numerical work to predict the forming limit diagram of two-layer sheet was performed with ABAQUS/Explicit code. All experimental conditions were duplicated in
Fig. 1 Geometries of 8 specimens used in the present study Numerical work to predict the forming limit diagram of two-layer sheet was performed with ABAQUS/Explicit code. All experimental conditions were duplicated in
Table 3 Mechanical properties of Al3105 and St14 sheets procedure proposed by Stoughton [22]. Some deformed specimens are shown in Fig. 3.
Table 3 Mechanical properties of Al3105 and St14 sheets procedure proposed by Stoughton [22]. Some deformed specimens are shown in Fig. 3.
Table 2 Chemical composition of carbon steel St14 sheet numerical simulation. Punch, die and blank holder were modeled as rigid bodies, while two-layer metallic sheets were modeled as deformable parts with 4-node shell ele- ments (S4R). Due to symmetry of geometries, loading and boundary conditions, only one-quarter of the parts were modeled. Coulomb friction model with a constant friction coefficient of 0.1 was used at the sheet-die and sheet-blank holder interfaces. A friction coefficient of 0.3 was con- sidered between the blank and the punch. The punch and the blank holder were fixed about all rotations and restricted to only move downwards in vertical direction along the y-axis. The die was constrained in all degrees of freedom. The nodes of the symmetry edges of the blank were constrained in the appropriate directions.
Table 2 Chemical composition of carbon steel St14 sheet numerical simulation. Punch, die and blank holder were modeled as rigid bodies, while two-layer metallic sheets were modeled as deformable parts with 4-node shell ele- ments (S4R). Due to symmetry of geometries, loading and boundary conditions, only one-quarter of the parts were modeled. Coulomb friction model with a constant friction coefficient of 0.1 was used at the sheet-die and sheet-blank holder interfaces. A friction coefficient of 0.3 was con- sidered between the blank and the punch. The punch and the blank holder were fixed about all rotations and restricted to only move downwards in vertical direction along the y-axis. The die was constrained in all degrees of freedom. The nodes of the symmetry edges of the blank were constrained in the appropriate directions.
Fig. 2 Schematic of the experimental set-up Fig. 3 Some deformed specimens
Fig. 2 Schematic of the experimental set-up Fig. 3 Some deformed specimens
The comparison of experimental and numerical forming limit diagrams of A13105-—St14 two-layer sheet is repre- sented in Fig. 7. As it is seen, the results obtained based on Oh and Brozzo ductile fracture criteria are again in much better match with experimental results especially in the left hand side of the FLD. The large disparities in the right hand side of the FLD can be due to some assumptions made in the numerical simulation. Figure 8 shows the
The comparison of experimental and numerical forming limit diagrams of A13105-—St14 two-layer sheet is repre- sented in Fig. 7. As it is seen, the results obtained based on Oh and Brozzo ductile fracture criteria are again in much better match with experimental results especially in the left hand side of the FLD. The large disparities in the right hand side of the FLD can be due to some assumptions made in the numerical simulation. Figure 8 shows the
Fig. 5 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for St14 sheet Table 4 The calculated material constants C; — C4 for Al3105 and St14 sheets
Fig. 5 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for St14 sheet Table 4 The calculated material constants C; — C4 for Al3105 and St14 sheets
Fig. 6 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for AI13105 sheet
Fig. 6 Comparison between numerical FLDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and experiments for AI13105 sheet
Fig. 8 Comparison between FLD of A13105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained experimentally
Fig. 8 Comparison between FLD of A13105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained experimentally
Fig. 9 Comparison between FLD of Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Freuden- thal ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 9 Comparison between FLD of Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Freuden- thal ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 10 Comparison between FLD of A13105-St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Cockroft and Latham ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 10 Comparison between FLD of A13105-St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Cockroft and Latham ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 12 Comparison between FLD of A13105-St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Brozzo ductile fracture criterion Fig. 11 Comparison between FLD of A13105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Oh ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 12 Comparison between FLD of A13105-St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Brozzo ductile fracture criterion Fig. 11 Comparison between FLD of A13105—St14 two-layer sheet and those of its components obtained numerically based on Oh ductile fracture criterion
Fig. 13 Comparison between numerical FLSDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and FLSD calculated by experimental data for Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet
Fig. 13 Comparison between numerical FLSDs determined by various ductile fracture criteria and FLSD calculated by experimental data for Al3105—St14 two-layer sheet
Related topics:
Materials Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved