Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Measurement of directional anisotropy coefficients for AA7020-T6 tubes and prediction of forming limit curve

  • 172 Accesses

  • 7 Citations

Abstract

The mechanical properties of tubes in hoop directions can be measured with ring hoop tensile test (RHTT). This test involves placing a ring sample of tube over the two D-shaped mandrels which can be parted with a testing machine. In this article, the goal was measuring the directional anisotropy coefficients of hydroformed AA7020-T6 tubes (r0, r45, and r90) to predict forming limit diagram (FLD). Due to deriving anisotropy coefficients in different directions, various tensile tests should be performed for the tube. For longitudinal and circumferential samples, a simple tensile test and ring hoop tensile test were applied to obtain r0 and r90, respectively. Additionally, for testing in 45° to the rolling direction, a new testing method which is inspired by RHTT was used to find r45. Afterwards, forming limit diagram of this aluminum alloy was predicted theoretically based on the Marciniak-Kuczynski (M-K) model and Voce hardening law. Since, one of the important factors in gaining accurate FLDs is yield function. Two advanced yield functions, BBC2008 and YLd2011, were selected. These advanced yield functions can describe material’s anisotropy behavior better than the classical ones. The importance of the directional anisotropy coefficients and other data obtained by tensile tests was in calibration of yield functions. Good agreement between the FLD derived under the influence of a calibrated yield function and the experimental FLD supports the present calibration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Kuwabara T (2007) Advances in experiments on metal sheets and tubes in support of constitutive modeling and forming simulations. Int J Plast 23(3):385–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2006.06.003

  2. 2.

    Korkolis YP, Kyriakides S (2008) Inflation and burst of anisotropic aluminum tubes for hydroforming applications. Int J Plast 24(3):509–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.07.010

  3. 3.

    Delobelle P, Robinet P, Geyer P, Bouffioux P (1996) A model to describe the anisotropic viscoplastic behaviour of Zircaloy-4 tubes. J Nucl Mater 238(2):135–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(96)00450-3

  4. 4.

    Price EG (1972) Hydride orientation and tensile properties of Zr-2.5 wt% Nb pressure tubing hydrided while internally pressurized. Can Metall Q 11(1):129–138

  5. 5.

    Arsene S, Bai J (1996) A new approach to measuring transverse properties of structural tubing by a ring test. J Test Eval 24(6):386–391

  6. 6.

    Link TM, Koss DA, Motta AT (1998) Failure of Zircaloy cladding under transverse plane-strain deformation. Nucl Eng Des 186(3):379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(98)00284-2

  7. 7.

    Cohen AB, Majumdar S, Ruther WE, Billone MC, Chung HM, Neimark LA (1998) Modified ring stretch tensile testing of Zr-1Nb cladding, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC (United States); Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (United States)

  8. 8.

    Wang H, Martin P, Bouchard R, Eagleson R, Tyson W (2002) Ring hoop tension test (RHTT): a test for transverse tensile properties of tubular materials. J Test Eval 30(5):382–391

  9. 9.

    Lin Y-L, He Z-B, Yuan S-J, Jia WU (2011) Formability determination of AZ31B tube for IHPF process at elevated temperature. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 21(4):851–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(11)60792-9

  10. 10.

    He Z, Yuan S, Liu G, Wu J, Cha W (2010) Formability testing of AZ31B magnesium alloy tube at elevated temperature. J Mater Process Technol 210(6):877–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.01.020

  11. 11.

    Dick Jr C (2014) The Ring Hoop Tension and the Ring Plane Strain Tension tests for measuring the anisotropy of AL-6061-T4 tubes (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire)

  12. 12.

    Dick CP, Korkolis YP (2014) Mechanics and full-field deformation study of the ring hoop tension test. Int J Solid Struct 51(18):3042–3057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.04.023

  13. 13.

    Javidikia M, Hashemi R (2017) Mechanical anisotropy in ultra-fine grained aluminium tubes processed by parallel-tubular-channel angular pressing. Mater Sci Technol 33(18):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02670836.2017.1368169

  14. 14.

    Afshar A (2015) Experimental and numerical determination of forming limit diagram for aluminum tube with using hydroforming process (Master of Science thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology)

  15. 15.

    Comsa DS, Banabic D (2008) Plane-stress yield criterion for highly-anisotropic sheet metals. In Proceedings of the 7th International conference and workshop on numerical simulation of 3D sheet metal forming processes, NUMISHEET (pp. 43-48)

  16. 16.

    Aretz H, Barlat F (2013) New convex yield functions for orthotropic metal plasticity. Int J Non Linear Mech 51:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2012.12.007

  17. 17.

    Banabic D, Cazacu O, Barlat F, Comsa DS, Wagner S, Siegert K (2003) Description of anisotropic behaviour of AA3103-0 aluminium alloy using two recent yield criteria. In Journal de Physique IV (Proceedings), (Vol. 105, pp. 297-304). EDP sciences

  18. 18.

    Banabic D, Aretz H, Comsa DS, Paraianu L (2005) An improved analytical description of orthotropy in metallic sheets. Int J Plast 21(3):493–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.04.003

  19. 19.

    Afshar A, Hashemi R, Madoliat R, Rahmatabadi D, Hadiyan B (2017) Numerical and experimental study of bursting prediction in tube hydroforming of Al 7020-T6. Mech Ind 18(4):411–418. https://doi.org/10.1051/meca/2017019

  20. 20.

    Hashemi R, Madoliat R, Afshar A (2016) Prediction of forming limit diagrams using the modified MK method in hydroforming of aluminum tubes. Int J Mater Form 9(3):297–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-014-1207-6

  21. 21.

    Kim J, Kim SW, Song WJ, Kang BS (2005) Analytical and numerical approach to prediction of forming limit in tube hydroforming. Int J Mech Sci 47(7):1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2005.02.011

  22. 22.

    Hashemi R, Abrinia K, Assempour A, Khakpour Nejadkhaki H, Shahbazi Mastanabad A (2016) Forming limit diagram of tubular hydroformed parts considering the through-thickness compressive normal stress. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl 230(1):332–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420714562652

  23. 23.

    Mirfalah-Nasiri SM, Basti A, Hashemi R (2016) Forming limit curves analysis of aluminum alloy considering the through-thickness normal stress, anisotropic yield functions and strain rate. Int J Mech Sci 117:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.08.011

  24. 24.

    Hedayati N, Madoliat R, Hashemi R (2017) Strain measurement and determining coefficient of plastic anisotropy using digital image correlation (DIC). Mech Ind 18(3):311. https://doi.org/10.1051/meca/2016060

  25. 25.

    Cyr E, Mohammadi M, Brahme A, Mishra RK, Inal K (2017) Modeling the formability of aluminum alloys at elevated temperatures using a new thermo-elasto-viscoplastic crystal plasticity framework. Int J Mech Sci 128-129:312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.05.005

  26. 26.

    Guo X, Ma F, Guo Q, Luo X, Kim N, Jin K (2017) A calculating method of tube constants of ductile fracture criteria in tube free bulging process based on M-K theory. Int J Mech Sci 128-129:140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.04.012

  27. 27.

    Song X, Leotoing L, Guines D, Ragneau E (2017) Characterization of forming limits at fracture with an optimized cruciform specimen: application to DP600 steel sheets. Int J Mech Sci 126:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.03.023

  28. 28.

    Marciniak Z, Kuczyński K, Pokora T (1973) Influence of the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit diagram for sheet metal in tension. Int J Mech Sci 15(10):789–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(73)90068-4

  29. 29.

    Assempour A, Hashemi R, Abrinia K, Ganjiani M, Masoumi E (2009) A methodology for prediction of forming limit stress diagrams considering the strain path effect. Comput Mater Sci 45(2):195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.09.025

  30. 30.

    Assempour A, Nejadkhaki HK, Hashemi R (2010) Forming limit diagrams with the existence of through-thickness normal stress. Comput Mater Sci 48(3):504–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.02.013

  31. 31.

    Panich S, Barlat F, Uthaisangsuk V, Suranuntchai S, Jirathearanat S (2013) Experimental and theoretical formability analysis using strain and stress based forming limit diagram for advanced high strength steels. Mater Des 51:756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.080

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to R. Hashemi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mousavi, F., Hashemi, R. & Madoliat, R. Measurement of directional anisotropy coefficients for AA7020-T6 tubes and prediction of forming limit curve. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96, 1015–1023 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1645-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Forming limit diagram
  • Tube
  • Yield functions
  • Marciniak-Kuczynski model
  • Plastic anisotropy