Advertisement

A new analytical method for determination of the flow curve for high-strength sheet steels using the plane strain compression test

  • Charles Chermette
  • Klaus Unruh
  • Ilya PeshekhodovEmail author
  • Jérôme Chottin
  • Tudor Balan
Original Research
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

A new analytical method to determine the effective tool width in contact with the sheet workpiece in the plane strain compression test, which changes during the test if a tool with a radius is used, is proposed. A detailed description of this method and the corresponding procedure of the flow curve determination for high-strength sheet steels are presented. The underpinning assumptions of the method are validated with the help of the FEA and the validation results are presented. Furthermore, with the help of the FEA, the main disadvantages of the plane strain compression test – strain inhomogeneity and possible tool misalignment – are investigated. It is shown that these disadvantages become negligible if a tool with a sufficiently large radius is used. The experimental validation of the proposed method was performed with the help of the uniaxial tensile test, the plane strain compression test and hydraulic bulge test on ten common high-strength and advanced high-strength sheet steels in the ultimate tensile strength range between 460 and 1260 MPa and the thickness range between 0.8 and 3.1 mm. The paper demonstrates that with the proposed analytical method for determination of the effective tool width, the plane strain compression test equipped with a tool with a sufficiently large radius becomes more appealing as a cost-efficient alternative to the hydraulic bulge test for the flow curve determination of high-strength sheet steels than it has been considered until now.

Keywords

Plane strain compression test Flow curve AHSS 

Nomenclature

α

Angle between the free workpiece surface and the flat surface of the tool without a radius at the border of the ideal forming zone [°]

αR

Angle between the free workpiece surface constrained by the tool radius and the flat surface of the tool with a radius at the border of the ideal forming zone [°]

αC

Angle between the free workpiece surface unconstrained by the tool radius and the flat surface of the tool with a radius at the border of the ideal forming zone [°]

\( \Delta {\overline{\varepsilon}}_{\mathrm{pl}} \)

Increment of the equivalent plastic strain [−]

\( {\overline{\varepsilon}}^{\mathrm{vM}} \)

Equivalent strain according to von Mises [−]

\( {\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{pl}}^{\mathrm{vM}} \)

Equivalent plastic strain according to von Mises [−]

\( {\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{pl}}^{\mathrm{T}} \)

Equivalent plastic strain according to Tresca [−]

\( {\overline{\varepsilon}}_{\mathrm{pl}} \)

Equivalent plastic strain according to von Mises [−]

\( {\overline{\varepsilon}}_{\mathrm{pl}}^{\mathrm{max}} \)

Maximum equivalent plastic strain according to von Mises [−]

εps

Global true strain in the ideal plane strain stress state of the PSCT [−]

εpsref

Reference global true strain in the plane strain stress state of the PSCT [−]

εRm

True strain at the uniform elongation of the UTT [−]

εun

True strain converted from the plane strain stress state into the uniaxial stress state [−]

μ

Coulomb friction coefficient [−]

σps

Global true stress in the ideal plane strain stress state of the PSCT [MPa]

σpsref

Reference true stress in the plane strain stress state of the PSCT [MPa]

σRm

Global true stress at the uniform elongation of the UTT [MPa]

σun

True stress under the uniaxial stress state [MPa]

\( {\overline{\sigma}}^{\mathrm{T}} \)

Equivalent stress according to Tresca [MPa]

\( {\overline{\sigma}}^{\mathrm{vM}} \)

Equivalent stress according to von Mises [MPa]

\( \overline{\sigma} \)

Equivalent stress according to an arbitrary yield criterion [MPa]

σx

Stress along the x axis [MPa]

σy

Stress along the y axis [MPa]

∆σ

Increment of the mean stress in the ideal forming zone [MPa]

a

Tool width excluding the two radii [mm]

aw

Effective tool width [mm]

b

Actual specimen width [mm]

b0

Initial specimen width [mm]

bf

Final specimen width [mm]

\( {b}_{\mathrm{f}}^{\mathrm{max}} \)

Final maximum specimen width [mm]

Cb

Specimen width spread coefficient [−]

C(xC; yC)

Outermost contact point between the tool and the workpiece

F

Force [N]

fps

Fitting factor for the stress-state-dependent conversion of stresses and strains [−]

h

Actual specimen thickness [mm]

h0

Initial specimen thickness [mm]

hf

Final specimen thickness [mm]

k

Shear flow stress [MPa]

l0

Initial specimen length [mm]

m

Spread exponent [−]

R

Tool radius [mm]

rh(x)

Contour of the tool radius [−]

vx

Material speed along the x axis at the border of the ideal forming zone [ms−1]

vy(y)

Material speed along the y axis at the border of the ideal forming zone [ms−1]

w

Tool width including the two radii [mm]

W

Work corresponding to the increment of the mean stress in the ideal forming zone [J]

Wshear

Shear work [J]

x0

Half of the tool width excluding the two radii [mm]

y0

Half of the actual specimen thickness [mm]

ETW

Effective tool width

HBT

Hydraulic bulge test

PSCT

Plane strain compression test

UTT

Uniaxial tensile test

Notes

Acknowledgements

The hydraulic bulge test data were obtained via collaborations of Faurecia Autositze GmbH with Bilstein GmbH & Co. KG, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, Tata Steel Europe Ltd., thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG, voestalpine Stahl GmbH, whose support is acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

The hydraulic bulge test data, which was used as input data for this work, was obtained via previous collaborations of the Faurecia Autositze GmbH with Bilstein GmbH & Co. KG, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, Tata Steel Europe Ltd., thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG, voestalpine Stahl GmbH. The material testing in the frame of this work was performed at and funded by Faurecia Autositze GmbH, Stadthagen, Germany, a subsidiary of Faurecia S. E., Nanterre, France. Charles Chermette (participant of a V. I. E. program funded by Business France, Paris, France), Klaus Unruh and Ilya Peshekhodov have contributed to the work as employees of Faurecia Autositze GmbH, Stadthagen, Germany, a subsidiary of Faurecia S. E., Nanterre, France. Jérôme Chottin and Tudor Balan have contributed to the work as employees of Faurecia Sièges d’Automobiles, a subsidiary of Faurecia S. E., Nanterre, France. No further conflicts of interests are to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Brunet M, Morestin F (2001) Experimental and analytical necking studies of anisotropic sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 112(2-3):214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyun HC, Kim M, Bang S, Lee H (2014) On acquiring true stress-strain curves for sheet specimens using tensile test and FE analysis based on a local necking criterion. J Mater Res 29(5):695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poortmans S, Diouf B, Habraken A, Verlinden B (2007) Correcting tensile test results of ECAE-deformed aluminum. Scr Mater 56(9):749–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coppieters S, Cooreman S, Sol H, Van Houtte P, Debruyne D (2011) Identification of the post-necking hardening behaviour of sheet metal by comparison of the internal and external work in the necking zone. J Mater Process Technol 211(3):545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pipard JM, Balan T, Abed-Meraim T, Lemoine X (2013) Elasto-visco-plastic modeling of mild steels for sheet forming applications over a large range of strain rates. Int J Solids Struct 50(16-17):2691–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tardif N, Kyriakides S (2012) Determination of anisotropy and material hardening, for aluminum sheet metal. Int J Solids Struct 49(25):3496–3506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mulder J, Vegter H, Aretz H, Keller S, van den Boogaard AH (2015) Accurate determination of flow curves using the bulge test with optical measuring systems. J Mater Proc Technol 226:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    An YG, Vegter H (2005) Analytical and experimental study of frictional behavior in through-thickness compression test. J Mater Proc Technol 160(2):148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coppieters S, Lava P, Sol H, Van Bael A, Van Houtte P, Debruyne D (2010) Determination of the flow stress and contact friction of sheet metal in a multi-layered upsetting test. J Mater Proc Technol 210(10):1290–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouvier S, Haddadi H, Levée P, Teodosiu C (2006) Simple shear tests: experimental techniques and characterization of the plastic anisotropy of rolled sheets at large strains. J Mater Proc Technol 172(1):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yin Q, Zillmann B, Suttner S, Gerstein G, Biasutti M, Tekkaya AE, Wagner MFX, Merklein M, Schaper M, Halle T, Brosius A (2014) An experimental and numerical investigation of different shear test configurations for sheet metal characterization. Int J Solids Struct 51(5):1066–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietrzyk M, Lenard JG, Dalton GM (1993) A study of the plane strain compression test. CIRP Ann 42(1):331–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Semiatin SL, Altan T (2010) Measurement and interpretation of flow stress data for the simulation of metal-forming processes. Air Force Research Laboratory Report, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aksenov S, Kliber J, Puzino Y, Bober S (2015) Processing of plane strain compression test results for investigation of AISI-304 stainless steel constitutive behavior. J Chem Techn Metallurgy 50:644–650Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rees D (2012) Plane strain compression of alluminum alloy sheets. Mater Des 39:495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker N, Pöhlandt K (1989) Improvement of the plane-strain compression test for determining flow curves. Ann CIRP 38(1):227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Becker N (1994) Weiterentwicklung von Verfharen zur Aufnahme von Fließkurven im Bereich hoher Umformgrade. Doctoral Thesis, University of Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gelin JC, Ghouati O, Shahani R (1994) Modelling the plane strain compression test to obtain constitutive equations of aluminium alloys. Int J Mech Sci 36(9):773–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loveday MS, Mahon GJ, Roebuck B, Lacey AJ, Palmiere EJ, Sellars CM, von der Winden MR (2006) Measurement of flow stress in hot plane strain compression tests. Mater High Temp 23(2):85–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boldetti C, Pinna C, Howard IC (2006) Measurement and prediction of deformation in plane strain compression tests of AA5182. Mater Sci Technol 22(11):1380–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kowalski B, Lacey AJ, Sellars CM (2003) Correction of plane strain compression data for the effects of inhomogeneous deformation. Mater Sci Technol 19(11):1564–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kowalski B, Sellars CM, Pietrzyk M (2006) Identification of rheological parameters on the basis of plane strain compression tests on specimens of various initial dimensions. Comput Mater Sci 35(2):92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ismar H, Mahrenholtz O (1978) Technische Plastomechanik. Fried. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 112–125Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kubié J, Delamare F (1980) Mécanique des solides anélastiques. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des. Sciences 291:97–100Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mirza MS, Sellars CM (2001) Modelling the hot plane strain compression test. Part 1 – effect of specimen geometry, strain rate and friction on deformation. Mater Sci Technol 17(9):1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mirza MS, Sellars CM (2001) Modelling the hot plane strain compression test. Part 2 – effect of friction and specimen geometry on spread. Mater Sci Technol 17(9):1142–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi H, McLaren AJ, Sellars CM, Shahani R, Bolingbroke R (1997) Hot plate strain compression testing of aluminium alloys. J Test Eval 25(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silk NJ, von der Winden MR (1999) Interpretation of hot plane strain compression testing of aluminium specimens. Mater Sci Technol 15(3):295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hosford WF (1972) A generalised isotropic yield criterion. J Appl Mech 39(2):607–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vucetic M, Bouguecha A, Peshekhodov I, Götze T, Huinink T, Friebe H, Möller T, Behrens B.-A. (2011) Numerical validation of analytical biaxial true stress – true strain curves from the bulge test, Proc. Int. Conf. and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of Sheet Metal Forming ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mirza MS, Sellars CM (2007) Modelling hot plane strain compression test. Part 3 – effect of asymmetric conditions. Mater Sci Technol 23(5):567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seat Structure SystemsFaurecia Autositze GmbHStadthagenGermany
  2. 2.Seat Structure Systems, Faurecia Sièges d’AutomobilesEtampesFrance
  3. 3.Université de LorraineArts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFCMetzFrance

Personalised recommendations