4.7 Article

Accurate characterization of biaxial stress-strain response of sheet metal from bulge testing

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLASTICITY
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 192-213

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2016.02.005

关键词

Cutting and forming; Anisotropic material; Constitutive behavior; Mechanical testing

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. GM collaborative research at Tongji University
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51375346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method considering anisotropic deformation is developed to accurately calculate principal stresses and strains as well as the actual thickness at the specimen pole in circular bulge testing combined with digital image correlation techniques. The new method takes into account the elastic dilatancy and the bending effect when calculating the thickness at the specimen pole, the ratio of specimen thickness to the radius of curvature on the specimen outer surface and non-balanced biaxial curvatures in principal directions when calculating the effective stress at the specimen pole, which have been not considered in previous methods from literature including the ISO Standard (ISO 16808: 2014). The accuracy of the proposed calculation method is validated by circular hydraulic bulge testing for a 1.1 mm thick Al-Mg alloy and a 1.0 mm thick dual-phase steel. Accuracy is improved in comparison to previous methods described in the literature, which underestimate the thickness at the specimen pole and lead to an overestimation of stresses by up to 3% for the tested materials. In addition, attributed to the consideration of anisotropic deformation in the proposed method, the plastic strain ratio (also known as the r(b)-value) in biaxial deformation is obtained as a function of equivalent plastic strain, which can be used to calibrate advanced anisotropic hardening models that allow for deformation-induced evolution of the yield surface shape. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据