Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of different ductile damage models of AA5754 for cold forming

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aluminum alloys are characterized by low formability limits under cold forming conditions. The accurate prediction of deformation and failure in sheet metal forming allows for the optimization of forming process parameters and reduces tooling modifications and materials costs. Several models for ductile damage have been developed in the past decades to quantify and predict forming and damage response of sheet metal under complex-forming conditions. However, there is a need to identify a robust model which can provide realistic predictions for the behavior of aluminum sheet metal under the cold forming condition and different loading conditions. This work aims to investigate the prediction capabilities of different damage models for AA-5754 during the cold forming process. The experimental tensile and forming limit diagram (FLD) data of AA-5754 sheet metal used for the damage models’ calibration were obtained from literature. In this article, four damage models available in two broadly used the FE software; namely, LS-DYNA and PAM-STAMP were investigated. The models utilized from LS-DYNA material library were MAT_JOHNSON_COOK, MAT_GURSON, and MAT_GISSMO; while from the PAM-STAMP software, the novel CDM model was used. The cross-die formability tests for AA-5754 sheets were performed to validate these damage models. The predictions of the novel CDM model were found to give a good agreement with the experimental results obtained from the formability tests.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data and procedures supporting the outcomes of this scientific research are presented within the article. The raw data of this research work are available from the corresponding author, [M. Mohamed], upon a reasonable request.

References

  1. Kaczmarek L, Kula P, Sawicki J et al (2009) New possibilities of applications aluminum alloys in transport. Arch Metall Mater 54:1199–1205

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hirsch J (2011) Aluminium in innovative light-weight car design. Mater Trans 52:818–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohamed M, Foster J, Lin D, Balint A, Dean T (2012) Investigation of deformation and failure features in hot stamping of AA6082: Experimentation and modelling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 53:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cao TS (2015) Models for ductile damage and fracture prediction in cold bulk metal forming processes: a review. Int J Mater Form 2:139–171

    Google Scholar 

  5. McClintock FA, Kaplan SM, Berg CA (1966) Ductile fracture by hole growth in shear bands. Int J Fract Mech 2:614–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. McClintock F. A Criterion for Ductile Fracture by the Growth of Holes. 1968. Epub ahead of print 1968. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3601204

  7. Rice JR, Tracey DM (1969) On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields∗. J Mech Phys Solids 17:201–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Freudenthal AM (1950) The inelastic behavior of engineering materials and structures. Wiley

  9. Cockcroft MG, Latham DJ (1968) Ductility and the workability of metals. J Inst Met 96:33–39

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brozzo P, Deluca B, Rendina R. A new method for the prediction of formability limits in metal sheets. In: Proc. 7th biennal Conf. IDDR. 1972.

  11. Kachanov L (1958) Rupture time under creep conditions. Izv Akad Nauk SSSR 8:26–31

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lemaitre J, Chaboche J-L (1994) Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge university press

  13. Lin J, Mohamed M, Balint D, Dean TA (2014) The development of continuum damage mechanics-based theories for predicting forming limit diagrams for hot stamping applications. Int J Damage Mech 23:684–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin J, Liu Y, Dean TA (2005) A review on damage mechanisms, models and calibration methods under various deformation conditions. Int J Damage Mech 14:299–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gelin JC (1998) Modelling of damage in metal forming processes. J Mater Process Technol 80–81:24–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khaleel MA, Zbib HM, Nyberg EA (2001) Constitutive modeling of deformation and damage in superplastic materials. Int J Plast 17:277–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin J, Cheong BH, Yao X (2002) Universal multi-objective function for optimising superplastic-damage constitutive equations. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Özer H, Gunay D (2003) Aspects of the Gurson model and its applications. Math Comput Appl 8:327–334

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part I—Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. J Eng Mater Technol 99:2–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall 32:157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson D, Butcher C, Pathak N, Worswick MJ (2017) Failure parameter identification and validation for a dual-phase 780 steel sheet. Int J Solids Struct 124:89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pérez Caro L, Schill M, Haller K, Odenberger EL, Oldenburg M (2020) Damage and fracture during sheet-metal forming of alloy 718. Int J Mater Form 13:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen X, Chen G, Huang L, et al. (2018) Calibration of GISSMO model for fracture prediction of a super high formable advanced high strength steel. In: 15th International LS-DYNA User Conference

  24. Kami A, Dariani B, Comsa D-S et al Calibration of GTN damage model parameters using hydraulic bulge test. Rom J Tech Sci - Appl Mech.

  25. Kami A, Dariani B, Ali SVS et al (2014) Application of a GTN damage model to predict the fracture of metallic sheets subjected to deep-drawing. Proc Rom Acad - Ser A Math Physics, Tech Sci Inf Sci 15:300–309

    Google Scholar 

  26. CUESTA II, ALEGRE JM, LACALLE R (2010) Determination of the Gurson–Tvergaard damage model parameters for simulating small punch tests. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 33:703–713

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chalal H, Abed-Meraim F (2017) Determination of forming limit diagrams based on ductile damage models and necking criteria. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 14:1872–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohamed M, Norman D, Petre A, et al. (2018) Advances in FEM Simulation of HFQ® AA6082 tailor welded blanks for automotive applications. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing, p. 12036.

  29. Mohamed M, Lin J, Dean T et al (2012) An investigation of damage theories in predicting phenomena in stamping process. STEEL Res Int:1219–1222

  30. Anderson TL, Anderson TL (2005) Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. CRC Press

  31. Dutton T, Mohamed M, Lin J (2012) Simulation of warm forming of aluminium 5754 for automotive panels. In: 12th International LS-DYNA Conference

  32. Dhara S, Basak S, Panda SK, Hazra S, Shollock B, Dashwood R (2016) Formability analysis of pre-strained AA5754-O sheet metal using Yld96 plasticity theory: role of amount and direction of uni-axial pre-strain. J Manuf Process 24:270–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21:31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. LS-DYNA KEYWORD USER’S MANUAL A. Version 970. Livermore Softw Technol Corp.

  35. Banerjee A, Dhar S, Acharyya S, Datta D, Nayak N (2015) Determination of Johnson cook material and failure model constants and numerical modelling of Charpy impact test of armour steel. Mater Sci Eng A 640:200–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Neukamm F, Feucht M, Haufe A, et al. On closing the constitutive gap between forming and crash simulation. In: 10th Internation LS-DYNA Users Conference 2008, Dearborn, Michigan, USA. 2008.

  37. Warwick U of. Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the “Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), UK” for giving the opportunity to use the tools and the facilities for the experimental part of the research work.

Funding

The experimental and measurements work in this paper were performed during a short-term scholarship for master’s studies at “Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), UK” funded by the Egyptian government. The facilities used in this research were provided by the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt

    Mohamed Mohamed & Mohamed Amer

  2. Impression Technologies Limited, CV5 9PF, Coventry, UK

    Mohamed Mohamed

  3. The British University in Egypt (BUE), Al Shorouk City, Egypt

    Mostafa Shazly

  4. WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Iain Masters

Authors
  1. Mohamed Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Amer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mostafa Shazly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iain Masters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The corresponding author M. Mohamed has been responsible for developing this article idea, structure, proposing the research plan, FE modeling procedures, besides analyzing the experimental and FE simulation results. M. Amer was responsible for performing the experimental work, carrying out the measurements, developing FE models, and writing the paper. M. Shazly was responsible for revising the paper structure, contents, result analysis, findings, and paper writing. I. Masters was responsible for developing the experimental work and measurement plans, analyzing the obtained results, and revising the paper writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Mohamed.

Ethics declarations

Consent to participate

The authors declare their intent to participate this work.

Consent for publication

The authors declare their intent to publish this work.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohamed, M., Amer, M., Shazly, M. et al. Assessment of different ductile damage models of AA5754 for cold forming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 114, 1219–1231 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06836-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06836-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation