Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stress-state dependent formability modelling in hot stamping

  • Production Process
  • Published:
Production Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite their large industrial use, Forming Limit Diagrams can describe the material formability only under single-stroke deformations, but they can dramatically fail when the deformation is not linear or incremental as it happens in many sheet forming processes. So, the need of alternative approaches is particularly significant in order to have a more general and effective description of the material formability. The paper focuses on the use of the Generalized Incremental Stress-State dependent damage MOdel (GISSMO) to predict the formability in 22MnB5 hot stamping. The model was calibrated on the basis of laboratory experiments carried out at high temperature, and the results validated on a laboratory simulative tests of stretching at high temperatures, namely 700 °C and 800 °C, showing a good agreement between numerical and experimental results.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ISO copyright office (2006) Metallic materials-sheet and strip-determination of forming limit curves-Part 2: determination of forming limit curves in laboratory, ISO/DIS 12004-2

  2. Marciniak Z, Kuczynski K. Limit strains in the process of stretch-forming sheet metal. Int J Mech Sci 9:609–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakazima K, Kikuma T, Asaku K (1968) Study on the formability of steel sheet. Yawata Tech Rep 264

  4. Bergström Y, Ölund S (1982) The forming limit diagram of sheet metals and effects of strain path changes on formability: a dislocation treatment. Mater Sci Eng 56:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nurcheshmeh M, Green DE (2011) Investigation on the strain-path dependency of stress-based forming limit curves. IntJ Mater Form 4:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-010-0989-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Graf A, Hosford WF (1993) Effect of changing strain paths on forming limit diagrams of AI 2008-T4. Metall Trans A 24:2497–2501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yao H, Cao J (2002) Prediction of forming limit curves using an anisotropic yield function with pre-strain induced back-stress. Int J Plast 18(8):1013–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stoughton TB, Zhu X (2004) Review of theoretical models of the strain-based FLD and their relevance to the stress-based FLD. Int J Plast 20(8-9):1463–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hora P, Tong L (2006) Numerical prediction of FLC using the enhanced modified maximum force criterion. In: Hora P (ed) Proceedings of FLC-Zurich 06, Zurich, pp 31–36

  10. Volk Wolfram, Suh Joungsik (2013) Prediction of formability for non-linear deformation history using generalized forming limit concept (GFLC). AIP Conf Proc 1567:556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Andrade F, Feucht M (2017) A comparison of damage and failure models for the failure prediction of dual-phase steel. In: 11th European LS_DYNA Conference 2017

  12. 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(1):2–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tvergaard V (1981) Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain conditions. Int J Fract 157:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1995) Effects of nonlocal damage in porous plastic solids. Int J Solids Struct 32(8/9):1063–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cockroft MG, Latham DJ (1968) Ductility and workability of metals. J Inst Metals 96:33–39

    Google Scholar 

  16. Neukamm F et al (2016) On closing the constitutive gap between forming and crash simulation. 10th Int J Fract 200:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrade FXC et al (2016) An incremental stress state dependent damage model for ductile fracture prediction. Int J Fract 200:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Andrade F, Erhart T, Haufe A (2016) Modeling of anisotropic damage with *MAT_ADD_GENERALIZED_DAMAGE, DynaMore, October 13th, 2016

  19. Golling S, Östlund R, Schill M, Sjöblom R, Mattiasson K, Jergeus J, Oldenburg M (2017) A comparative study of different failure modeling strategies on a laboratory scale test component. In: 2017 CHS2 conference proceedings

  20. Wang QL, Ghiotti A, Bruschi S (2018) Anisotropy influence on the failure of Ti6Al4V sheets deformed at room and elevated temperature. AIP Conf Proc 1960:160030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang QL, Ghiotti A, Bruschi S, Mu Y (2019) Modelling of fracture occurrence in Ti6Al4V sheets at elevated temperature accounting for anisotropic behaviour. Int J Mech Sci 150:471–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stander N, Roux WJ, Goel T, Eggleston T, Craig KJ (2010) LS_OPT version 4.1 user’s man- ual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation

  23. Stander N, Craig KJ (2002) On the robustness of a simple domain reduction scheme for simulation-based optimization. Eng Comut 19:431–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yin Q, Zillmann B, Suttner S, Gerstein G, Biasutti M, Tekkaya AE, Wagner MF-X, Merklein M, Schaper M, Halle T, Brosius A (2014) Int J Solids Struct 51:1066–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Akerstrom P, Oldemburg M (2006) Austenite decomposition during press hardening of a Boron Steel—computer simulation and test. J Mater Process Tech 174:399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by Ford Motor Company (Grant number 2014-4050 URP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua, via Venezia 1, 35131, Padua, Italy

    Giulia Venturato, Andrea Ghiotti & Stefania Bruschi

Authors
  1. Giulia Venturato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Ghiotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefania Bruschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Ghiotti.

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

Venturato, G., Ghiotti, A. & Bruschi, S. Stress-state dependent formability modelling in hot stamping. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 14, 105–114 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-019-00941-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-019-00941-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation