Advertisement

Failure analysis of SUS304 sheet during hydro-bulging based on GTN ductile damage model

  • W. W. ZhangEmail author
  • S. Cong
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Stainless steel sheet has a good forming performance due to its perfect strain hardening behavior. In order to predict the hydro-formability of stainless steel sheet SUS304, Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) ductile damage model is used to describe the failure behavior under the condition of complicated stress state. GTN damage parameters were identified by the comparison between simulation and experiments according to the hybrid methods including scanning electron microscope (SEM), Plackett-Burman design (PBD), and response surface methodology (RSM). Then, verification of the obtained damage parameters by experimental researches on die-less hydro-bulging of ellipsoidal shell and sheet hydro-bulging was carried out, and the hydro-formability and failure behavior were mainly discussed. It is shown that the GTN ductile damage model can be applied to evaluate the fracture during hydro-bulging. It is also experimentally proved that the hybrid method containing SEM, PBD, and RSM is a feasible to predict the damage parameters.

Keywords

Hydro-bulging GTN damage model PBD RSM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Hashmi S (2014) In: Yuan SJ, Liu G (eds) Comprehensive materials processing, volumn 3, chapter 3.04, tube hydro-forming (internal high-pressure forming). Elsevier Ltd, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yuan SJ, He ZB, Liu G (2011) New developments of hydro-forming in China. In: Manabe K (ed) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tube hydro-forming, Japan,p 2–13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartl C (2005) Research and advances in fundamentals and industrial application of hydro-forming. J Mater Proce Tech 167(2–3):383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yuan SJ (2009) Modern hydro-forming technology. National Defense Industry Press, PeikingGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang WW, Wang XS, Cui XL, Yuan SJ (2015) Analysis of corner filling behavior during tube hydro-forming of rectangular section based on Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman ductile damage model. Proc IMechE Part B J Eng Manuf 229(9):1566–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abbasi M, Hamzeloo SR, Ketabchi M, Shafaat MA, Bagheri B (2014) Analytical method for prediction of weld line movement during stretch forming of tailor-welded blanks. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 73(5):999–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishna CK, Davidson MJ, Nagaraju C (2015) Investigation of work hardening behavior and failure analysis of billets due to biaxial stresses in simple upsetting process. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-6948-y Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbassi M, Belhadj T, Mistou S, Zghal A (2013) Parameter identification of a mechanical ductile damage using artificial neural networks in sheet metal forming. Mater Des 45(3):605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chhibber R, Singh H, Arora N, Dutta BK (2012) Micromechanical modeling of reactor pressure vessel steel. Mater Des 36(4):258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao TS, Maire E, Verdu C, Bobadilla C, Lasne P, Montmitonnet P, Bouchard PO (2014) Characterization of ductile damage for a high carbon steel using 3D X-ray micro-tomography and mechanical tests—application to the identification of a shear modified GTN model. Comp Mater Sci 84(3):175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yan YX, Sun Q, Chen JJ, Pan HL (2013) The initiation and propagation of edge cracks of silicon steel during tandem cold rolling process based on the Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman damage model. J Mater Proce Tech 213(4):598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    He M, Li FG, Wang ZG (2011) Forming limit stress diagram prediction of aluminum alloy 5052 based on GTN model parameters determined by in situ tensile test. Chinese J Aeronaut 24(3):378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbasi M, Ketabchi, Izadkhah H, Fatmehsaria DH, Aghbash AN (2011) Identification of GTN model parameters by application of response surface methodology. Proc Eng 10:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abbasi M, Bagheri B, Ketabchi M, Haghshenas DF (2012) Application of response surface methodology to drive GTN model parameters and determine the FLD of tailor welded blank. Comp Mater Sci 53(1):368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tvergaard V, Needleman A (1984) Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile test bar. Acta Metall 32:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    He ZB, Yuan SJ, Lin YL, Wang XS, Hu WL (2014) Analytical model for tube hydro-bulging test, part I: models for stress components and bulging zone profile. Int J Mech Sci 87:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He ZB, Yuan SJ, Lin YL, Wang XS, Hu WL (2014) Analytical model for tube hydro-bulging tests, part II: linear model for pole thickness and its application. Int J Mech Sci 87:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang WW, Yuan SJ (2015) Pre-form design for hydro-forming process of combined ellipsoidal shells by response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 81(9–12):1977–1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang WW, Teng BG, Yuan SJ (2015) Research on deformation and stress in hydro-forming process of an ellipsoidal shell without constraint. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 76(9–12):1555–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Electronic EngineeringChina Academy of Engineering PhysicsMianyangChina
  2. 2.School of Materials Science and EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations