International Journal of Material Forming

, Volume 1, Supplement 1, pp 1075–1078 | Cite as

A comparison of failure prediction methods for superplastic deformation

Symposium MS15: High temperature sheet forming
First Online:

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison between a number of different failure prediction methods for superplastic forming processes. Attention is limited here to superplastic forming of Ti-6Al-4V at 927°C. The failure prediction methods considered include the flow localisation factor approach, forming limit curves based on void growth models, such as the Rice and Tracey model and the Cocks and Ashby model, and a recently-presented superplastic forming limit diagram (SPFLD) approach. Finite element modelling of the forming process is employed to assess the failure prediction methods and the predicted results are compared with available test data.

Key words

superplastic forming Ti-6Al-4V failure prediction void growth models flow localisation factor superplastic forming limit diagram 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hart, E.W. “Theory of the tensile test,” Acta Metallurgica, 15, 1967, pp. 351–355.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghosh, A.K., “Tensile instability and necking in materials with strain hardening and strain-rate hardening,” Acta Metallurgica, 25, 1977, pp. 1413–1424.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung, L.C. and Cheng, J.-H., “The analysis of instability and strain concentration during superplastic deformation,” Mat. Sci. Eng., A308, 2001, pp. 153–160.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding, X.D., Zbib, H.M., Hamilton, C.H., Bayoumi, A.E., “On the stability of biaxial stretching with application to the optimisation of superplastic blow-forming,” Trans ASME, J Eng Mats Tech, 119, 1997, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marciniak, Z, and Kuczynski, K. “Limit strains in the processes of stretch-forming sheet metal,” Int J Mech Sci, 9, 1967, pp. 609–620.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L.C. and Cheng, J.-H., “Fracture criterion and forming pressure design for superplastic forming,” Mat. Sci. Eng., A333, 2002, pp. 146–154.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yatomi, M., Bettinson, A.D., O’Dowd, N.P., Nikbin, K.M., “Modelling of damage development and failure in notched-bar multiaxial creep tests,” Fat Fract Eng Mats Structs, 27, 2004, 283–295.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krohn, M.A., Leen, S.B., Hyde, T.H., “A superplastic forming limit diagram concept for Ti-6Al-4V,” Proc Instn Mech. Engrs, Part L: J. Mats Design & Applications, 221(L4), 2007, 251–264.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou, M. and Dunne, F.P.E., Mechanisms-based constitutive equations for the superplastic behaviour of a titanium alloy, J. Strain Analysis 31, 1996, 65–73.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghosh, A.K. and Hamilton, C.H., Mechanical behaviour and hardening characteristics of a superplastic Ti-6Al-4V alloy, Met Trans, 10A, 1979, 699–706.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin, J., Selection of material models for predicting necking in superplastic forming, Int J Plasticity, 19, 2003, 469–481.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leen, SB, Krohn, M, Hyde, TH, “Strain-based failure prediction for superplastic forming,” ESAFORM 2006, Eds N Juster & A Rosochowski, Glasgow, April 2006, 351–354.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer/ESAFORM 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical, Materials & Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of Nottingham

Personalised recommendations