Advertisement

Effect of constitutive model on springback prediction of MP980 and AA6022-T4

  • Jianping Lin
  • Yong Hou
  • Junying Min
  • Huijun Tang
  • John E. Carsley
  • Thomas B. Stoughton
Review
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Springback simulation of stamped sheet metal components using finite element method depends on the accuracy of appropriate material models and consideration of appropriate experimental strategies. In this work, tension-compression tests with different strategies, e.g. tension-compression, compression-tension up to various strain levels and multicycle compression-tension tests were conducted to determine parameters of the Yoshida-Uemori (Y-U) nonlinear dynamic hardening model using optimization analysis software LS-OPT. Finite element simulations with LS-DYNA were performed to predict springback behavior of both the advanced high strength steel MP980 (a 980 MPa grade multiphase steel) and aluminum alloy 6022-T4, which was then compared to measurements of stamped U-channel specimens. Results suggest that although the various tension-compression testing strategies can significantly affect the determined values of Yoshida-Uemori model parameters, springback prediction accuracy with this model does not depend on the associated variation of model parameters, at least for the two-dimensional sidewall curl of a U-channel shape. For materials (e.g. MP980) exhibiting a clear Bauschinger effect but insignificant texture anisotropy, the selection of suitable yield criteria (e.g. Hill48), the consideration of elastic modulus degradation combined with the Y-U model can obviously increase the accuracy of springback prediction. In contrast, materials (e.g. AA6022-T4) that exhibit little Bauschinger effect but have significant texture anisotropy, the use of a yield criterion that accounts for anisotropy (e.g. YLD2000-2D) is more important for improving the accuracy of springback prediction.

Keywords

Kinematic hardening Bauschinger effect Tension-compression testing Yoshida-Uemori model Springback prediction Anisotropy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to strongly acknowledge the technical expertise, guidance and tension-compression testing from Evan Rust and Chris Calhoun under the direction of Tim Foecke at the Center for Automotive Lightweighting, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

Funding

This study was funded by General Motors Global Research and Development Center (Grant No.: PS21025708).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Banabic D, Comsa DS, Sester M, Selig M, Kubli W, Mattiasson K, Sigvant M (2008) Influence of constitutive equations on the accuracy of prediction insheet metal forming simulation. In Numisheet (pp 37–42)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon JW, Chung K, Dick RE, Lege DJ, Pourboghrat F, Choi SH, Chu E (2003) Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy sheets—part 1: theory. Int J Plast 19(9):1297–1319CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barlat F, Gracio JJ, Lee M-G, Rauch EF, Vincze G (2011) An alternative to kinematic hardening in classical plasticity. Int J Plast 27(9):1309–1327CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boger RK, Wagoner RH, Barlat F, Lee MG, Chung K (2005) Continuous, large strain, tension/compression testing of sheet material. Int J Plast 21(12):2319–2343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carsley JE, Xia C, Yang L, Stoughton TB, Xu S, Hartfield-Wünsch SE, Li J, Chen Z (2013) Benchmark 2-Springback of a draw/re-draw panel: Part A: Benchmark description, AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP, pp. 177–182Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaboche JL (1986) Time-independent constitutive theories for cyclic plasticity. Int J Plast 2(2):149–188CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaboche JL (2008) A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive theories. Int J Plast 24(10):1642–1693CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Firat M (2007) U-channel forming analysis with an emphasis on springback deformation. Mater Des 28(1):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 193(1033):281–297MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hou Y, Min J, Lin J, Liu Z, Carsley JE, Stoughton TB (2017) Springback prediction of sheet metals using improved material models. Procedia Eng 207:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manual LDKUS (2007) Volume II: Material Models Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laurent H, Grèze R, Manach PY, Thuillier S (2009) Influence of constitutive model in springback prediction using the split-ring test. Int J Mech Sci 51(3):233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee J-Y, Lee J-W, Lee M-G, Barlat F (2012) An application of homogeneous anisotropic hardening to springback prediction in pre-strained U-draw/bending. Int J Solids Struct 49(25):3562–3572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee J-Y, Barlat F, Lee M-G (2015) Constitutive and friction modeling for accurate springback analysis of advanced high strength steel sheets. Int J Plast 71:113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li X, Yang Y, Wang Y, Bao J, Li S (2002) Effect of the material-hardening mode on the springback simulation accuracy of V-free bending. J Mater Process Technol 123(2):209–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Min J, Carsley JE, Lin J, Wen Y, Kuhlenkötter B (2016) A non-quadratic constitutive model under non-associated flow rule of sheet metals with anisotropic hardening: modeling and experimental validation. Int J Mech Sci 119:343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prager W (1949) Recent developments in the mathematical theory of plasticity. J Appl Phys 20(3):235–241MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shi MF, Zhu X, Xia C, Stoughton TB (2008) Determination of nonlinear isotropic/kinematic hardening constitutive parameters for AHSS using tension and compression tests [C]//Proceedings of NUMISHEET conference, Switzerland, pp 264–270Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun L, Wagoner RH (2011) Complex unloading behavior: nature of the deformation and its consistent constitutive representation. Int J Plast 27(7):1126–1144CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Witowski K, Feucht M, Stander N (2011) An effective curve matching metric for parameter identification using partial mapping. In: 8th European LS-DYNA, Users Conference Strasbourg, pgs (pp 1–12)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu WL, Ma CH, Li CH, Feng WJ (2004) Sensitive factors in springback simulation for sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 151(1):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yin Q, Tekkaya AE, Traphöner H (2015) Determining cyclic flow curves using the in-plane torsion test. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 64(1):261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoshida F, Uemori T (2002) A model of large-strain cyclic plasticity describing the Bauschinger effect and workhardening stagnation. Int J Plast 18(5):661–686CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoshida F, Uemori T, Fujiwara K (2002) Elastic–plastic behavior of steel sheets under in-plane cyclic tension–compression at large strain. Int J Plast 18(5):633–659CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang K, Li JJ, Stoughton TB, Carsley JE, Carlson BE (2018) Effect of preform annealing on plastic anisotropy of an age-hardenable Al-Mg-Si alloy. J Mater Process Technol 252:381–388Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.General Motors Global Research & DevelopmentWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations