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

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.

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

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

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)

  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):1297–1319

    Article  Google 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):1309–1327

    Article  Google 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):2319–2343

    Article  Google 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. 177–182

  6. 6.

    Chaboche JL (1986) Time-independent constitutive theories for cyclic plasticity. Int J Plast 2(2):149–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chaboche JL (2008) A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive theories. Int J Plast 24(10):1642–1693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Firat M (2007) U-channel forming analysis with an emphasis on springback deformation. Mater Des 28(1):147–154

    Article  Google 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):281–297

    MathSciNet  Article  Google 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 207:173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Manual LDKUS (2007) Volume II: Material Models Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC)

  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):233–245

    Article  Google 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):3562–3572

    Article  Google 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 71:113–135

    Article  Google 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):209–211

    Article  Google 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 119:343–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Prager W (1949) Recent developments in the mathematical theory of plasticity. J Appl Phys 20(3):235–241

    MathSciNet  Article  Google 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 264–270

  19. 19.

    Sun L, Wagoner RH (2011) Complex unloading behavior: nature of the deformation and its consistent constitutive representation. Int J Plast 27(7):1126–1144

    Article  Google 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)

  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):217–222

    Article  Google 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):261–264

    Article  Google 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):661–686

    Article  Google 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):633–659

    Article  Google 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 252:381–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junying Min.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, J., Hou, Y., Min, J. et al. Effect of constitutive model on springback prediction of MP980 and AA6022-T4. Int J Mater Form 13, 1–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-018-01468-x

Download citation

Keywords

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