Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determination of the forming limit of impact hydroforming by frictionless full zone hydraulic forming test

  • Original Research
  • Published:
International Journal of Material Forming Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is impossible to obtain the forming limit curve (FLC) by full zone hydraulic forming test under quasi-static (QS) condition since the liquid will leak from the notches of the specimen once the pressure increases. In this study, a novel method is proposed to investigate the frictionless full zone hydraulic FLC of AA5A06 under high strain rate (HSR) condition based on the impact hydroforming technology (IHF). It is found that the FLC is increased significantly by IHF compared with the quasi-static rigid punch (QS-R) forming and the quasi-static hydraulic (QS-H) forming. Differentiating with the QS-H, the increase amounts of FLC at the biaxial tension zone and the tension-compression zone are notably different for IHF. Additionally, the theoretical calculations of FLC is conducted by using M-K model combining with Hill48 anisotropic yield criterion under QS and HSR conditions. The results calculated by the M-K model reasonably agree with the ones obtained from experimentation under QS and HSR condition, and a higher initial thickness ratio is assigned for HSR considering the neck postponing effect of inertia.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

QS:

quasi-static

HSR:

high strain rate

FLC:

forming limit curve

QS-R:

quasi-static rigid punch

QS-H:

quasi-static hydraulic punch

HF:

hydroforming

IHF:

impact hydroforming

M-K:

Marciniak and Kuczynski model

SHTB:

Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar test

SHPB:

Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar test

RD:

rolling direction

TD:

transverse direction

References

  1. Zhang SH (1999) Developments in hydroforming. J Mater Proc Technol 91:236–244

  2. Zhang SH (2004) Recent developments in sheet hydroforming technology. J Mater Proc Technol 151:237–241

  3. Suttner S, Merklein M (2016) Experimental and numerical investigation of a strain rate controlled hydraulic bulge test of sheet metal. J Mater Proc Technol 235:121–133

  4. Lee JY, Xu L, Barlat F, Wagoner RH, Lee MG (2013) Balanced biaxial testing of advanced high strength steels in warm conditions. Exp Mech 53:1681–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grolleau V, Gary G, Mohr D (2008) Biaxial testing of sheet materials at high strain rates using viscoelastic bars. Exp Mech 48:293–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Banabic D, Lazarescu L, Paraianu L, Ciobanu I, Nicodim I, Comsa DS (2013) Development of a new procedure for the experimental determination of the Forming Limit Curves. CIRP Ann 62:255–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen YY, Tsai YC, Huang CH (2014) Integrated Hydraulic bulge and forming limit testing method and apparatus for sheet metals. Key Eng Mater 626:171–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang L, Min JY, Carsley JE, Stoughton TB, Lin JP (2017) Experimental and theoretical investigation on the role of friction in Nakazima testing. Int J Mech Sci 133:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ma Y, Xu Y, Zhang SH, Banabic D, El-Aty A, Chen A, Chen DY (2018) Investigation on formability enhancement of 5A06 aluminium sheet by impact hydroforming. CIRP Ann 67:281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Broomhead P, Grieve RJ (1982) The effect of strain rate on the strain to fracture of a sheet steel under biaxial tensile stress conditions. J Eng Mater Technol 104:102–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramezani M, Ripin ZM (2010) Combined experimental and numerical analysis of bulge test at high strain rates using split Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus. J Mater Process Technol 210:1061–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Justusson B, Pankow M, Heinrich C, Rudolph M, Waas AM (2013) Use of a shock tube to determine the bi-axial yield of an aluminum alloy under high rates. Int J Impact Eng 58:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Golovashchenko SF (2007) Material formability and coil design in electromagnetic forming. J Mater Eng Perform 16:314–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu H, Zheng Q (2019) Forming limit diagram of DP600 steel sheets during electrohydraulic forming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 104:743–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Verleysen P, Peirs J, Van Slycken J, Faes K, Duchene L (2011) Effect of strain rate on the forming behaviour of sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 211:1457–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chuang KC, Ma CC, Chang CK (2014) Determination of dynamic history of impact loadings using polyvinylidene fluoride (pvdf) films. Exp Mech 54:483–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauer F (2004) PVDF shock compression sensors in shock wave physics. AIP Conf Proc 706:1121–1124

  18. Maris C, Hassannejadasl A, Green DE (2016) Comparison of quasi-static and electrohydraulic free forming limits for DP600 and AA5182 sheets. J Mater Process Technol 235:206–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Magd E, Abouridouane M (2006) Characterization, modelling and simulation of deformation and fracture behaviour of the light-weight wrought alloys under high strain rate loading. Int J Impact Eng 32:741–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mirone G, Corallo D, Barbagallo R (2017) Experimental issues in tensile Hopkinson bar testing and a model of dynamic hardening. Int J Impact Eng 103:180–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marciniak Z, Kuckzynski K (1967) Limit strains in the process of stretch-forming sheet metal. Int J Mech Sci 9:609–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, pp 541–547

  23. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc Roy Soc Lond A 193:281–297

  24. Kim SB, Huh H, Bok HH, Moon MB (2011) Forming limit diagram of auto-body steel sheets for high-speed sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 211:851–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ganjiani M, Assempour A (2007) An improved analytical approach for determination of forming limit diagrams considering the effects of yield functions. J Mater Process Technol 182:598–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zaera R, Rodríguez-Martínez JA, Vadillo G, Fernández-Sáez J, Molinari A (2015) Collective behaviour and spacing of necks in ductile plates subjected to dynamic biaxial loading. J Mech Phys Solids 85:245–269

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Jacques N (2020) An analytical model for necking strains in stretched plates under dynamic biaxial loading. Int J Solids Struct 200:198–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. N’souglo KE, Jacques N, Rodríguez-Martínez JA (2021) A three-pronged approach to predict the effect of plastic orthotropy on the formability of thin sheets subjected to dynamic biaxial stretching. J Mech Phys Solids 146:104189

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Xue Z, Vaziri A, Hutchinson JW (2008) Material aspects of dynamic neck retardation. J Mech Phys Solids 56:93–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghosh AK (1977) The influence of strain hardening and strain-rate sensitivity on sheet metal forming. J Eng Mater Technol 99:264–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hutchinson JW, Neale KW (1977) Influence of strain-rate sensitivity on necking under uniaxial tension. Acta Metall 25:839–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Metal Research (IMR), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenyang, 110016, China

    Yan Ma, Shuai-feng Chen, Da-yong Chen, Hong-wu Song, Yong Xu & Shi-hong Zhang

  2. Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400641, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Dorel Banabic

  3. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Jinan, 250022, Jinan, China

    Xiao-shuai Fan & Qiang Wang

Authors
  1. Yan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuai-feng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Da-yong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dorel Banabic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hong-wu Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shi-hong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiao-shuai Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Qiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(opj 105 KB)

ESM 2

(opj 1.71 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, Y., Chen, Sf., Chen, Dy. et al. Determination of the forming limit of impact hydroforming by frictionless full zone hydraulic forming test. Int J Mater Form 14, 1221–1232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-021-01635-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-021-01635-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation