Influence of the Determination of FLC’s and FLSC’s and Their Application for Deep Drawing Process with Additional Force Transmission
This contribution deals with the experimental and numerical analysis of the material fracture behavior of steel sheet material HCT 600 X + Z (1.0941) in thickness s0 = 1.0 mm using the Nakajima test. Firstly, the Nakajima test is carried out, whereby the major and minor strains are measured with the optical measuring system ARAMIS. Here, two different estimation methods for determination of the strains are applied and sensitivity of estimated results related to different strain gauge lengths was analyzed. Hereby, the forming limit curve (FLC) is determined experimentally. Subsequently, the FEA of a Nakajima test was carried out and compared with corresponding experimental results. The flow behavior of HCT 600 is modelled using a planar anisotropic material model based on the Hill’s 1948 criterion, which was validated in previous work. Using FLC the simulation-based determination of the forming limit stress curve (FLSC) is carried out. Furthermore, two deep drawing processes, conventional and process with activation of additional force transmission are carried out producing the rectangle cups. Here, the larger process window is achieved. Within the numerical investigation of the material fracture behavior the FLC and FLSC are applied by FEA of both deep drawing processes. Finally, the assessment of the performed material modelling is presented.
KeywordsForming limit curve Forming limit stress curve Deep drawing
This paper is based on investigations of the project (BE169/139-1): “Deep drawing with additional force transmission”, which is kindly supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors thank the DFG for project foundation.
- 1.Doege E, Behrens BA. Handbuch der Umformtechnik, Springer ISBN:978-3-642-04248-5Google Scholar
- 2.Behrens BA, Bouguecha A, Bonk C, Grbic N, Vucetic M (2017) Validation of the FEA of a deep drawing process with additional force transmission, 20th international ESAFORM conference on material forming, Dublin 2017 (accepted)Google Scholar
- 3.von Mises R (1913) Mechanik der festen Körper im plastisch deformablen Zustand, Göttin. Nachr. Math. Phys. 1:582–592Google Scholar
- 4.Hill R. A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. In: Proceedings of the royal society of London, Series A, vol 193, pp 281–197Google Scholar
- 5.Hallfeldt T, Hotz W, Leppin C, Keller S, Friebe H, Till ET, Müller R, Vučetić M, Vegter H (2014) Sheet bulge testing, In: Comprehensive Materials Processing, vol 1, pp 85–93, Elsevier Ltd., ISBN:978-008096533-8Google Scholar
- 6.Behrens BA, Bonk C, Grbic N, Vucetic M (2016) Numerical analysis of a deep drawing process with additional force transmission for an extension of the process limits. In: 4th international conference recent trends in structural materials COMAT2016, Pilsen 2016 (accepted)Google Scholar
- 7.Behrens BA, Bouguecha A, Vucetic M, Peshekhodov I (2012) Characterisation of the quasi-static flow and fracture behaviour of dual-phase steel sheets in a wide range of plane stress states. Arch Civ Mech Eng 12(4):397–406Google Scholar
- 8.DIN EN ISO 12004-2: Metallische Werkstoffe – Bleche und Bänder – Bestimmung der Grenzformänderungskurve – Teil 2: Bestimmung von Grenzformänderungskurven im Labor (ISO 12004-2: 2008), Beuth Verlag, 2009Google Scholar
- 9.Col A (2002) FLC’s: past, present and future, IDDRG conference 2002, Nagoya, Japan. pp S107–S125Google Scholar
- 10.Banabic D (2004) Sheet metal forming processes, Springer, Heidelberg, doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.04.003
- 11.Stoughton TB, Zhu X (1999) A general forming limit criterion for sheet metal forming. Int J Mech Sci, Elsevier, (pii:S0020-7403(98)00113-1)Google Scholar
- 12.Dic RE, Yoon JW, Stoughton TB (2015) Path-independent forming limit models for multi-stage forming processes. In: Thematic issue, Springer, Berlin, doi: 10.1007/s12289-015-1220-4