Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Improved Experimental Method for Determining the Workability Diagram

  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The workability diagram is often used for ductile fracture predictions in metal forming processes. Its determination requires the measurement of the strain to fracture in several tests in which the triaxiality ratio is supposed to be known and fixed throughout the process of deformation. One of such tests is the uniaxial tension test. In practice, however, it is very difficult (or even impossible) to keep the triaxiality ratio fixed in this test because of necking. It is shown in the present paper that the uniaxial tension test can be replaced with the collar test for obtaining a point of the workability diagram when the fracture criterion based on an average value of the triaxiality ratio is adopted. It is also shown that the collar test provides a more accurate prediction of the strain to fracture. The test carries out at quasi-static strain rates.

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

References

  1. Atkins AG (1996) Fracture in forming. J Mater Process Technol 56:609–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marciniak Z, Duncan J (1992) Mechanics of sheet metal forming. Edwards Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vujović V, Shabaik A (1986) Workability criteria for ductile fracture. Trans ASME J Eng Mater Technol 108:245–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dieter G (2003) Bulk workability of metals. In: Dieter G, Kuhn H, Semiatin L (eds) Handbook of workability and process design. ASM International, pp 22–34

  5. Shirgaokar M (2005) Flow stress and formability. In: Altan T, Nagaile G, Shen G (eds) Cold and hot forging. ASM International, pp 25–36

  6. Reiss W, Pohlandt K (1986) The Rastegaev upset test – a method to compress large material volumes homogeneously. Exp Technique 10:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vujović V, Plančak M, Vilotić D (1994) The use of forming limit diagram in formability analysis. J Technol Plast 19:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vilotic D, Plancak M, Grbic S, Alexandrov S, Chikanova N (2003) An approach to determining the workability diagram based on upsetting tests. Fat Fract Eng Mater Struct 26:305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vilotic D, Planchak M, Chupkovich D, Alexandrov S, Alexandrova N (2006) Free surface fracture in three upsetting tests. Exp Mech 46:115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vilotic D, Alexandrov S, Plancak M, Movrin D, Ivanisevic A, Vilotic M (2011) Material formability at upsetting by V-shape dies. Steel Res Int Special Edition 923–928

  11. Oyane M, Sato T, Okimoto K, Shima S (1980) Criteria for ductile fracture and their applications. J Mech Work Technol 4:65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gouveia BPPA, Rodrigues JMC, Martins PAF (1996) Fracture prediction in bulk metal forming. Int J Mech Sci 38:361–372

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Goijaerts AM, Govaert LE, Baaijens FPT (2000) Prediction of Ductile Fracture in Metal Blanking. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 122:476–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Narayana Murty SVS, Nageswara RB, Kashyap BP (2004) Improved ductile fracture criterion for cold forming of spheroidised steel. J Mater Process Technol 147:94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. MSC. SuperForm user’s guide, Version 2005

  16. DEFORM Integrated 2D-3D version 10.1 user’s manual

  17. Li H, Fu MW, Lu J, Yang H (2011) Ductile fracture: experiments and computations. Int J Plast 27:147–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuhn HA (2003) Cold upset testing. In: Dieter G, Kuhn H, Semiatin L (eds) Handbook of workability and process design. ASM International, pp 57–60

  19. Semiatin SL (2003) Workability in forging. In: Dieter G, Kuhn H, Semiatin L (eds) Handbook of workability and process design. ASM International, pp 188–207

  20. El-Domiatty A (1999) Cold workability limits for carbon and alloyed steels. J Mater Eng Perform 8:171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gouveia BPPA, Rodrigues JMC, Martins PAF (2000) Ductile fracture in metalworking: experimental and theoretical research. J Mater Process Technol 101:52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tatting G, Antretter T, Pipan R (2007) Fracture of austenitic steel subjected to a wide range of stress triaxiality ratios and crack deformation modes. Eng Fract Mech 75:223–235

    Google Scholar 

  23. Behrens A, Just H (2002) Verification of the damage model of effective stresses in cold and warm forging operations by experimental testing and FE simulations. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sljapic A, Hartley P, Pillinger I (2002) Observations on fracture in axi-symmetric and three-dimensional cold upsetting of brass. J Mater Process Technol 125–126:267–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Landre J, Pertence A, Cetlin PR, Rodrigues JMC, Martins PAF (2003) On the utilization of ductile fracture criteria in cold forging. Finite Elem Anal Des 39:175–186

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Hoa VC, Seo DW, Lim JK (2005) Site of ductile fracture initiation in cold forging: a finite element model. Theor Appl Fract Mech 44:58–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shah JJ, Kuhn HA (1986) An empirical formula for workability limits in cold upsetting and bolt heading. J Appl Metalwork 4:255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The research described in this paper was supported by grant TR035020 from the Ministry of Science of Serbia. A part of this work was done while the first author was with National Chung Cheng University (Taiwan) as a research scholar under the recruitment program supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan (contact 99-2811-E-194-009). S.A. acknowledges support from the grant RFBR-11-08-91154 (Russia).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. A.Yu. Ishlinsky Institute for Problems in Mechanics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 101-1 Prtospect Vernadskogo, 119526, Moscow, Russia

    S. Alexandrov

  2. Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

    D. Vilotic, Z. Konjovic & M. Vilotic

Authors
  1. S. Alexandrov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Vilotic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Z. Konjovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Vilotic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Alexandrov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alexandrov, S., Vilotic, D., Konjovic, Z. et al. An Improved Experimental Method for Determining the Workability Diagram. Exp Mech 53, 699–711 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9676-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9676-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation