Numerical Simulations and Design of Shearing Process for Aluminum Alloys

[+] Author and Article Information
Aniruddha Khadke

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Somnath Ghosh1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210ghosh.5@osu.edu

Ming Li2

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210


Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Currently Section Head, Process Mechanics, Alcoa Technical Center, PA 15069.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 127(3), 612-621 (Jul 21, 2004) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1951787 History: Received September 22, 2003; Revised July 21, 2004

This work combines experimental studies with finite element simulations to develop a reliable numerical model for the simulation of shearing process in aluminum alloys. The critical concern with respect to product quality in this important process is burr formation. Numerical simulations are aimed at understanding the role of process variables on burr formation and for recommending process design parameters. The commercial code ABAQUS -Explicit with the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian kinematic description is used in this study for numerical simulations. An elastic-plastic constitutive model with experimentally validated damage models are incorporated through the user subroutine VUMAT in ABAQUS , for modeling deformation and ductile fracture in the material. Macroscopic experiments with microscopic observations are conducted to characterize the material and to calibrate the constitutive and damage models. Parametric study is done to probe the effect of process parameters and finally, a genetic algorithm (GA) based design method is used to determine process parameters for minimum burr formation.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Schematic of (a) the shearing process and (b) the cut profile

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Dimensions of the dog-bone specimen (in inches), (b) true stress-plastic strain response of the aluminum alloy AA6022-T4, (c) geometric imperfection introduced in the FE model of the dogbone specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) Dimensions of the notched specimen (in inches), (b) the corresponding quarter finite element model, and (c) sample micrograph near the notch at 11.2% strain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Load-strain experimental curve for the dog-bone specimen showing failure with simulated results of three damage models

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Crack profiles in the dogbone sample for: (a) Experiment, (b) simulations with the Tvergaard-Gurson model, (c) simulations with the Cockroft-Latham model, (d) simulations with the shear failure model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Flowchart showing steps of the genetic algorithm (GA) method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Convergence of GA in the calibration of parameters with Tvergaard-Gurson model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Void volume fraction as a function of the overall strain for experiments and simulations with the Tvergaard-Gurson model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(a) The finite element model setup of the edge shearing problem in ABAQUS explicit, (b) Zoomed view of the mesh in the deformation zone showing the transition between coarse and fine mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

(a) Contour plot of void volume fraction with the Tvergaard-Gurson model showing arrested cracking, (b) contour plot of equivalent plastic strain with the Cockroft-Latham model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Results of simulation with shear failure model showing contour plots of equivalent plastic strain, for 5% clearance, 0.025mm blade radius and 0deg cutting angle. (a) at 0.14mm blade travel, (b) at 0.15mm blade travel, (c) at 0.18mm blade travel and (d) experimentally obtained micrographs of the sheared region

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Simulation results of shearing process using 3D model, isometric view of the process showing the cut surface. The elements with value 0 for the STATUS variable correspond to the failed elements (crack)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Convergence of GA in the minimization of the burr height as functions of the design variables with increasing generation numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

(a) Simulated and (b) experimentally observed burr height as functions of the clearance for different radii, for 0deg cutting angle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

(a) Simulated and (b) experimental burr heights as functions of cutting angles for different blade radii for 5% clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Simulated burr height as a function of the cutting angle at 5% clearance and 0.025mm blade radius




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In