0
Research Papers

Effect of Element Types on Failure Prediction Using a Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve

[+] Author and Article Information
Raed Z. Hasan, Igor Tsukrov

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  University of New Hampshire Kingsbury Hall, Room W101 33 Academic Way, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

Brad L. Kinsey1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  University of New Hampshire Kingsbury Hall, Room W101 33 Academic Way, Durham, NH, 03824, USAbkinsey@unh.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 133(6), 061002 (Nov 28, 2011) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005044 History: Received March 11, 2011; Revised August 29, 2011; Published November 28, 2011; Online November 28, 2011

Strain-based forming limit diagrams (FLDs) are the traditional tool used to characterize the formability of materials for sheet metal forming processes. However, this failure criterion exhibits a significant strain path dependence. Alternatively, stress-based FLDs have been proposed and shown to be less sensitive to the deformation path. The stress-based failure criterion can be conveniently implemented in numerical simulations. However, for reliable numerical modeling, the sensitivity of the models to the selection of discretization parameters, in particular, the element type must be assessed. In this paper, Marciniak tests have been numerically simulated to investigate failure prediction using three different element types (shell, solid, and solid-shell). Seven different specimen geometries were modeled in order to vary the loading paths. The results show that despite differences in stress calculation assumptions, shell, solid, and solid-shell elements do not provide differences in failure prediction when a stress-based failure criterion is used.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Forming limit diagram with different strain paths [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Modified Marciniak test tooling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Specimen and washer geometry types

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

FEA model showing the punch, die, locking ring, and specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Boundary conditions used in the FEA model for Type I specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Stain paths generated using the three element types with the experimental FLC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Stress paths generated using the three element types with the experimental stress-based FLC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

FLC generated using the three element types with the experimental FLC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Punch displacement at failure versus the strain ratio for seven specimen types

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Location of the imperfection added to the mesh for specimen Type III-2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Effect of imperfection thickness (shell element) for specimen Type III-2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Location of failure for specimen Type III-2

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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