0
Research Papers

Edge Fracture Prediction of Traditional and Advanced Trimming Processes for AA6111-T4 Sheets

[+] Author and Article Information
X. H. Hu

Computational Science
and Mathematics Division,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA 99354
e-mail: Xiaohua.hu@pnnl.gov

K. S. Choi, X. Sun

Computational Science
and Mathematics Division,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA 99354

S. F. Golovashchenko

Manulfacturing and Processes Department,
Ford Research and Advanced Engineering,
Scientific Research Laboratory,
Dearborn, MI 48124

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 25, 2013; final manuscript received November 15, 2013; published online February 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Brad L. Kinsey.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 136(2), 021016 (Feb 12, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: MANU-13-1104; doi: 10.1115/1.4026273 History: Received March 25, 2013; Revised November 15, 2013

This work examines the traditional and advanced trimming of AA6111-T4 aluminum sheets with finite element simulations. The Rice-Tracy damage model is used for the simulation with damage parameters estimated from experimental observation of grain aspect ratio near the fracture surface of trimmed parts. Fine meshes at the shearing zone, adaptive meshing, and adaptive contact techniques are used to accurately capture the contact interactions between the sharp corner of the trimming tools and the blank to be trimmed. To the knowledge of the authors, these are the first trimming simulations that can predict the effects of shearing clearance on burr heights with quantitative accuracy for AA6111-T4 aluminum sheets. In addition, the models have also accurately reproduced the crack initiation site as well as burr and sliver formation mechanisms observed experimentally.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite element models for the traditional (a) and advanced (b) trimming processes where the middle section of the blank has much finer meshes (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Examples of a trimmed blank (21% clearance) by the traditional trimming (a)–(c) and the advanced trimming processes (d)–(e)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Ludwik fitting of the uniaxial tensile flow curve of AA6111–T4 sheet alloys

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The micrograph near the fracture surface (a) and the estimated rice-tracey fracture locus (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Tool-mesh penetration is observed if contacts are inadequately defined between the internal nodes and the tools (a). The penetration is prevented if sufficient contacts are defined (b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The blanked part sides and scrap sides predicted by finite element simulations and the corresponding experimental observations for various clearances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The blanked part sides and scrap sides predicted by FE simulations and the corresponding experimental observations for various clearances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) the normal and tangential (frictional) reaction forces exerted from the deforming sheet on the tools during trimming operations for clearance of 43% (b) the sketch of actual total horizontal and vertical reaction forces on the punch tool for cutting clearances of 10% and 43%, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The burr height (b), blank thickness (t), and final cutting clearance (g′), measurements for cutting with 21% clearance.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The variation of finite element and experimental relative burr heights (b) for different clearances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Stress triaxiality before crack initiation for the simulation with 43% blanking clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The deformed mesh after crack initiation for the simulation with 43% blanking clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The deformed mesh after the formation of sliver by the punch roll-over over the tool fillet indent feature for the simulations of the blanking process with 43% clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

The variation of normalized burr height and friction coefficients with friction coefficient for clearance of 43%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

The variation of equivalent plastis strain with friction coefficient for clearance of 43%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

The variation of normalized burr with clearances for different friction coefficients

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