0
Research Papers

Finite-Element and Residual Stress Analysis of Self-Pierce Riveting in Dissimilar Metal Sheets

[+] Author and Article Information
Li Huang

Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory
of Aerospace Power System,
Nanjing 210016, China;
Ford Motor Company,
Nanjing 210000, China

J. F. C. Moraes

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

Dimitry G. Sediako

Canadian Neutron Beam Centre,
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories,
Chalk River, ON K0J1J0, Canada

J. B. Jordon

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
e-mail: bjordon@eng.ua.edu

Haiding Guo

Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace
Power System,
Nanjing 210016, China

Xuming Su

Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn, MI 48124

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received November 24, 2015; final manuscript received July 1, 2016; published online September 14, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Gracious Ngaile.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(2), 021007 (Sep 14, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1606; doi: 10.1115/1.4034437 History: Received November 24, 2015; Revised July 01, 2016

The residual stress profile in dissimilar metal sheets joined by a self-piercing rivet is simulated and compared to experimental measurements. Simulation of joining aluminum alloy 6111-T4 and steel HSLA340 sheets by self-piercing riveting (SPR) is performed using a two-dimensional axisymmetric model with an internal state variable (ISV) plasticity material model. Strain rate and temperature dependent deformation of the base materials is described by the ISV material model and calibrated with experimental data. Using the LS-DYNA simulation package, an element erosion technique is adopted in an explicit analysis of the separation of the upper sheet with maximum shear strain failure criterion. An explicit analysis with dynamic relaxation technique was then used for springback and cooling down analysis following the riveting simulation. The residual stress profile of SPR experimental joint with same configuration is characterized using neutron diffraction, and good agreement was found between the simulation and residual stress measurements.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Self-piercing riveting process [30]: (a) clamping, (b) piercing, (c) flaring, and (d) releasing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometry of the (a) rivet and (b) die. (c) Cross section profile of the SPR joint made from 2.5 mm thick 6111-T4 Al alloy and 2.4 mm thick HSLA340.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

True stress–strain curves of sheet metal under different temperatures at strain rate 0.005/s: (a) 6111T4 and (b) HSLA340

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

True stress–strain curves of 6111T4 aluminum alloy under different temperatures and strain rates: (a) 70 °C and (b) 136 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

True stress–strain curves of HSLA340 under different temperatures and strain rates: (a) room temperature and (b) 70 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Schematic of strain scanner for neutron diffraction and (b) experimental setup at the Canadian Neutron Beam Center

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient into elastic and inelastic parts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparisons between experimental and calibration results from the single element tensile test: (a) 6111T4 and (b) HSLA340

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Finite-element model of SPR process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

SPR process simulation methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

History information variation in SPR process before springback at different time steps: (a) Mises stress, (b) effective strain, and (c) temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparisons between numerical simulation results and the experimental SPR cross section: (a) adiabatic condition using kill-element technique with effective strain to failure (0.54 for top sheet only), (b) adiabatic condition using kill-element technique with maximum shear strain to failure (0.81 for top sheet only), (c) adiabatic condition with kill-element based damage criterion reaching 0.99 on top sheet, and (d) isothermal condition using kill-element technique with maximum shear strain to failure (0.81 for top sheet only)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Residual stress comparisons between neutron diffraction and simulation results in the upper sheet (aluminum 6111T4) after springback and cooling down: (a) measurement points in the test and scanning lines in LS-DYNA of residual stress on half section of joint, (b) stresses in the radial direction, (c) stresses in the hoop direction, and (d) stresses in the axial direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Residual stress comparisons between neutron diffraction and simulation results in the lower sheet (steel HSAL340) after springback and cooling down: (a) measurement points in the test and scanning lines in LS-DYNA of residual stress on half section of joint, (b) stresses in the radial direction, (c) stresses in the hoop direction, and (d) stresses in the axial direction

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