0
research-article

Cyclic sheet metal test comparison and parameter calibration for springback prediction of dual phase steel sheets

[+] Author and Article Information
Bin Gu

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
gubin1990@sjtu.edu.cn

Ji He

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
benbenhj@sjtu.edu.cn

Shuhui Li

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
lishuhui@sjtu.edu.cn

Yuan Chen

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
invisible29@sjtu.edu.cn

Yongfeng Li

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
liyf14@sjtu.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

ASME doi:10.1115/1.4037040 History: Received March 14, 2017; Revised May 29, 2017

Abstract

Springback is an important issue for the application of advanced high strength steels (AHSS) in the automobile industry. Various studies have shown that it’s an effective way to predict springback by using path dependent material models. The accuracy of these material models greatly depends on the experimental test methods as well as material parameters calibrated from these tests. The present cyclic sheet metal test methods, like uniaxial tension-compression test and cyclic shear test, are non-standard and various. The material parameters calibrated from these tests vary greatly from one to another, which makes the usage of material parameters for the accurate prediction of springback more sophisticated. The focus of this work is to compare the springback prediction accuracy by using the material parameters calibrated from tension-compression test or cyclic shear test, and to further clarify the usage of those material parameters in application. These two types of non-standard cyclic tests are successfully carried out on a same test platform with different specimen geometries. One element models with corresponding tension-compression or cyclic shear boundary conditions are built respectively to calibrate the parameters of the modified YU model for these two different tests. U-bending process is performed for springback prediction comparison. The results show, the material parameters calibrated from different types of cyclic sheet metal tests can vary greatly, but it gives slight differences of springback prediction for U-bending by utilizing either tension-compression test or cyclic shear test.

Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

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