Experimental and numerical investigation of forming limit differences in biaxial and dome test

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For centuries, metals and materials have been characterized using a traditional method called a uniaxial tension test. The data acquired from this test found to be adequate for operations of simple forming where one axis stretching is dominant. Currently, due to the demand of lightweight component production, multiple individual parts eliminated by stamping a single complex shape, which also further reduces many secondary operations. This change is driving by the new fuel-efficiency requirement by corporate average fuel economy of 55.8 miles per gallon by 2025.1 Due to complex part geometry, this forming method induces multiaxial stress states, which are difficult to predict using conventional tools. Thus, to analyze these multiaxial stress states limiting dome height tests and bulge tests were recommended in many research publications. However, these tests limit the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading and rather a sample geometry changes are required to imply multiaxial stresses. Even this capability is not an option in bulge test due to leakage issue. Thus, a test machine called a biaxial test was devised that would provide the capability to test the specimen in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axis. In this paper, two processes, limiting dome tests and biaxial tests were experimented, modeled, and compared. For the biaxial tests, a cruciform test specimen was utilized, and conventional forming limit specimens were used for the dome tests. Variation of sample geometry in limiting dome test and variation of loading in biaxial test were utilized to imply multiaxial stress states in order to capture the limit strain from uniaxial to equibiaxial strain mode. In addition, the strain path, forming, and formability investigated and the differences between the tests provided. From the results, it was noted that higher limit strains were acquired in dome tests than in biaxial tests due to contact pressure from the rigid punch. The literature shows that the contact pressure (which occurs when the rigid tool contacts the deformed body), increases the deformation and thus increases the limit strains to failure. This contact pressure parameter is unavailable in biaxial test, and thus, a pure material behavior can be obtained. However, limit strains from biaxial test cannot be considered for a process where rigid tool is processing the metal, and thus, calibration is necessary.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number081005
JournalJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME
Volume140
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Domes
Geometry
Stamping
Fuel economy
Formability
Metals
Stretching
Loads (forces)
Calibration
Processing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Control and Systems Engineering
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Cite this

@article{54a0d4396537492087e67cda6163631d,
title = "Experimental and numerical investigation of forming limit differences in biaxial and dome test",
abstract = "For centuries, metals and materials have been characterized using a traditional method called a uniaxial tension test. The data acquired from this test found to be adequate for operations of simple forming where one axis stretching is dominant. Currently, due to the demand of lightweight component production, multiple individual parts eliminated by stamping a single complex shape, which also further reduces many secondary operations. This change is driving by the new fuel-efficiency requirement by corporate average fuel economy of 55.8 miles per gallon by 2025.1 Due to complex part geometry, this forming method induces multiaxial stress states, which are difficult to predict using conventional tools. Thus, to analyze these multiaxial stress states limiting dome height tests and bulge tests were recommended in many research publications. However, these tests limit the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading and rather a sample geometry changes are required to imply multiaxial stresses. Even this capability is not an option in bulge test due to leakage issue. Thus, a test machine called a biaxial test was devised that would provide the capability to test the specimen in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axis. In this paper, two processes, limiting dome tests and biaxial tests were experimented, modeled, and compared. For the biaxial tests, a cruciform test specimen was utilized, and conventional forming limit specimens were used for the dome tests. Variation of sample geometry in limiting dome test and variation of loading in biaxial test were utilized to imply multiaxial stress states in order to capture the limit strain from uniaxial to equibiaxial strain mode. In addition, the strain path, forming, and formability investigated and the differences between the tests provided. From the results, it was noted that higher limit strains were acquired in dome tests than in biaxial tests due to contact pressure from the rigid punch. The literature shows that the contact pressure (which occurs when the rigid tool contacts the deformed body), increases the deformation and thus increases the limit strains to failure. This contact pressure parameter is unavailable in biaxial test, and thus, a pure material behavior can be obtained. However, limit strains from biaxial test cannot be considered for a process where rigid tool is processing the metal, and thus, calibration is necessary.",
author = "Nikhare, {Chetan P.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1115/1.4039587",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "140",
journal = "Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME",
issn = "1087-1357",
publisher = "American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experimental and numerical investigation of forming limit differences in biaxial and dome test

AU - Nikhare, Chetan P.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - For centuries, metals and materials have been characterized using a traditional method called a uniaxial tension test. The data acquired from this test found to be adequate for operations of simple forming where one axis stretching is dominant. Currently, due to the demand of lightweight component production, multiple individual parts eliminated by stamping a single complex shape, which also further reduces many secondary operations. This change is driving by the new fuel-efficiency requirement by corporate average fuel economy of 55.8 miles per gallon by 2025.1 Due to complex part geometry, this forming method induces multiaxial stress states, which are difficult to predict using conventional tools. Thus, to analyze these multiaxial stress states limiting dome height tests and bulge tests were recommended in many research publications. However, these tests limit the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading and rather a sample geometry changes are required to imply multiaxial stresses. Even this capability is not an option in bulge test due to leakage issue. Thus, a test machine called a biaxial test was devised that would provide the capability to test the specimen in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axis. In this paper, two processes, limiting dome tests and biaxial tests were experimented, modeled, and compared. For the biaxial tests, a cruciform test specimen was utilized, and conventional forming limit specimens were used for the dome tests. Variation of sample geometry in limiting dome test and variation of loading in biaxial test were utilized to imply multiaxial stress states in order to capture the limit strain from uniaxial to equibiaxial strain mode. In addition, the strain path, forming, and formability investigated and the differences between the tests provided. From the results, it was noted that higher limit strains were acquired in dome tests than in biaxial tests due to contact pressure from the rigid punch. The literature shows that the contact pressure (which occurs when the rigid tool contacts the deformed body), increases the deformation and thus increases the limit strains to failure. This contact pressure parameter is unavailable in biaxial test, and thus, a pure material behavior can be obtained. However, limit strains from biaxial test cannot be considered for a process where rigid tool is processing the metal, and thus, calibration is necessary.

AB - For centuries, metals and materials have been characterized using a traditional method called a uniaxial tension test. The data acquired from this test found to be adequate for operations of simple forming where one axis stretching is dominant. Currently, due to the demand of lightweight component production, multiple individual parts eliminated by stamping a single complex shape, which also further reduces many secondary operations. This change is driving by the new fuel-efficiency requirement by corporate average fuel economy of 55.8 miles per gallon by 2025.1 Due to complex part geometry, this forming method induces multiaxial stress states, which are difficult to predict using conventional tools. Thus, to analyze these multiaxial stress states limiting dome height tests and bulge tests were recommended in many research publications. However, these tests limit the possibilities of applying multiaxial loading and rather a sample geometry changes are required to imply multiaxial stresses. Even this capability is not an option in bulge test due to leakage issue. Thus, a test machine called a biaxial test was devised that would provide the capability to test the specimen in multiaxial stress states by varying the independent load or displacement on two independent axis. In this paper, two processes, limiting dome tests and biaxial tests were experimented, modeled, and compared. For the biaxial tests, a cruciform test specimen was utilized, and conventional forming limit specimens were used for the dome tests. Variation of sample geometry in limiting dome test and variation of loading in biaxial test were utilized to imply multiaxial stress states in order to capture the limit strain from uniaxial to equibiaxial strain mode. In addition, the strain path, forming, and formability investigated and the differences between the tests provided. From the results, it was noted that higher limit strains were acquired in dome tests than in biaxial tests due to contact pressure from the rigid punch. The literature shows that the contact pressure (which occurs when the rigid tool contacts the deformed body), increases the deformation and thus increases the limit strains to failure. This contact pressure parameter is unavailable in biaxial test, and thus, a pure material behavior can be obtained. However, limit strains from biaxial test cannot be considered for a process where rigid tool is processing the metal, and thus, calibration is necessary.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047911992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047911992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1115/1.4039587

DO - 10.1115/1.4039587

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85047911992

VL - 140

JO - Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME

JF - Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME

SN - 1087-1357

IS - 8

M1 - 081005

ER -