Elimination of the Dependence of Forming Limits for AHSS on Testing Process Conditions

              2018-10-29 11:16:00
              LUQIMENG
              Original
              2086
              Junying Min, Tongji University
              John E. Carsley, General Motors Company
              Mark Tharrett, General Motors Company
              Jeong-Whan Yoon, Deakin University and KAIST


              ? Introduced by Keeler in 1960’s and
              adopted by industry in late ‘60s
              ? Used in tryout and stamping plants
              ? Applied to assess formability in
              “virtual” tryout since mid ‘80s
              ? Most reliably determined empirically
              ? Theoretical models require calibration

              1) Understand the cause of this ambiguity
              2) Find a solution to it
              What does a solution look
              like?
              1) A unique forming limit,
              regardless of test
              2) An understanding how to
              use this forming limit

              We can measure the strain path for each test done to determine the FLC


              Each test results in different (unique) degrees of nonlinear strain paths


              The strain FLC is NOT a static
              forming limit.
              The strain FLC is a DYNAMIC limit.
              Question: Could this fact impact
              our measurement of the FLC?


              1) 3% difference in strain between
              the top and bottom surface
              4) Is this intuition correct?
              2) What strain defines the limit?
              3) Intuition suggests to use the average


              Stretch-Bending Study Reported By: Tharrett & Stoughton SAE Report 2003-01-1157


              Conclusion of the Study:
              In every test specimen in which a neck was detected, the MEASURED strain on the CONCAVE 

              side was found to be above the forming limit for in-plane stretching


              hese experimental results make perfect sense from a theoretical perspective
              Necking is an instability that affects the plastic flow of ALL layers through the sheet thickness
              So the instability cannot proceed until all layers satisfy the instability condition

              While it is tempting to think
              these two FLC’s are close
              enough
              The Nakazima Test results are
              systematically higher
              … which suggests we have
              missed something in the
              compensation
              This becomes more obvious
              when we add the 50 mm test



              … when the degree of nonlinearity,
              curvature of the sheet, and contact pressures
              that are involved in stamping automotive
              components


              are more than 10 TIMES LARGER?
              We should instead ALWAYS convert the strain limit to
              a stress limit, and account for the curvature and contact
              pressure in our assessments of the severity of the
              process with respect to necking.



              Write a Comment
              Two minus Two =
              Comment will be posted after it is reviewed.
              QR Code
              99久久久久国产视频,国产免费变态视频网站。,无毒中文字幕无码高清,久久九九aⅴ免费精品