Autosim Barcelona06 Gutierrez

Material characterisation for accurate
simulation of new sheet metal

forming processes
Marian Gutierrez, LABEIN Tecnalia
Summary
A general overview of the problems/issues/state of the art/research related with material
characterisation that appear in the development of innovative sheet metal forming processes
Four examples briefly highlight some of these points
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

[SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT]
012497 DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES AND IDENTIFICATION OF BREAKTHROUGH
TECHNOLOGIES IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING SIMULATION - AUTOSIM
Overview
Introduction:
New materials, new process, new forming conditions so new material characterisation
need for simulation feeding
Innovative forming process:
High speed forming:
Electromagnetic and electrohidraulic forming
Material characterisation at high strain rates
Hydroforming
Sheet / tube characterisation
Hot/Warm metal forming: Hot stamping, Hot Metal Gas Forming (HMGF), hot/warm
hydroforming,
Temperature dependent material characterisation
Austenitic steel forming:
Modelling of TRIP effect
Conclusions

Introduction: New materials in automotive
1.- Less formability

2.- More springback
3.- More stresses required
Introduction: New forming processes

Hydroforming
Hot / Warm forming
High speed forming

Pre-Form Geometry

Electromagnetically Formed
Introduction: Conventional sheet forming simulation
MATERIAL data:
Curve strain-stress
GEOMETRICAL data:
Sheet dimensions
Tool geometry
FEA FORMING
SIMULATION
TRIBOLOGICAL data:
Friction coefficient (lubricant)
PROCESS parameters:
Operation sequence, pressure,
axial feeding, press velocity
Failure detection
Thickness distribution
Load press
Introduction: Conventional materials characterisation

Engineering stress-strain curve
Uniaxial tensile test
- Temperature ?
- Tube ?
- Strain rate ?
New process conditions
-
Forming limit diagram (FLD)
Nakazima test
A unification of the standard for FLD testing is being investigated within IDDRG
Introduction: New materials characterisation
Springback
Tower Automotive Congreso 2002 New Developpments in sheet Metal forming
New material variables

Springback
Welding line characterisation
Friction characterisation
Microestructure evolution during forming process
Strip
drawing test
To
vacuum
High speed forming: Basic concept
sample
Die
Electrohidraulic Forming (EHF)

Electrohidraulic
Forming EHF
water
Bridge wire
Store energy
trasmision
Capacitor
bank
Electromagnetic Forming (EMF)
Kinetic energy
Capacitor
Solenoid
Charging
Circuit
Ring
Specimen
Electromagnetic
Forming EMF
Rogowski
Probe

High speed forming: Main Properties

High speed deformation of material, confined inertially allows high deformation
Mechanics and physics of the high velocity process are quite different than quasi
static
Forming event takes place in several tens of MICROSECONDS
Hence, achieved forces launch the material rapidly
High strain rates higher than 1000 sec-1
Formability increase by uniform elongation in all regions of blank
High achievable pressures Embossing, coining purposes
Wrinkling tendency diminished.
No Springback

High speed forming simulation

Coil and sheet/tube
Magnetic
Analysis:
force profile
during time
interval defined by
transient pulse.
Primary & Induced

Currents
Force exerted in the piece

400000
350000
Force acting
on flat sheet
300000
Force (Newton)
Loosely Coupled Approach
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
0,000005
0,00001
0,000015
0,00002
Time (seconds)
Forming Analysis:
Evolution during
Forming

High speed forming: Flow curve at different strain rates
International Iron and Steel Institute

High speed forming: Uniaxial test methods
Courtesy: International Iron and Steel Institute

High speed forming: Formability
9.5 mm
Die
Outlet to
Vacuum pump
Fixture
Courtesy:
Ohio Univ
Major strain (Engg %)
50
40
v1-soft lead-541
30
v1-hollow end-352
v1-round end-147
20
v1-polymer-776
10
0
-40
-20
20
Minor strain (Engg %)

40
Hydroforming: Hydrotest
Investigation of the influence of the pre-hydroforming processes and
development of characterization methods for the testing of steel semiproducts for hydroforming
RFCS project 7210-PR-372 (2002 2005)
Labein
CSM
SIMR
Ptu
Act
Salzgitter
Rautaruukki
(Spain)
(Italy)
(Sweden)
(Germany)
(Spain)
(Germany)
(Finland)
A major obstacle in hydroforming of

steel semiproduct is the lack of an
unified test method for determining
their hydro-formability

Hydroforming: Hydrotest project objectives

Development of an unified test
method and guidelines needed

Improve the simulation and
characterization of hydroforming
steel components
Flow material curve (stress-strain curve)

FLD determination
Semi-product
Code
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
Delivery
condition
Grade
S235
+CR2
S235
+CR2
H260 I
+CR2
H360LA
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
H340X *)
+CR2
S235JR
+CR2
S235JR
NBK
S355 MC
+CR2
S355 MC
+CR2
27MNCRB5 NBK
Welding line characterization

Friction characterization
Geometry properties (thickness distribution on tube)

Coating
none
galvanized
none
none
galvanized
galvanized
galvanized
galvanized
galvanized
galvanized
none
none
none
none
none
Semi-product manufacturing
welded and cold sized
long blank + laser weld
trans blank + laser weld
trans blank + laser weld
Hydroforming: Flow curve determination
Flow curve (strain-stress)
-Conventional tensile test

-Whole longitudinal tensile test
-Tensile test on samples from tube
-From busting test
Flow curve approximation from free bulge test with fixed ends and comparison
for conventional tensile test (PtU)

Hydroforming: Flow curve determination

Material characterisation (stress-strain curve)
Tensile test
Sheet
Whole tube
Strip from tube
From bursting test (fixed end)

Bursting and maximum pressure. Maximum
circumferencial expansion (one point measurement).
Stress-strain curve
Tube (hydro)formability limit in expansion with low,
unspecified self feeding. One point in the FLD, close to
plane strain.
Results
Tensile curves
in all directions
Tensile curves in
longitudinal direction
Tensile curve in
longitudinal and
transversal
direction
Application
Input for FEM
Input for FEM
Input for FEM
Hydroforming
suitability
Cost and time

for testing
In the current tests all three tensile test methods show similar
results. Given the cost/time factor, the tensile tests could be
performed on sheet with adequate results.
+++
++
Concerning flow curves similar results than tensile test

but longer curves (more expansion). Deformation
mode close to real hydroforming one
++
Cheap and easy to perfom. Up to 2 tubes per hour can
be tested
FEM
sensibility
All burst tests are considered as limits to the

formability and are compared with FE analysis results.
Other remarks
The only FLD point is plane strain. Easy way to give a

general classification of the hydroformability of the
tube.

Hydroforming: FLD determination

-Sheet Nakazima
-Tube Nakazima
-From sheet bulge test
-From tube bursting test
Forming limit curve (FLD)
Sheet Nakazima Test (Labein, Spain)
FLD from bulge test (CSM, Italy)

C1 - S235 1.5 mm
0,50
0,45
0,40
Tube Nakazima Test (Kimab, Sweden)
Major strain
0,35
0,30
C1 - S235
0,25
Ell_300x300_A
0,20
Ell_300x300_B
0,15
Ell_220x300_B
0,10
0,05
-0,20
-0,15
-0,10
-0,05
0,00
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
Minor strain


FLD from bursting test (PtU, Germany)
major strain 1
eb
co ulge
mp te
re st
ss w
ive ith
fee axi
1=-2
d al
free bulge test

with fixed ends
ial
h ax
t wit
s
e
t
e
d
bulg sile fee
free
ten
1=2
1 = ln
l
l1
2 = ln 2
l0
l0
st
re
tc
hdr
aw
in
g
1=22
2=0
plane strain
fixed
1=-22
ion
tens
xial
unia
Initialtube
ends
fre
ng
wi
dra
ep
de
free
axial
compression
ends
axial tensile
l0
l2
l1
minor strain 2


Material C1
1.5 mm, not galvanised
tested in rolling direction
0.6
0.5
major true strain
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
SIMR, d=57mm
SIMR, d=100mm
0.2
0.2
Labein, d=100
0.1
0.1
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
M9
M10
M13
minor true strain

-0.3
M3
M8
CSM burst tests
0.0
-0.4
major true strain
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sheet FLD results at KIMAB and Labein

and results of burst tests at CSM
0.0
-0.3
-0.2
minor true strain

-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Tube FLD results at PtU and KIMAB

0.60
Non linear strain paths

during hydroforming stages
0.50
Material M12 prestrain in axial tension
Material M12 prestrained

in tangential direction
approved points
tangential prestrain
prestrained FLC
circumferential tube
approx axial tube
distance to crack >2.5 mm
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
tangential engineering strain
0.70
0.80
tangential engineering strain
0.80
0.00
0.00
axial engineering strain
axial engineering strain

-0.10
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
-0.10
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
FLC for tubes prestrained circumferentially and axially (KIMAB)

0.50

60
Preform
Hydroforming
50
FLD LABEIN
KIMAB Diameter
100
KIMAB Diameter 57
Major strain
40
KIMAB Nakazima
M8T
KIMAB Nakazima
M9T
KIMAB Nakazima
M10T
PTU M8
30
20
10
PTU M9
PTU M10
0
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Minor strain
20
30
40
Balance between the effort in characterization and simulation improvement

Hydroforming: Welding line characterisation

M5 - H340X 1.5mm
1100
1000
True stress [Mpa]
900
M5_Base3
800
M5_Base4
700
M5_Base6
M5_Welding1
600
M5_Welding2
500
M5_Welding5
400
C5_1_longitudinal
300
C5_2_longitudinal
200
C5_3_longitudinal
100
0
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
0,16
True strain [ ]
Microtensile test samples Tensile curves on weld and base

materials (CSM, Italy)
B
1,60
1,55
1,50
Thickness (mm)
1,45
1,40
1,35
1,30
1,25
M1_base
1,20
M1_mod1
1,15
M2_mod1
1,10
1,05
1,00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
C
B
Length (mm)
180
200
220
240
260

Process/FEM sensitivity to
process/material variables
What we need for simulation
Hydroforming: Geometrical properties
measure
Thickness distribution (PtU)
simulate
Simulation time
multiply by 100
Balance between FEM complexity,
CPU time required, and result quality

Hydroforming: Friction characterisation

Pulling cylinder
Strip
drawing test
(Labein)
BUT test
(Kimab)
Cylindrical tool
with radius r
Straight tube
friction test
(Ptu)
Breaking cylinder
0,10
0,25
0,09
Coefficient of friction
0,15
0,1
0,05
friction coefficent [ ]
0,08
oil_3Tn_7,5mm/s_1
oil_3Tn_7,5mm/s_2
oil_3Tn_7,5mm/s_3
oil_3Tn_155mm/s_1
oil_3Tn_155mm/s_2
oil_3Tn_155mm/s_3
oil_5Tn_7,5mm/s_1
oil_5Tn_7,5mm/s_2
oil_5Tn_7,5mm/s_3
oil_5Tn_155mm/s_1
oil_5Tn_155mm/s_2
oil_5Tn_155mm/s_3
0,2
0,07
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,03
M8_Oil_01
M8_Oil_02
M8_Oil_03
M8_Oil_04
M8_Oil_05
0,02
0,01
0,00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
distance [mm]
0
0
50
100
150
Sliding length
Balance between the effort in characterization and simulation improvement

Balance between FEM complexity and results quality

80
90
Hydroforming: Hydrotest conclusions

Property
Test A
Material characterisation
(Stress-strain curve)
From tensile test on sheet

or from tube bursting
fixed ends
Formability
Tube bursting fixed ends
FLD
Sheet Nakazima
Test B
Tube bursting
compresive axial
feeding
Tube bursting. 1.force free
ends 2.axial compression).
Prestrain FLD
Strip drawing or
BUT
Friction
Geometry properties
testing
Circumferential wall
thickness measurement
Tube diameter
measurement
Weld
Local wall thickness

measurement (weld,
HAZ)
Test C

Straight tube friction test
Hot/Warm Forming: Processes

Sheet Hot Stamping (boron steels)
Tube and sheet forming:
9 Warm Hydroforming with fluid
(non ferrous alloys, Al, Mg) 400C
9 Hot Metal Gas Forming, HMGF
(ferrous and non ferrous alloys) (T >800C)
Volvo XC90
Boron steel
components
(source Arcelor
Auto)

Hot/Warm Forming: FEM simulation consideration
At elevated temperatures the formability increase

with increasing the temperature and decreasing
strain rate.
The increase in strain rate sensitivity is the dominant

factor to improve the deformability.
Influence of the heating rate and holding time
Micro-structural evolution during forming and during

the heating
Hot stamping : isothermal process but depending on

the strain rate (PamStamp, StampPack, FORGE,
DEFORM, ABAQUS)
HGMF: Change of the temperature during the process

simulation thermo-mechanical coupled and fit of
the thermic parameters (FORGE, DEFORM, ABAQUS)

Flow curves:
Uniaxial test
Material Formability:
Biaxial states test
Material law for

several strain rates
and temperatures
Forming Limit
Diagram
Hot/Warm Forming: Uniaxial tests under heating conditions
Thermal gradient in the specimen (heating system: induction coil, Joule effect)
The local strain rate is not constant
The maximum deformation is very small due to the necking, short flow curve
Dynamic recristallisation has effect on stress-strain curve.
Difficult to monitoring and control due to the temperature.
Inert atmosphere to avoid the oxidation (some steels)
Gleeble Machine (Acerinox)

Hot/Warm Forming: Biaxial tests under heating conditions
Thermal gradient in the sheet / tube (heating system: Joule effect)

Gas pressure curve variation during the test to obtain strain rate constant
Inverse analysis with FEM to obtain the strain rate constant
Thermic and electrical isolation with the dies
Monitor and control of process variables: temperature, pressure, electrical current (A) and
voltage (V).
Pressure system (Nitrogen)

Austenitic steel forming: TRIP effect

Implementation of a Non-isothermal Material Model For Austenitic Stainless
Steels in Deep Drawing Simulation
(RFCS project Methods of improving the deep drawing properties of austenitic
stainless steels-7210PR304)
TRIP effect in austenitic stainless steels forming

Phase change during plastic deformation
Temperature dependent
Austenite
Martensite
Latent heat
Total hardening:
Htot = Ha.Va + Hm.Vm
Va, Vm = Volume fractions of the austenite and the martensite phases

Ha, Hm = Hardening values
Austenitic steel forming: FE simulation

FE Simulation of cold forming processes with austenitic stainless steels
Phase change latent heat
Microstructure
Temperature
He
me at ge
cha ner
nic ate
d
al
wo by
rk
Te
m
ha per
rd
en atur
ing e d
ep
en
den
t
->
st.
au on
ced mati
du
-in sfor
ain an
Str t. tr
r
ma
ing
nd
pe
de
te
nsi
rte ng
Ma deni
r
ha
Temperature dependent
phase transformation
Flow stress

Material constitutive
model by Hnsel et al.
(15 material parameters)
Material data from non

isothermal tensile tests
Austenitic steel forming: Non isothermal tensile tests

Simu_T0
Exp_T0
Simu_RT
Exp_RT
Simu_T60
Exp_T60
Simu_T100
Exp_T100
1.4318
100
90
80
T(C)
70
Simulation results and experimental data

Thickness = 1 mm
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
v = 0.11 mm/s
0.4
equ_strain
1.4318
Simu_T0
Exp_T0
Exp_T0 fitted curve
Simu_RT
Exp_RT
Exp_RT fitted curve
Simu_T60
Exp_T60
Exp_T60 fitted curve
Simu_T100
Exp_T100
Exp_T100 fitted curve
1400
0.80
0.70
1000
Sim u_T0
Exp _T0
Exp _T0 fitted cu rve
Sim u_RT
Exp _RT
Exp _RT fitted curve
Sim u_T60
Exp _T60
Exp _T60 fitted curve
Sim u_T100
Exp _T100
Exp _T100 fitted curve
800
600
400
200
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.60
Vm (/1)
Eq_stress(MPa)
1200
0.40
0.50
0.40
1.4318
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
equ_strain
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
equ_strain
Experimental data courtesy of Outokumpu Stainless AB, Sweden

0.4
Austenitic steel forming: Deep drawing

Simulation results and experimental data
EXP.
(Optical)
SIM.
Experimental data courtesy of

ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, Germany
TRUE MAJOR STRAIN

TRUE THICKNESS DECREASE
Austenitic steel forming: Summary

Implementation of a non-isothermal material model for austenitic stainless
steels in deep drawing simulation, taking into account the TRIP effect.
The model is completed with the experimetal test need and the way to get
the model parameter for the test
Simulation can now be used for process optimisation

Conclusions
New constitutive models
Even for traditional models they is a need for data
New characterization method
Data for materials models are not available
Process/FEM sensitivity to process/material variables
Balance between FEM complexity, CPU time required and resuls

quality
Balance between the effort in characterization and simulation

improvement
Important to know what we expected for the simulation: Balance

quantitative versus qualitative results

Thank you for your attention

Marian Gutierrez (LABEIN TECNALIA, Bizkaia, Spain)
marian@labein.es


Autosim Barcelona06 Gutierrez

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Autosim Barcelona06 Gutierrez

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Material characterisation for accurate

simulation of new sheet metal

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Introduction: New materials in automotive

1.- Less formability

Introduction: New forming processes

High speed forming

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Introduction: Conventional sheet forming simulation

Introduction: Conventional materials characterisation

Uniaxial tensile test

New process conditions

Introduction: New materials characterisation

Tower Automotive Congreso 2002 New Developpments in sheet Metal forming

New material variables

High speed forming: Basic concept

Electrohidraulic Forming (EHF)

Electromagnetic Forming (EMF)

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

High speed forming: Main Properties

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

High speed forming simulation

Primary & Induced

Force exerted in the piece

Loosely Coupled Approach

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

High speed forming: Flow curve at different strain rates

International Iron and Steel Institute

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

High speed forming: Uniaxial test methods

Courtesy: International Iron and Steel Institute

High speed forming: Formability

Major strain (Engg %)

Minor strain (Engg %)

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

A major obstacle in hydroforming of

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Hydroforming: Hydrotest project objectives

method and guidelines needed

Flow material curve (stress-strain curve)

Welding line characterization

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Hydroforming: Flow curve determination

Flow curve (strain-stress)

-Conventional tensile test

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Hydroforming: Flow curve determination

Strip from tube

From bursting test (fixed end)

Input for FEM

Input for FEM

Input for FEM

Cost and time

Concerning flow curves similar results than tensile test

All burst tests are considered as limits to the

The only FLD point is plane strain. Easy way to give a

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Hydroforming: FLD determination

Forming limit curve (FLD)

Sheet Nakazima Test (Labein, Spain)

FLD from bulge test (CSM, Italy)

Tube Nakazima Test (Kimab, Sweden)

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]