Earing Prediction in Cup Drawing using the BBC2008 Yield Criterion

, , , , ,

(K. Chung, H. N. Han, H. Huh, F. Barlat, & M. G. Lee, Eds.) 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP ON NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF 3D SHEET METAL FORMING PROCESSES (NUMISHEET 2011), PTS A AND B. 2 HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLE, STE 1NO1, MELVILLE, NY 11747-4501 USA: AMER INST PHYSICS (2011) .

KChungH NHanHHuhFBarlatM GLeeAMER INST PHYSICS

Abstract

The paper deals with constitutive modelling of highly anisotropic sheet metals. It presents FEM based caring predictions in cup drawing simulation of highly anisotropic aluminium alloys where more than four ears occur. For that purpose the BBC2008 yield criterion, which is a plane-stress yield criterion formulated in the form of a finite series, is used. Thus defined criterion can be expanded to retain more or less terms, depending on the amount of given experimental data. In order to use the model in sheet metal forming simulations we have implemented it in a general purpose finite element code ABAQUS/Explicit via VUMAT subroutine, considering alternatively eight or sixteen parameters (8p and 16p version). For the integration of the constitutive model the explicit NICE (Next Increment Corrects Error) integration scheme has been used. Due to the scheme effectiveness the CPU time consumption for a simulation is comparable to the time consumption of built-in constitutive models. Two aluminium alloys, namely AA5042-H2 and AA2090-T3, have been used for a validation of the model. For both alloys the parameters of the BBC2008 model have been identified with a developed numerical procedure, based on a minimization of the developed cost function. For both materials, the predictions of the BBC2008 model prove to be in very good agreement with the experimental results. The flexibility and the accuracy of the model together with the identification and integration procedure guarantee the applicability of the BBC2008 yield criterion in industrial applications.



Add your rating and review

If all scientific publications that you have read were ranked according to their scientific quality and importance from 0% (worst) to 100% (best), where would you place this publication? Please rate by selecting a range.


0% - 100%

This publication ranks between % and % of publications that I have read in terms of scientific quality and importance.


Keep my rating and review anonymous
Show publicly that I gave the rating and I wrote the review