Finite element analysis of the three-point bending of sheet metals

Zhao, Kunmin; Lee, J.K.

doi:10.1016/s0924-0136(01)01064-0

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The exact test setup may vary, cf. Yoshida et al (1998), Zhao and Lee (2002), and Omerspahic et al (2006). This test can reach compressive strains of up to 5 % depending on sheet thickness.…”

Section: Cyclic Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 89%

Finite Element Analysis of Sheet Metal Assemblies: Prediction of Product Performance Considering the Manufacturing Process

Govik¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cyclic Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 89%

Finite Element Analysis of Sheet Metal Assemblies: Prediction of Product Performance Considering the Manufacturing Process

Govik¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The test has been suggested in the literature by e.g. Zhao and Lee [38]. The equipment used in the current experiments has previously been described in Omerspahic et al [10] and Eggertsen and Mattiasson [1][2][3].…”

Section: Three-point Bending Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the identification of kinematic hardening material parameters for accurate springback predictions

Eggertsen

Mattiasson

2010

Int J Mater Form

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experimental method that frequently has been used for the determination of material hardening parameters is the three-point bending test. The advantage of this test is that it is simple to perform, and standard test equipments can be used. The disadvantage is that the material parameters have to be determined by some kind of inverse approach. The test has then been simulated by means of the Finite Element Method, and the material parameters have been determined by finding a best fit to the experimental results by means of a Response Surface Methodology. An alternative method is the tensile/compression test of a sheet strip. In practice such a test is very difficult to perform, due to the tendency of the strip to buckle in compression. In spite of these difficulties some successful attempts to perform cyclic tension/compression tests have been reported in the literature. However, a few writers have reported that there are substantial differences between hardening parameters determined from bending tests and those determined from tensile/compression tests. The purpose of the present study is to try to understand the background of these differences, to find out the influence on predicted springback, and to determine which of the two methodologies for hardening parameter identification is the most suitable one.

show abstract

“…It has received attention for many years and, currently, is the primary approach for parameter identification of kinematic hardening models such as in (Broggiato et al, 2008;Collin et al, 2009;Eggertsen and Mattiasson, 2010;Omerspahic et al, 2006;Yin et al, 2012;Yoshida et al, 2003;Zang et al, 2014;Zhao and Lee, 2002). In (Rezaiee-Pajand and Sinaie, 2009), a systematic mathematic approach was developed to calibrate the nonlinear kinematic hardening (NLKH) parameters by deriving the relation between the evolution of backstress and the plastic strain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of nonlinear kinematic hardening constitutive model parameters using the virtual fields method for advanced high strength steels

Barlat

Kim

et al. 2016

International Journal of Solids and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, the nonlinear kinematic hardening combined with Voce isotropic hardening was selected to characterize the material behavior of advanced high strength steel sheet samples subjected to a few reverse loading cycles. Multi-components of backstress were considered for the combined nonlinear kinematical hardening model, namely, one, two, and three backstress components. To calibrate the model, an inverse problem solution tool, so-called virtual fields method, which takes full advantage of full-field deformation measurement, was applied to identify the material constitutive parameters. First, finite element simulations of forward-reverse simple shear were performed to validate the proposed identification method. The influence of strain noise on the identification accuracy was also evaluated. Then, the proposed method was applied to three kinds of sheet metals (DP600, TRIP780 and TWIP980) tested under two cycles of forward-reverse simple shear for parameter identification. The identification results obtained with different number of backstress components were critically discussed.

show abstract

Finite element analysis of the three-point bending of sheet metals

Cited by 51 publications

References 2 publications

Finite Element Analysis of Sheet Metal Assemblies: Prediction of Product Performance Considering the Manufacturing Process

Finite Element Analysis of Sheet Metal Assemblies: Prediction of Product Performance Considering the Manufacturing Process

On the identification of kinematic hardening material parameters for accurate springback predictions

Identification of nonlinear kinematic hardening constitutive model parameters using the virtual fields method for advanced high strength steels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About