Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T00:13:15.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scale factor and punch shape effects on the expansion capacities of an aluminum alloy during deep-drawing operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2014

R. Boissiere ,
P. Vacher  and
J. J. Blandin
R. Boissiere*
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Lamour, Nancy University, 54000 Nancy, France
P. Vacher
Affiliation:
SYMME, Université de Savoie, 74944 Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
J. J. Blandin
Affiliation:
SIMAP-GPM2, Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, 38402 Saint-Martin d’Hères, France
*
a Corresponding author: remi.boissiere@univ-lorraine.fr
Get access

Abstract

The effects of punch geometry and sample size on forming limit diagrams in expansion are investigated in the case of a 2024 aluminium alloy. Four configurations were selected: flat punch (Marciniak test) or hemispheric punch and decimetric vs. centimetric tooling dimensions. Both decimetric and centimetric deep-drawing devices are associated with an image correlation tool that allows identifying without any contact the deformation on the surface of planar or non-planar specimens. Strains on the surface of the samples are observed by means of a double numerisation in three dimensions of the sample before and after deformation by using stereoscopic vision and triangulation. Finally, deep-drawing limit of the four configurations are compared in expansion state and with literature. Results mainly show that hemispherical punch allows measuring higher strains and is less sensitive to size effect than Marciniak test.

Keywords

Deep-drawingformingaluminiumstrain3D digitisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Mechanics & Industry , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , 2014 , pp. 159 - 166
Copyright
© AFM, EDP Sciences 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Marciniak, Z., K. Kuczinsky, Int. J.Mech. Sci. 9 (1967) 609–620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R. Arrieux, Ph.D. thesis, INSA and UCB Lyon (F), 1990
Reyes, G., H. Kang, J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 186 (2007) 284–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, A.K., S.S. Hecker, Metall. Trans. 5 (1974) 2161–2164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, E., Carsley, J.E., R. Verma, J. Mater. Eng. Perf. 17 (2008) 288–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacher, P., Dumoulin, S., R. Arrieux, Intern. J. Forming Proc. 2 (1999) 395–408 Google Scholar
P. Vacher, S. Dumoulin, F. Morestin, S. Mguil-Touchal, Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 213 C Imech E, 811–817 (2000)
F. Dumont, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 6 – Orléans (F), 2003
M. Bornert, F. Brémand, P. Doumalin, J.C. Dupré, M. Fazzini, M. Grédiac, F. Hild, S. Mistou, J. Molimard, J.J. Orteu, R. Robert, Y. Surrel, P. Vacher, B. Wattrisse, Exp. Mech. (2008)
J.J. Orteu, SEM Annual Conference, Springfield, MA, USA, 2007
Vacher, P., Arrieux, R., L. Tabourot, J. Mater. Proc. Tech. 78 (1998) 190–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T. Coudert, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Savoie (F), 2005