Abstract
This study aims to characterize the high strain rate constitutive behavior and the anisotropic plasticity of three high strength aluminum sheet alloys, AA6013-T6, AA7075-T6 and a developmental AA7xxx-T76 alloy. A comprehensive series of mechanical characterization tests were performed under uniaxial tension, simple shear and through-thickness compression (representing equal-biaxial tension) at room temperature and various strain rates ranging from 10−3 to 103 s−1. It was observed that all three alloys exhibited appreciable plastic anisotropy in terms of the measured r-values along various sheet orientations, although they exhibited minimal anisotropy in the stress response. For all three alloys, the flow stress slightly increases with increasing strain rate, which indicates mild positive strain rate sensitivity. However, the flow stress ratios and r-values do not show any explicit relation with respect to strain rate suggesting a negligible effect of strain rate on in-plane plastic anisotropy. Measurement of the constitutive response to large strains (beyond onset of diffuse necking) was achieved using shear specimens that are not subject to onset of necking. To model the flow stress dependence on equivalent plastic strain and strain rate, an extended Hockett–Sherby constitutive model is proposed and shown to fit accurately the experimental data over the studied range of strain and strain rates. The yield behavior of the sheet alloys was predicted using the Barlat YLD2000-2D plane stress yield function (Barlat et al., 2003) assuming both associative and non-associative (NA) flow rules, as well as for general stress states employing two 3D anisotropic models, Barlat YLD2004 (Aretz and Barlat, 2004) and modified–Yoshida (Lou and Yoon, 2018). An associative flow rule was assumed for both of the higher order 3D yield functions considered herein. The measured flow stress ratios and r-values from the uniaxial tension and equal-biaxial tension experiments, along with the stress ratios from the shear tests, were used to determine the coefficients of the yield functions. The calibrated yield functions exhibited good agreement with the experimental data for most loading conditions considered. The higher order Barlat YLD2004 and modified–Yoshida yield functions provided the better predictive accuracy. The non-associative Barlat YLD2000 yield function also performed reasonably well, while the associative Barlat YLD2000 yield function had the lowest accuracy. The constitutive models were implemented into the FE simulation, in order to evaluate the accuracy of the model parameters calibrated in this work.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.