
doi: 10.1002/cnm.582
AbstractIn this work, it is shown the numerical formulation for prediction of the right‐hand side of forming limit diagram (FLD). Five different yield criterias were used: Von Mises', Hill's (1948), Hill's (1979), Logan and Hosford's and Hill's (1993). Two new explicit equations for the equilibrium conditions using Von Mises and Hill's (1948) yield criteria are presented. The results were compared against theoretical and experimental data present in the literature with good agreement. The materials used in the comparison were the 2036‐T4 aluminium and the AK, IF e EEP steels. It was observed that the predicted FLD was strongly influenced by the type of yield criterion used in the analysis. The best agreement between the predicted curves and the experimental data for each material was obtained from different criteria. The best result for the AK steel was achieved from the Logan and Hosford's criterion. The 2036‐T4 aluminium was better represented when the Hill's (1993) criterion was used. The IF and EEP steels were well represented by results based on either Hill's (1979) or Logan and Hosford's criterion. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Numerical and other methods in solid mechanics, numerical formulation, yield criterion, Large-strain, rate-independent theories of plasticity (including nonlinear plasticity), metal sheet forming, forming-limit diagram, Contact in solid mechanics, Small-strain, rate-independent theories of plasticity (including rigid-plastic and elasto-plastic materials)
Numerical and other methods in solid mechanics, numerical formulation, yield criterion, Large-strain, rate-independent theories of plasticity (including nonlinear plasticity), metal sheet forming, forming-limit diagram, Contact in solid mechanics, Small-strain, rate-independent theories of plasticity (including rigid-plastic and elasto-plastic materials)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 5 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
