4.5 Article

Measurement and Analysis of Heterogeneous Strain Fields in Uniaxial Tensile Tests for Boron Steel Under Hot Stamping Conditions

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS
卷 60, 期 9, 页码 1289-1300

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11340-020-00658-6

关键词

Boron steel; Hot stamping; Temperature gradient; Uniaxial tensile test; Digital image correlation

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/R001715/1]
  2. CSC-Imperial Scholarship [201700260069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A significant amount of uniaxial tensile tests has been carried out using Gleeble systems to investigate the viscoplastic deformation of boron steel (22MnB5) under hot stamping conditions. However, due to heat loss through the end clamps, a temperature gradient in the reduced parallel section of dog-bone shaped specimens is inevitable. Objective In the work reported in this paper, the effect of temperature gradient on measured outcomes is examined. Methods Uniaxial tensile tests on 1.5 mm thick boron steel specimens are carried out, under hot stamping conditions and strain fields are quantified using the digital image correlation (DIC) technique. The effect of gauge length on the properties of boron steel, as calculated from observed test results, is determined. Results Compared with the test at room temperature, a bell-shaped strain distribution occurs within the gauge length even before the appearance of the maximum load. Also, average strain within the gauge length, especially in the later stages, changes with gauge length within the investigated range, and thus, different engineering stress-strain curves and fracture strains are determined. In addition, normalized strain rate is significantly dependent on gauge length, which results in over 16% difference among the computed flow stresses by using a unified constitutive model. Conclusions The characterized properties of the material are dependent on gauge length and thus, a testing standard for measuring thermal-mechanical data of materials by using a Gleeble need to be defined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据