4.5 Article

Analyses of Axisymmetric Drawing-Bulging Forming Process of Sheet Metal Using Parametric and Direct Integral Methods

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11665-022-06760-1

关键词

axisymmetric drawing-bulging; direct integral method; equibiaxial tensile stress state; plane stress; parametric equations; sheet forming

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675466, 51175451]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [E2018203373]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research provides mathematical proof and experimental validation that the flat-bottom region of axisymmetric curved parts is in an equibiaxial tensile stress state when using an axisymmetric flat-bottom punch. The direct integral method is supplemented and improved to obtain strain distributions in different regions.
For the forming problems of axisymmetric curved parts, it is generally believed that the flat-bottom region of the forming part is in an equibiaxial tensile stress state when an axisymmetric flat-bottom punch is used for bulging or drawing-bulging forming processes. However, this view lacked in-depth analysis and mathematical proof. In this research, under the assumptions of Kirchhoff's membrane theory, the proportional loading condition and transversely anisotropic material model, mathematical proof is provided based on parametric equations and finite element simulations and experiments are carried out to verify that the flat-bottom region of the forming part is in an equibiaxial tensile stress state when an axisymmetric flat-bottom punch is used. On this basis, the direct integral method is supplemented and improved. The strain distributions of the conical parts in the flange, die arc, side wall, punch arc and bottom regions are obtained by the improved integral method. The theoretical results are compared with and validated by those obtained by the finite element method and experiment. This research is helpful to the prediction of strain distribution in axisymmetric sheet forming.

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