Simple record

dc.contributor.authorGaldos Errasti, Lander
dc.contributor.authorSaénz de Argandoña Fernández de Gorostiza, Eneko
dc.contributor.authorMendiguren Olaeta, Joseba
dc.contributor.authorMugarra Fernandez, Endika
dc.contributor.authorUlibarri Hernández, Unai
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-16T12:49:01Z
dc.date.available2019-01-16T12:49:01Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn1877-7058eu_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11984/1135
dc.description.abstractSteel has been used in vehicles from the automotive industry's inception. Different steel grades are continually being developed in order to satisfy new fuel economy requirements. For example, advanced high strength steel grades (AHSS) are widely used due to their good strength/weight ratio. Because each steel grade has a different microstructure composition and hardness, they show different behaviors when they are subjected to different strain paths. Similarly, the friction behavior when using different contact pressures and sliding velocities is considerably altered. Third generation steels present high yield strength together with high elongation capacity and strain hardening. Thus, it is logical to think that elastic modulus reduction and Bauschinger effect are important aspects when stamping these materials. Furthermore, high contact pressures arise when forming these steels and friction coefficient may significantly influence the numerical results. Stamping forming processes are nowadays usually optimized by numerical tools such as Finite Element Models. In order to get reliable results, these numerical tools require proper material and contact models in order to correctly predict the real behavior and flow of the materials. In the present paper, Fortiform 1050 material is deeply characterized using uniaxial and cyclic tension-compression tests. Friction coefficient is obtained using strip drawing tests. These results have been used to calibrate mixed kinematic-hardening material models as well as the friction. Finally, the geometrical accuracy of the different material models has been obtained by means of the comparison of the numerical predictions with experimental demonstrators obtained using a U-Drawing tester.eu_ES
dc.language.isoengeu_ES
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd.eu_ES
dc.rights© 2017 The Authorseu_ES
dc.subjectThird generation steelseu_ES
dc.subjectFrictioneu_ES
dc.subjectHardeningeu_ES
dc.subjectElastic -moduluseu_ES
dc.subjectSpringbackeu_ES
dc.subjectU-Drawing testeu_ES
dc.titleNumerical simulation of U-Drawing test of Fortiform 1050 steel using different material modelseu_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeu_ES
dcterms.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesseu_ES
dcterms.sourceProcedia Engineeringeu_ES
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneu_ES
local.contributor.groupProcesos avanzados de conformación de materialeseu_ES
local.description.peerreviewedtrueeu_ES
local.description.publicationfirstpage137eu_ES
local.description.publicationlastpage142eu_ES
local.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.751eu_ES
local.source.detailsVol. 207. Pp. 37-142, Noviembre.eu_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Simple record