Numerical comparison of isotropic hypo- and hyperelastic-based plasticity models with application to industrial forming processes
Numerical comparison of isotropic hypo- and hyperelastic-based plasticity models with application to industrial forming processes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijplas.2014.06.003
复制
发表时间：
2014-12
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
T. Brepols;I. Vladimirov;S. Reese
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Brepols;I. Vladimirov;S. Reese
工业成形过程通常以大的塑性应变和材料元素的旋转为特征。这强调了可靠的有限应变弹塑性模型在相应的有限元模拟中的重要性。这项工作的目的是回顾和数值比较两种不同类型的有限应变弹塑性公式，即基于亚弹性和超弹性的塑性模型，并特别参考它们在成形过程中的适用性。这两个模型都考虑了Voce和Armstrong-Frederick类型的非线性各向同性和运动强化，并作为用户材料子程序(UMAT)在ABAQUS/Standard中实现。进行了几次数字测试，以评估它们各自的能力。有趣的是，尽管这两个模型在以剪切为主的单一单元变形试验中得到了显著不同的结果，但对拉深、拉深弯曲和热成形过程的结构模拟得出了几乎一致的结果。这表明这两个模型都非常适合于对常见工业成形过程中的弹塑性材料进行建模。
Industrial forming processes are usually characterized by large plastic strains and rotations of material elements. This emphasizes the importance of reliable finite strain elastoplasticity models in corresponding finite element simulations. The aim of this work is to review and numerically compare two inherently different types of formulations of finite strain elastoplasticity, namely hypoelastic- and hyperelastic-based plasticity models, with special reference to their applicability in forming processes. Both models allow for nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardening of Voce and Armstrong–Frederick type and were implemented as user material subroutines (UMAT) into ABAQUS/Standard. Several numerical tests were conducted to assess their respective capabilities. Interestingly enough, although both models led to remarkably different results in shear-dominated single element deformation tests, the structural simulations of a deep drawing, draw bending and thermoforming process delivered nearly congruent results. This suggests that both models are well-suited for modeling elastoplastic materials in common industrial forming processes.