See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252923443

Material Selection for an Ultra High Strength Steel Component Based on the
Failure Criteria of CrachFEM

Article · August 2005

DOI: 10.1063/1.2011269

CITATIONS READS

3 333

5 authors, including:

Lutz Kessler Thorsten Beier

ThyssenKrupp AG ThyssenKrupp AG
31 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Helmut Gese
MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer
39 PUBLICATIONS   664 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fracture prediction View project

Flow stress curves for high strains View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thorsten Beier on 24 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Material Selection for an Ultra High Strength Steel
Component Based on the Failure Criteria of CrachFEM
L. Kessler1), Th. Beier1), H. Werner2), D. Horstkott3), H. Dell4), H. Gese4)

1) ThyssenKrupp Stahl AG, Eberhard Strasse 12, 44145 Dortmund, Germany

2) BMW Group, Forschungs- und Innovationszentrum, Knorrstrasse 147, D-80788 Munich, Germany
3) ThyssenKrupp Umformtechnik GmbH, Gotenstrasse 91, D-33647 Bielefeld, Germany
4) MATFEM Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer, Nederlingerstrasse 1, D-80638 Munich, Germany

Abstract. An increasing use of combining more than one process step is noticed for coupling crash simulations with the
results of forming operations – mostly by inheriting the forming history like plastic strain and material hardening.
Introducing a continuous failure model allows a further benefit of these coupling processes; it sometimes can even be the
most attractive result of such a work. In this paper the algorithm CrachFEM for fracture prediction has been used to
generate more benefit of the successive forming and crash simulations – especially for ultra high strength steels. The
choice and selection of the material grade in combination with the component design can therefore be done far before
the prototyping might show an unsuccessful crash result; and in an industrial applicable manner.

INTRODUCTION lot of benefits. A meaningful virtual development of

such components via numerical simulation must
A correct representation of the plastic deformation therefore cover the above mentioned aspects and needs
and failure of individual component parts is essential a possibility of failure prediction throughout the
to obtain accurate crashworthiness simulation results. complete process. In this paper the model CrachFEM
By introducing more and more high and ultra high has been used to generate more benefit of the
strength steel grades into the automotive body the successive forming and crash simulations. CrachFEM
component designer has to be aware of the transiently predicts a failure risk for fracture through
dependency of component strength and component localized necking, ductile fracture and shear fracture
ductility in case of accidents. Especially side door (Figure 1).
intrusion beams must absorb enough energy without
prior fracture to protect passengers in case of a side
impact accident. This of cause on a well defined – but
low intrusion displacement value. In parallel there
exists a limitation for the possible component shapes
and space due to the given door concept. Ultra high .
strength steels with tensile strength up to or above
1000 MPa are typically used for these types of
components. One great benefit of these steel grades is a) ductile fracture b) shear fracture c) instability
the possible cold forming (i.e. stretch forming / deep FIGURE 1. Visualisation of ductile fracture, shear fracture
drawing) which offers a great variety of component and sheet instability (localised necking)
layouts and shapes. Because of theses varieties in
component layout, material grade selection, method of
the forming process and fulfilling the crashworthiness
load cases a sophisticated engineering process is
required. “Seeing the task as a whole” seems to offer a

CP778 Volume A, Numisheet 2005, edited by L. M. Smith, F. Pourboghrat, J.-W. Yoon, and T. B. Stoughton
© 2005 American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0265-5/05/$22.50
492
CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL
FOR A VIRTUAL COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Today, the usual material characterization process
is based on the tensile test and relatively similar for
stamping and crash processes. For stamping a yield
curve and r-values for the anisotropy are determined
with tensile specimen. In addition to this a bulge test
may be done to gather more detailed information about
the yield locus shape - then quite often resulting in a
selection among the formulation of Hill ´48, Hill ´90
or sometimes Barlat model. The most common failure
criteria is the strain based forming limit curve (FLC)
or a limitation of thinning. For crash simulations strain
rate dependent yield curves are used in combination
with an isotropic material formulation. Failure models
exist, but are in many cases limited and hardly able to
include the results of forming operations.
To allow a powerful virtual component design
process there exists a strong need of using the same
failure model for stamping and crash, inheriting the
material “damage” from one process step to the
following.
Numerical Model for Instability (Localized
Necking)
Localised necking is the main mechanism leading
to fracture in ductile sheet metals. The classical
forming limit curve (FLC) generally used to predict
localised instabilities is not useful in case of coupled
processes including forming and crash because of its
assumption of linear strain paths in the material. In
order to take the effects of nonlinear strain paths into
account, which can develop during a crash event, a
theoretical model of the instability mechanism
(CRACH algorithm) is included in CrachFEM. This
approach has been validated in an industrial research
project using a set of multistage experiments at static
and dynamic strain rates using mild steel specimens
[2].
The relevant failure mechanisms in the sheet metal
forming process are summarized in Figure 1. All
forming operations are stable up to the instability
strain limit ε eq
*
, after which the instability causes the
formation of a localized thinning of the cross section –
a ‘neck’.
The state of stress in the neck area finally changes for
all strain paths to plane strain. As the plastic
493
deformation of the sheet becomes concentrated in the
necked region, the fracture strain is reached at once.
Because the localised neck has a width in the order of
the dimension of the sheet thickness, the necking
process and subsequent fracture cannot be modelled
directly in industrial crash simulation (shell elements
have a typical edge length of 3 to 10 times the sheet
thickness). The instability strain ε eq
*
has to be used as
a fracture criterion instead of the local fracture strain
ε eq
**
inside the neck. From a numerical point of view, a
failure criterion based on the strain at onset of
instability, ε eq
*
, has the additional advantage that the
strain distribution is physically as well as numerically
homogeneous.
The algorithm CRACH includes a refined description
of material behaviour on a macroscopic level, in
conjunction with the effects of the material
microstructure. The mechanical problem is illustrated
in Figure 2. The basic concept is derived from the
Marciniak model [1]. In this model the localised neck
is triggered by an initial imperfection of the sheet. The
sheet has an initial thickness of h0 . The thickness
inside the infinitely small imperfection is given in
equation (1).
~
h0 = h0 (1 − δ ) (1)
δ is a very small number. Here and in the following
chapters, all values inside the localised neck are
indicated with a tilde (∼). As the neck is infinitely
small, the increase in strain parallel to the neck
(defined as local y ' -direction in Figure 2) is identical
inside and outside the neck according to equation (2).
dε~y' = d ε y' (2)
This model is practicable for linear strain paths in
the region of ε 2 < 0 ( ε 1 and ε 2 are the principal
strains in the plane of the sheet with ε 2 ≤ ε1 ), where
the neck width is very small. In the region ε 2 > 0 the
neck can have a significant width. Therefore, the
CRACH algorithm uses an approximation of the neck
cross section according to equation (3).
~ ⎡ ⎛ π x' ⎞⎤
h0 = h0 ⎢1 − d cos⎜ ⎟⎥ (3)
⎣ ⎝ l ⎠⎦
 x' indicates the local direction normal to the necking
line according to Figure 2. The initial thickness h0 has
no influence on the numerical problem and is fixed to
1. The ratio x' l changes from 0 (neck center) to 1/2
(region of the sheet with homogeneous deformation).
d is the inhomogeneity parameter and its initial value
is calibrated from the limit strain out of one
experiment with the individual sheet. The parameter
d increases with deformation in the CRACH
algorithm in order to account for the roughening of the
sheet during plastic deformation.
for anisotropic strain hardening according to Backhaus
[3] to account for the Bauschinger effect in the
CRACH algorithm.
The global strain around the neck is increased
incrementally as long as the force equilibrium is
fulfilled according to equations (5a) and (5b).
~
σ~x′ h = σ x′ h (5a)
~
σ~x′y′ h = σ x′y′ h ( 5b)
The first increment without equilibrium indicates the
instability with the start of the localised necking. This
mechanical problem has to be solved for different
orientation angles γ according to Figure 2 of the
initial neck relative to the rolling direction of the sheet.
The limit strain ε eq *
for one deformation path is
derived through optimisation according to equation
(6).

ε eq
*
= min{ε eq
γ
(γ )} (6)

In summary, the CRACH algorithm solves the plastic

flow problem inside and outside the initial neck area.
Instability occurs if there is no common solution for
the flow problem inside and outside of the neck.

Phenomenological Model for Ductile and

Shear Fracture
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the imperfection
triggering a localised neck in the CRACH algorithm Two main mechanisms can cause the fracture of a
ductile metal following monotonous deformation:
The strain outside the neck can be increased
incrementally according to the strain history of a finite • void nucleation, void growth and void
element. The strain inside the neck is calculated by coalescence;
CRACH using equation (3) and a strain rate dependent • shear fracture due to shear band localisation.
plasticity model with isotropic-kinematic hardening.
Most of the phenomenological fracture models are
The equivalent flow stress of the material is defined by based on a fracture diagram which gives the equivalent
m
plastic strain at fracture ε eq
**
as a function of the stress
⎛ ε&eq ⎞
σ eq = a1 (ε 0 + ε eq ) n
⎜
⎜ (ε& )
⎟
⎟
(4)
state (i.e. stress triaxiality η according to equation
⎝ eq ref ⎠ (8)). The function ε (η )
**
eq can be used directly as a
fracture criterion in the case of a linear strain path. For
with strain hardening exponent n and strain rate the more general case of a nonlinear strain path, an
sensitivity parameter m , where n and m can differ integral fracture criterion is necessary. Kolmogorov
between the quasistatic and dynamic loading regimes. [5] has presented an integral criterion according to
The plastic orthotropy is defined by the Lankford equation (7).
coefficients r0 , r45 , and r90 . An anisotropic yield
locus according to Hill-1948 is combined with a model

494
 **
ε eq
dε eq of fracture strain is small. Therefore the fracture model

∫ε
0
**
eq (η )
=1 (7) is used for the isotropic case in this study.

Shear Fracture
Integral criteria can account for nonlinear strain paths.
For shear fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent
However, in more severe cases of load path changes
(i.e. compression-tension reversal) even the integral strain at fracture ε eq
**
is a function of the variable θ
criteria are no longer valid. CrachFEM offers a given in equation (10).
tensorial criterion as an option for these cases. The
tensorial fracture criterion is not discussed here. 1 − k Sη
θ= ( 10 )
φ
The fracture criterion is calculated separately for the
risk of ductile fracture and shear fracture in
CrachFEM. It is assumed that there is no interaction where k S is a material parameter and φ is the ratio of
between both fracture mechanisms. the maximum shear stress and the equivalent stress
(von Mises) according to equation (11).
Ductile Fracture τ max
φ= ( 11 )
For ductile fracture, it is assumed that the equivalent σ eq
fracture strain ε eq
**
is a function of the stress triaxiality
η , defined in equation (8) by components in principal Analogous to equation (9), the equivalent plastic strain
stress space. for shear fracture with respect to θ is given in equation
(12).
3σ m σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3
η= = ε S+ sinh [ f (θ − θ − )] + ε S− sinh [ f (θ + − θ )] ( 12 )
σ eq σ + σ + σ 32 − σ 1σ 2 − σ 2 σ 3 − σ 3σ 1 ε eq
**
=
sinh [ f (θ + − θ − )]
2 2
1 2

(8)
The dependence of the equivalent fracture strain on the
stress triaxiality is expressed in Equation (9). This
formulation includes a possible orthotropy of fracture.
The equivalent fracture strain ε T+ for the equibiaxial
tension condition and ε for equibiaxial compression
− orthotropy of the shear fracture curve has been found
T
(this value is usually very high) must not be
orientation dependent in this case.
If η + is the stress triaxiality for equibiaxial tension and
η − indicates the stress triaxiality in equibiaxial
compression (a material with isotropic plasticity yields
η + = 2 and η − = −2 ), the following boundary
conditions may be defined.
ε T+ sinh[c (η − − η )] + ε T− sinh[c (η − η + )]
ε eq
**
= ( 9)
sinh[c (η − − η + )]
An orientation dependent parameter c has been
introduced in equation (9) for the orthotropic case.
Therefore equation (9) has two constant
parameters, ε T+ , ε T− and one orientation dependent
parameter c . In the case of sheet steel the orthotropy
where θ + and θ are the values of the parameter θ
−
for equibiaxial tension und compression. Equation (12)
has two constant parameters ε S+ , ε S− and one
orientation dependent parameter f . No significant
up to now for different sheets and extrusions.
Therefore, it is assumed that f is a constant,
independent of the orientation to rolling direction.
Comprehensive Failure Model CrachFEM
All three possible fracture modes (necking, ductile
fracture and shear fracture) have been combined into
the comprehensive failure model CrachFEM.
CrachFEM has been coupled to different FEM codes
with explicit-dynamic integration scheme for use with
shell elements. The results presented have been
obtained with the FEM codes PamStamp/PamCrash
(CrachFEM coupled to material 128). A possible
fracture due to necking or shear fracture is checked
against the membrane strains (both fracture modes
appear across the complete sheet thickness). A
possible failure due to ductile fracture is checked for
the upper and lower strains of the shell element. All

495
three fracture modes are uncoupled from each other.
Also there is no coupling between the accumulated
damage and the elastoplastic material model in the FE
analysis. This is to avoid a localization of the strains
due to softening of the material.
Material Specification
The material grades used in parts of this
investigation were a multiphase steel, specified as
Grade A, and a martensitic steel type, specified as
grade B. The typical mechanical properties are given
in table 1.
TABLE 1. Properties of used material grades.
Values in RD Grade A Grade B
YS (MPa) 725 1150
TS (MPa) 852 1350
TE (%) 13,6 5
Quasi-static uniaxial tensile tests have been
performed in 0, 45 and 90 degree to rolling direction to
evaluate the orthotropy of yield strength and plastic
anisotropy r. As the uniform elongation is
comparatively small for the steels cited above an
additional experiment has been used to characterize
the strain hardening of the material at higher strains. In
this project the layered compression test has been used
for this purpose. Disk shaped specimens are cut from
the sheet and are laid on top of each other to form a
multi-layer cylindrical specimen. The cylindrical
specimen is compressed in axial direction. Force
versus axial compression (the compression is
measured indirectly via the change in diameter using
volume constancy) is a result of the experiment. These
data allow the derivation of a flow stress curve for
deformation normal to the plane of the sheet. This
flow stress is identical to an equibiaxial flow stress
from the bulge test according to the classical theory of
plasticity (flow stress is independent to hydrostatic
stress – therefore the flow stress for uniaxial
compression normal to the sheet is identical to the
flow stress for equibiaxial tension). The flow stress for
equibiaxial tension can also be used to identify the
optimum yield locus for each material.
Tensile tests with different strain rates have been
used to characterize the strain rate sensitivity of the
flow stress.
All material parameters for the algorithm Crach
(localized necking) can be derived from the
experiments cited above.
496
Additional experiments are needed to evaluate the
limit curves for ductile and shear fracture. Erichsen
test (equibiaxial stress with η = 2 ), three point
bending of sheet coupons (width/thickness > 4 with
plane strain tension and η = 3 ) and waisted tensile
specimens with fracture at the notch root (uniaxial
tension with η = 1 ) have been used to obtain the
ductile fracture limit. The local fracture strains have
been derived from a grid on the surface of the
specimens (Erichsen test and three point bending) or
from the sheet thickness in the fracture plane (waisted
tensile specimens).
Tensile specimen with a groove (rectangular cross
section, groove depth = half sheet thickness) under 45°
to loading direction ( θ = 1.469 ), specially shaped
tensile specimens with a groove parallel to the loading
direction (pure shear with θ = 1.732 ) and Erichsen
tests (biaxial tension with θ = 1.6 - some of these
specimens show shear fracture instead of ductile
fracture), have been used to determine the shear
fracture limit.
The ductile and shear fracture limits have been
evaluated for quasi-static speed. It is assumed that
these fracture limits are not sensitive to strain rate for
steels. All quasi-static fracture limits for steel Grade A
are given in Figure 3.
2
equivalent plastic strain [-]
1,5
necking
1 ductile
shear
0,5
0
-2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1
Alpha = phi_2 / phi_1 [-]
Figure 3. Limit curves for failure through necking, ductile
fracture and shear fracture for Grade A (multi phase steel in
quasi-static loading); representation is valid for special case
of plane stress condition and membrane loading
A complete characterization of a steel quality for
CrachFEM causes a significant increase in
experimental effort compared to standard industrial
methods with simplified fracture criteria. However the
use of a comprehensive failure model is the only
sustainable technique to perform a full virtual
development of components made from advanced high
strength and ultra high strength steels.
 VIRTUAL COMPONENT DESIGN
PROCESS
The aim of a virtual component design process is
the development of a robust component that fulfills all
demands. A result is thereby a virtual layout and
testing that minimizes the existing risk of an
unforeseen event in real manufacturing or crash case.
If advanced failure criteria are used, they have to
account for the possibility of interpreting all process
steps of the component, typically the complete history
like “material grade selection – stamping – painting
and finally crash”. The crash case is of cause
influenced by all prior process steps – leading to the
problem that the methods used in these different
process steps have to be compatible. With the above
mentioned CrachFEM model the complete evaluation
of the same safety definition values during all phases
in the virtual component design phase is now possible.
Even more there exists a chance to interpret the effect
of stamping method to the performance in the crash
case or the impact of the given geometrical component
design on the predicted failure values.
Load Case Definition for Side Intrusion
Beams
The testing of side intrusion beams is defined by
FMVSS 214. In general the specification aims on the
mean load value for given intrusion distance and a
maximum level of the peak load value. This leads to
allowed force-deflection curves during crash. Compare
Figure 4.
35 Peak load (0 .. 18 inch)
30
Acceptable force
25
Force (kN)
displacement-line
20 F (0 ... 12 inch)
15
F (0 ... 6 inch)
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400
Displacement (mm)
FIGURE 4. Definition for sedan vehicles (FMVSS214)
Model validation for side intrusion beams
To validate the above mentioned CrachFEM-failure
model for ultra high strength steel application a set of
experiments have been done. Set A of experiments
aimed on the general prediction of different material
grades and their behavior in component loading.
Set B focused on the possibility to cover possible
material scatter within one material grade. Due to
complexity and space only Set A will be discussed in
this paper.
The overall design of the experiments was geared
to the typical failure modes that can occur in a door
intrusion beam – mainly instability and shear fracture.
In order to get the best reliability of the experiments
and simulations the selected and used steel grades
were all fully characterized for the CrachFEM-model.
Set A: Material selection validation
For these investigations the chosen material grades
A and B have been stamped in production tools and all
necessary data was gathered for the accompanying
simulations tasks. Because in crash case the
orientation of rolling direction in the blank is hardly
known in early concept phases, the blanks were
prepared in rolling direction and 90 degree to this. By
doing this the influence of orientation can be evaluated
and reviewed.
In order to test the performance of the selected steel
grades in three-point-bending, dynamic testing with
speeds of up to 12.3 m/s and static testing with speeds
of 0.002 m/s have been arranged. Figure 5 shows the
experimental results of dynamic and static tests for the
two steel grades. It is quite obvious that grade A
generates a lower peak load but shows more ductility.
In comparison to this grade B shows a much higher
peak load but is limited to lower punch travels because
of early fracture.
Grade A (dynamic) Grade A (static)
Grade B (dynamic) Grade B (static)
Force (kN)
500
Punch displacement (mm)
FIGURE 5. Experimental test results for static and dynamic
three-point-bending operations for side intrusion beams.
497
 Performing a crash simulation without an This can be included in the simulation by starting
appropriate failure model for these kinds of steels to eliminate elements but should not be discussed here.
would generate the force-displacement curves given in Inside the deformed areas the selected position A is
figure 6. It is obvious that grade B seams much more dominated by pure sheet instability risk, position B
favorable for the side intrusion beam application than and C show more shear and lower amounts of ductile
grade A. By introducing the CrachFEM-model with fracture effects and finally position D is again loaded
the specified material data for the three already by membrane tension. At around 60 mm punch travel
prescribed failure modes the engineer gets the the material grade B reaches a critical value for
capability to estimate possible failures in combination instability in position A. At a punch travel of around
with a specified load. 80 mm the shear value in position C gets to the limit.
In comparison to this grade A can go up to 100 mm
punch travel without reaching the limit value 1.0.
Grade B

Doing the overall interpretation of the modeling

within the complete process chain (transferring the
Force

forming history by mapping, CrachFEM-model values

included) the final results for the three-point-bending
tests are shown in figure 8 respectively. For grade A
Grade A the model predicts a failure near the ultimate reached
0 punch travel. In comparison to this the failure
0 Displacement
prognosis for grade B correlates quite well with the
FIGURE 6. Simulation result without failure model for the experimental findings. Especially the prediction of
three-point-bending test in static load condition. instability and shear/ductile fracture was found in the
experiments.
The detailed result of the failure interpretation for a
selection of critical positions in the side intrusion It has to be mentioned here, that different loading
beams during three-point-bending simulation are conditions will again lead to other simulations results
shown in figure 7 for both steel grades in parallel. The for both material grades. The selected tests have been
failure value for the CrachFEM-model starts with 0 for done to produce failure in the components and for
no risk at all (initial phase for simulations without model validation reasons - they can hardly be found
mapping of forming history; if mapping of forming with these boundary conditions in real live.
histories is done the initial value for the CrachFEM-
model are mostly unequal to 0.) and is defined to be Start of failure (Inst./dukt. fracture)

critical at a value of 1.0. A value above 1.0 gives a

signal that failure is initialized and represents in real Simulation
Force

live the beginning of an inhomogeneous strain Experiment

distribution inside the element equal to the
development of a material crack.

Sheet instability Shear fracture

1,5
1,4 ? Grade B Grade B
1,3 0
1,2
? Grade A 0
Displacement
Safety value (-)

1,1
1
0,9 Grade A
0,8 Experiment
0,7
0,6 C
74204

0,5
Force

A
74219 B
74205
0,4 D
74199
Start of failure. (Inst.)
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
40 60 80 100 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Simulation

0
FIGURE 7. Simulation failure model results for selected 0 Displacement
positions in the critical areas during three-point-bending tests
of side intrusion beams made of different steel grades FIGURE 8. Experimental test results in comparison to
(results from deep drawing have been included) simulations results including component failure for the
complete history.

498
 Experiment FEM (Instability) FEM (Ductile Frac.)
Necking ductile fracture
FIGURE 9. Comparison of failure positions for the final
simulations.
CONCLUSION
A correct representation of the plastic deformation
and failure of individual component parts is essential
to obtaining accurate crashworthiness simulation
results. Especially for high strength steel materials the
ductility in crash cases is an important and strong
influencing parameter for the component design in
matter of thickness and shape. Therefore a
comprehensive approach for predicting failure in
structural high strength steel components based on
macroscopic strains and stresses - using the CrachFEM
code - has been presented. The shown comparison to
experimental tests demonstrates the possibility of
predicting the mode of failure and the correct position
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank all colleagues that
allowed the presentation of this paper due to their
work. Especially Dr. V. Yelisseyev and his co-workers
at company TEST in Voronezh (RUS) for the
experimental work of measuring material parameters
and H. Herzberg and co-workers at ThyssenKrupp
Stahl for performing the experimental testing of the
components.
REFERENCES
1. Z Marciniak, K Kuczyński, and T Pokora, ‘Influence of
the plastic properties of a material on the forming limit
diagram for sheet metal in tension’, Int. J. of
Mechanical Sciences, 1973 15 789−805.
2. H Dell, H Gese, L Keßler, H Werner, and H Hooputra,
‘Continuous Failure Prediction Model for Nonlinear
Load Paths in Successive Stamping and Crash
499
View publication stats
as well. All by using standard shell element mesh size
of around 5 mm edge length and in an industrial
applicable manner. Even when the method itself can
be used for the isolated crash simulation the full
benefit is only available by coupling the results of
forming simulation with the crash load situation,
including the material history for the component. In
addition to plastic strain and thickness the results for
the three failure models in CrachFEM have then to be
mapped on the final component structure. This can be
done by using the mapping algorithm inside PamSolid.
Clear limitations of this method can be seen in the
element elimination and crack propagation criterion.
This remains until now as a challenge for future
development work.
Summarizing the experimental and simulation
work the presented method offers a clear and well
defined benefit for the virtual engineering process in
the component development phase. By including
different failure models, continuous for the process
steps forming and crash, the engineer can realize a
more realistic virtual testing and thereby has the
opportunity to optimize the selected material grade in
combination with the shape and load condition of a
component. This is a clear support for gaining a full
benefit of light weight components made of high
strength steel grades in automotive applications.
Processes’, New Sheet Steel Products and Sheet Metal
Stamping (SP-1614), SAE 2001 World Congress,
Michigan, SAE-Paper 2001-01-1131, 2001.
3. G Backhaus, ‘Plastic deformation in form of strain
trajectories of constant curvature − Theory and
comparison with experimental results’, Acta
Mechanica, 1979 34 193−204.
4. H Dell and W W Eliseev‚ ’Materialmodell für
mehrstufige Umformung mit Wärmebehandlung
zwischen den Stufen’, Iswestija AN SSSR Metalli 1991
4 171−174.
5. W L Kolmogorov, ’Spannungen Deformationen Bruch’,
Metallurgija, 1970 230.