Finite element analysis of shear punch testing and experimental validation

Nishant gaurav Division :B Roll no : 60 Guided by :Mr. V. D. Padalkar

 Index
Introduction to shear punch test Introduction of finite element analysis Ideology literature review Recent developments

Why shear punch test ????

It requires very small volume of material as compared to conventional tensile tests. So its an efficient test technique for evaluating mechanical properties when the material availability is limited. The advantage of using the SPT technique for materials with limited availability has attracted the nuclear industry for assessing the properties of irradiated materials. This technique is used where conventional machine tests are practically not used like in weld joints .

What is Finite Element Analysis???

FEM: Method for numerical solution of field problems. Description: -FEM cuts a structure into several elements (pieces of the structure). -Then reconnects elements at nodes as if nodes were pins or drops of glue that hold elements together. -This process results in a set of simultaneous algebraic equations.

 Ideology
Many engineering phenomena can be expressed by governing equations and boundary conditions Governing Equation (Differential equation) L() + f=0 Boundary Conditions B() + g=0 These equation lead us to a set of simultaneous algebraic equations . [K]{U}={F} In mechanics problem , K is the stiffness , U is the displacement and F is the force .

Literature review
In previous research involving the use of the shear punch test, it was assumed that the displacement of the punch tip was only slightly different than the crosshead displacement. The shear punch test done by Toloczko(1) suggested that punch tip displacement is much less than previously assumed, and that for the test frames which have been used, crosshead displacement is over an order of magnitude greater than punch tip displacement and It altered the slope of the loading curve masking the true yield point . These suggestions were made based on the analysis done using FEA.

Figure 1. a) Shear stress versus crosshead displacement trace for a real shear punch test of a cold-worked steel, and b) shear stress versus punch tip displacement trace for an FEA simulated shear punch test on the same steel.

The FEA of ShP testing by Guduru et al.[2] showed that the elastic loading lines of FEA generated LDC was found to be much steeper than the experimental curve. Its important to note that both Toloczko et al.[1]and Guduru et al.[2]had measured the punch displacement by a displacement sensor coupled to the moving punch.
Fig 2: Displacement sensor coupled to the moving punch.

 In one of our recent work [3], a modified shear punch experimental setup in which displacement was measured at specimen bottom directly using a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) has been demonstrated.

Fig : LVDT is coupled to the specimen bottom.

 The intent of current work is to simulate the shear punch test using FEA and compare the initial loading curves with the experimentally generated curves. We will see that the elastic portion of the FEA generated loaddisplacement curve overlaps with the corresponding experimental curve only when the fixture compliances are eliminated in experiments.

Shear punch test :experimental procedure

The shear punch test is a small specimen test technique for extracting yield strength, ultimate strength. A punch of 3 mm diameter and die of 3.04 mm diameter was used for the present study. Small disc specimens were cut by Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) from the various materials and their surfaces were gently ground . Ideally, the load on the punch is measured as a function of punch tip displacement, but due to the difficulty in actually measuring the punch tip displacement, it has been previously assumed that crosshead displacement is approximately equal to punch tip displacement, and thus, the load on the punch has been measured as a function of crosshead displacement.

Fig:
Sketch of the shear punch fixture.

 Shear punch load versus crosshead displacement traces are similar in appearance to uniaxial tensile test traces. Yield is measured from these traces at deviation from linear elastic loading, and ultimate is measured at the peak load. The loaddisplacement data is converted to stressnormalized displacement data using the following expressions.

where P is the applied load, t is the specimen thickness, r is the average of punch and lower die radius

Experimental: The Finite Element Analysis Simulation

The MARC finite element analysis software was used to simulate the shear punch test. To reduce computing time and costs, an axisymmetric mesh was utilized and is shown in Fig. There are three main components to the mesh: the specimen, the punch, and the receiving die. The specimen was modeled as elastic-plastic. In an effort to make the simulation as realistic as possible, the punch and the receiving die were modeled as elastic. This allows for a small amount of elastic deformation in these components which alters the stress distribution in the specimen mesh.

Fig : Sketch of the mesh used in the present study.

 As with any finite element analysis, material properties must be inserted into the model. For this simulation, the punch and the receiving die were assigned the elastic properties of BCC steel (E = 200 GPa, = 0.28). The specimen was assigned the uniaxial deformation behavior of several different materials of interest .
The FEA boundary conditions were as follows: 1) Translations in the radial direction were prevented because the model is axisymmetric.

 2) The bottom of the receiving die was held stationary in the axial direction.
3) An immovable boundary was placed in contact with a portion of the top of the specimen to simulate the presence of the upper-half of the shear punch fixture. No clamping force was applied to the specimen with this boundary condition. 4) Friction between the components was set equal to zero. The previous FEA based study has shown the effect of friction between components to be minimal.

 Under the assumption that real shear punch tests are performed in the strain rate independent realm, the FEA simulations were run in static mode.

Due to the difficulty in simulating the cutting and failure behavior which occur in a real shear punch test, the FEA simulations were run to only a small amount beyond yield. Simulated shear punch tests were performed on several different materials. Different materials were tested by assigning true stress versus true plastic strain data and elastic deformation properties from different materials to the specimen elements.

 During a simulation, the MARC program keeps track of the load on the punch and the displacement of the top of the punch. To obtain the punch tip displacement, it was necessary to run simulations using a rigid punch and receiving die. By comparing the elastic loading obtained from a rigid component test to an elastic component test, it was possible to measure the compliance of the punch and receiving die.

 This compliance value was then used to estimate the punch tip displacement as a function of the displacement at the top of the punch using the following formula:

where x is the punch tip displacement, x is the displacement at the top of the punch, P is the load on the punch, and C is the measured compliance of the punch and receiving die. Using the calculated punch tip displacement data, load versus punch tip displacement traces were created.

Figure 1. a) Shear stress versus crosshead displacement trace for a real shear punch test of a cold-worked steel, and b) shear stress versus punch tip displacement trace for an FEA simulated shear punch test on the same steel.

Compliance :
The key aspect of this comparison is that the elastic loading slope for the FEA simulation is 2 orders of magnitude steeper than the elastic loading slope of the real shear punch test (look at the x-axis scales in figures). Since the main difference between an FEA simulation and a real shear punch test is the location at which displacement is measured, it is reasonable to assume that this is leading to the dissimilar traces. This could be determined by measuring the compliance of the test machine, but performing such a compliance measurement is not a simple task because of the geometry of the shear punch test.

 Following the idea that the differences in the traces for the FEA simulations and the real shear punch tests is due to test machine compliance, a compliance was added to the FEA punch tip displacement data. By adding a compliance, the punch tip displacement was converted to a hypothetical crosshead displacement. The equation which describes this hypothetical crosshead displacement is

where is the hypothetical crosshead displacement, x is the displacement of the punch tip, P is the load on the specimen, and C is the estimated test machine compliance

 C was found by comparing the elastic loading slope in shear punch test traces obtained from real tests and from FEA simulations. The resulting shear stress versus hypothetical crosshead displacement trace is compared to the real test trace in Fig. The FEA generated trace has been transformed into a trace that looks nearly identical to the real trace. This further confirms the idea that crosshead displacement measured in real tests is much larger than the actual punch tip displacement. It also shows that a large amount of compliance can strongly alter the appearance of a load versus displacement trace.

Fig: Comparison of a real trace and an FEA simulated trace where the FEA punch tip displacement data has been converted to a hypothetical crosshead displacement.

Yield stress management

Initially yielding takes place at the punch and die corners and interior is still elastically deformed. The transition from elastic to plastic deformation in the specimen occurs within a few microns of punch displacement. As the punch penetrates the specimen, the plastic deformation extends throughout the specimen. Yielding in the specimen was assumed when the plastic deformation takes place through the thickness.

 It is seen from Fig. that at a stress corresponding to 0.15% offset of normalized displacement, fully developed plastic deformation spreads through the thickness of the sample. We conclude that the stress evaluated at 0.15% offset truly represents the shear yield stress based on through section plasticity.

 Using the experimental data, shear yield strength is computed at offsets of 0.15% and 1%. It has been found that the experimentally obtained shear yield strength at 0.15% offset compares well with that obtained from FEA curves for all the materials studied.

 The tensileshear yield correlation obtained from the experimental data using 0.15% offset definition is seen to have high correlation coefficient for a linear fit Fig. as compared to that obtained using 1% offset values .

 It also obeys the von Mises yield relation.

A material is said to start yielding when its von Mises stress reaches a critical value known as the yield strength . The von Mises stress is used to predict yielding of materials under any loading condition from results of simple uniaxial tensile tests.

 FEA of the shear punch testing indicated a large influence of the punch compliance on the elastic portion of load displacement plot. The elastic loading lines of experimental curve obtained with displacement measured at specimen bottom matches well with the FEA generated curve. The yield strength based on through thickness plasticity corresponded to an offset of 0.15% of normalized displacement. The experimental shear yield strength evaluated at 0.15% offset compares well with the FEA generated value. The tensile-shear yield correlation obtained using 0.15% offset definition was found to obey the von Mises yield relation. The results of FEA are thus verified and validated with experimental data.

Conclusion:

 References
[1] Hamilton ML, Toloczko MB, Lucas GE. Recent progress in shear punch testing.In: Hans Ullmaier, Peter Jung, editors. miniaturized specimens for testing of irradiated materials. IEA international symposium; 1995. p. 4651 Guduru RK, Nagasekhar AV, Scattergood RO, Koch CC, Murty KL. Finite element analysis of a shear punch test. Metall Trans A 2006;37:147783

Thank you