Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming
Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared wi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Gatea, Shakir [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2017 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology - London : Springer, 1985, 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:95 ; year:2017 ; number:1-4 ; day:30 ; month:10 ; pages:625-641 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR00146549X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR00146549X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230327133024.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201001s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR00146549X | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gatea, Shakir |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2017 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Nakajima test |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ISF |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a FLD |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stress triaxiality |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a GTN model |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Xu, Dongkai |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ou, Hengan |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McCartney, Graham |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |d London : Springer, 1985 |g 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 |w (DE-627)270127712 |w (DE-600)1476510-X |x 1433-3015 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:95 |g year:2017 |g number:1-4 |g day:30 |g month:10 |g pages:625-641 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_138 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_150 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_171 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_250 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_281 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_636 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2039 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2070 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2086 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2093 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2106 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2107 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2116 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2119 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2144 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2188 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2446 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2472 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2548 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4246 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 95 |j 2017 |e 1-4 |b 30 |c 10 |h 625-641 | ||
| author_variant |
s g sg d x dx h o ho g m gm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14333015:2017----::vlainfombltadrcuefueiaimnnr |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z doi (DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Gatea, Shakir verfasserin aut Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2017 Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 Xu, Dongkai aut Ou, Hengan aut McCartney, Graham aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology London : Springer, 1985 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 (DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X 1433-3015 nnns volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 95 2017 1-4 30 10 625-641 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z doi (DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Gatea, Shakir verfasserin aut Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2017 Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 Xu, Dongkai aut Ou, Hengan aut McCartney, Graham aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology London : Springer, 1985 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 (DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X 1433-3015 nnns volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 95 2017 1-4 30 10 625-641 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z doi (DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Gatea, Shakir verfasserin aut Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2017 Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 Xu, Dongkai aut Ou, Hengan aut McCartney, Graham aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology London : Springer, 1985 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 (DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X 1433-3015 nnns volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 95 2017 1-4 30 10 625-641 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z doi (DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Gatea, Shakir verfasserin aut Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2017 Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 Xu, Dongkai aut Ou, Hengan aut McCartney, Graham aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology London : Springer, 1985 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 (DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X 1433-3015 nnns volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 95 2017 1-4 30 10 625-641 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z doi (DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Gatea, Shakir verfasserin aut Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2017 Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 Xu, Dongkai aut Ou, Hengan aut McCartney, Graham aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology London : Springer, 1985 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 (DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X 1433-3015 nnns volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 95 2017 1-4 30 10 625-641 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology 95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641 volume:95 year:2017 number:1-4 day:30 month:10 pages:625-641 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Nakajima test ISF FLD Stress triaxiality GTN model |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Gatea, Shakir @@aut@@ Xu, Dongkai @@aut@@ Ou, Hengan @@aut@@ McCartney, Graham @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-10-30T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
270127712 |
| id |
SPR00146549X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR00146549X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230327133024.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR00146549X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gatea, Shakir</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nakajima test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ISF</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FLD</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stress triaxiality</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">GTN model</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xu, Dongkai</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ou, Hengan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCartney, Graham</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 1985</subfield><subfield code="g">95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)270127712</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1476510-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1433-3015</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:95</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:30</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:625-641</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">95</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1-4</subfield><subfield code="b">30</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">625-641</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Gatea, Shakir |
| spellingShingle |
Gatea, Shakir misc Nakajima test misc ISF misc FLD misc Stress triaxiality misc GTN model Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| authorStr |
Gatea, Shakir |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)270127712 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1433-3015 |
| topic_title |
Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming Nakajima test (dpeaa)DE-He213 ISF (dpeaa)DE-He213 FLD (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stress triaxiality (dpeaa)DE-He213 GTN model (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Nakajima test misc ISF misc FLD misc Stress triaxiality misc GTN model |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Nakajima test misc ISF misc FLD misc Stress triaxiality misc GTN model |
| topic_browse |
misc Nakajima test misc ISF misc FLD misc Stress triaxiality misc GTN model |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
270127712 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)270127712 (DE-600)1476510-X |
| title |
Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR00146549X (SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e |
| title_full |
Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| author_sort |
Gatea, Shakir |
| journal |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| journalStr |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
625 |
| author_browse |
Gatea, Shakir Xu, Dongkai Ou, Hengan McCartney, Graham |
| container_volume |
95 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Gatea, Shakir |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |
| title_sort |
evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| title_auth |
Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| abstract |
Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. © The Author(s) 2017 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. © The Author(s) 2017 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF. © The Author(s) 2017 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1-4 |
| title_short |
Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Xu, Dongkai Ou, Hengan McCartney, Graham |
| author2Str |
Xu, Dongkai Ou, Hengan McCartney, Graham |
| ppnlink |
270127712 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:46:02.686Z |
| _version_ |
1803599754240720896 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR00146549X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230327133024.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR00146549X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00170-017-1195-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gatea, Shakir</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of formability and fracture of pure titanium in incremental sheet forming</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract A forming limit diagram (FLD) is commonly used as a useful means for characterising the formability of sheet metal forming processes. In this study, the Nakajima test was used to construct the forming limit curve at necking (FLCN) and fracture (FLCF). The results of the FLCF are compared with incremental sheet forming (ISF) to evaluate the ability of the Nakajima test to describe the fracture in ISF. Tests were carried out to construct the forming limit diagram at necking and fracture to cover the strain states from uniaxial tension to equi-biaxial tension with different stress triaxialities—from 0.33 for uniaxial tension to 0.67 for equi-biaxial tension. Due to the fact that the Gurson–Tvergaard-Needleman (GTN) model can be used to capture fracture occurrence at high stress triaxiality, and the shear modified GTN model (Nahshon-Hutchinson’s shear mechanism) was developed to predict the fracture at zero stress or even negative stress triaxiality, the original GTN model and shear modified GTN model may be not suitable to predict the fracture in all samples of the Nakajima test as some samples are deformed under moderate stress triaxiality. In this study, the fractures are compared using the original GTN model, shear modified GTN model and the Nielsen-Tvergaard model with regard to stress triaxiality. To validate the ability of these models, and to assess which model is more accurate in predicting the fracture with different stress triaxialities, finite element (FE) simulations of the Nakajima test were compared with an experimental results to evaluate the applicability of the Nakajima test to characterise the fracture from ISF. The experimental and FE results showed that the shear modified GTN model could predict the fracture accurately with samples under uniaxial tension condition due to low stress triaxiality and that the original GTN model is suitable for an equi-biaxial strain state (high stress triaxiality), whereas the stress triaxiality modified GTN model should be considered for samples which have moderate stress triaxiality (from plain strain to biaxial strain). The numerical and experimental FLCF of pure titanium from the Nakajima test showed a good agreement between the experimental and numerical results of ISF.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nakajima test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ISF</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FLD</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stress triaxiality</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">GTN model</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xu, Dongkai</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ou, Hengan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCartney, Graham</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 1985</subfield><subfield code="g">95(2017), 1-4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 625-641</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)270127712</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1476510-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1433-3015</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:95</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:30</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:625-641</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1195-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">95</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1-4</subfield><subfield code="b">30</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">625-641</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4019566 |