Formability of AA 2219-O sheet under quasi-static, electromagnetic dynamic, and mechanical dynamic tensile loadings

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2020.07.023

Abstract

Abstract:

The mechanism by which electromagnetic forming (EMF) enhances the formability of metals is unclear owing to the coupling effect of multi-physics fields. In the present work, the associated formability improvement mechanisms were qualitatively categorized and illustrated. This was realized by comparing the formability of fully annealed 2219 aluminum alloy (AA 2219-O) sheet under quasi-static (QS), electromagnetic dynamic (EM), and mechanical dynamic (MD) tensile loadings. It was found that the forming limit of AA 2219-O sheet under EM tensile loading was significantly (45.4%) higher than that under QS tensile loading, and was marginally (3.7%-4.3%) higher than that under MD tensile loading. In addition, the forming limit of AA 2219-O sheet demonstrated a negative dependency on the strain rate within the range of the dynamic tensile tests conducted. The deformation conditions common to EM and MD tensile loadings were responsible for the significant formability improvement compared with QS tensile loading. In particular, the inertial effect was dominant. The different deformation conditions that distinguish EM tensile loading from MD tensile loading resulted in the marginal improvement in formability. This was caused by the absence of a sustaining contact force at the later deformation stage and the lower strain rate. The body force exerted little influence on the formability improvement, and the thermal effect under the two dynamic tensile loadings was negligible.

Key words: Formability, Aluminum alloy sheet, Quasi-static, Electromagnetic dynamic, Mechanical dynamic, Tensile loading

Hongliang Su, Liang Huang, Jianjun Li, Wang Xiao, Hui Zhu, Fei Feng, Hongwei Li, Siliang Yan. Formability of AA 2219-O sheet under quasi-static, electromagnetic dynamic, and mechanical dynamic tensile loadings[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2021, 70: 125-135.

Figures/Tables 20

Table 1 Chemical composition of AA 2219-O (in weight percent, %).

Al	Cu	Mg	Mn	Fe	Si	Zn	Zr	Ti
Bal.	6.5	0.01	0.36	0.21	0.05	0.02	0.18	0.06

Table 2 Chemical composition of AA 5052-O (in weight percent, %).

Al	Mg	Si	Fe	Cu	Mn	Cr	Zn
Bal.	2.46	0.14	0.26	0.06	0.05	0.28	0.04

Fig. 1. Test sample dimensions for the (a) QS and (b) EM and MD tensile tests.

Fig. 2. Illustration of the sample deformation for the QS (a), EM (b), and MD (c) tensile tests. For the EM and MD tensile tests, the simulated strain paths of Position A and B are shown in (d). (For the sake of discussion, Position A experiencing the maximum strain and Position B at the sample’s center were defined for the two dynamic tensile tests.)

Fig. 3. Experimental setup for the EM (a) and MD (b) tensile tests, with a photograph (c).

Table 3 Various dynamic tensile tests.

Group	Deformation condition	Capacitance (μF)	Sample material	Sample thickness (mm)	Driver sheet material	Driver sheet thickness (mm)	Critical discharge voltage (kV)
EM-1	Electromagnetic dynamic	426	AA 2219-O	1.5			4.4
MD-1	Mechanical dynamic	426	AA 2219-O	1.5	AA 5052-O	2.0	7.0
EM-2	Electromagnetic dynamic	426	AA 2219-O	2.0			5.1
MD-2	Mechanical dynamic	426	AA 2219-O	2.0	AA 5052-O	2.0	7.5
EM-3	Electromagnetic dynamic	106.5	AA 2219-O	1.5			9.0
MD-3	Mechanical dynamic	106.5	AA 2219-O	1.5	AA 5052-O	2.0	15.3

Fig. 4. Current curves for dynamic tensile tests with critical discharge voltages.

Table 4 Material parameters used in the simplified Johnson-Cook models for AA 2219-O[14] and AA 5052-O[50].

Materials	Density (kg m^-3)	Young’s modulus (GPa)	Poisson’s ratio	A (MPa)	B (MPa)	C	n
AA 2219-O	2820	73.1	0.33	69.5	258.4	0.01616	0.52
AA 5052-O	2750	71.5	0.30	100	182.3	0.01987	0.34

Fig. 5. Photographs of the formed QS (QS-1) (a), EM (EM-1) (b), and MD (MD-1) (c) tensile samples of 1.5 mm thick. Details of the necking bands with offset marks for (a-c) are shown in (d). (Observed necking bands were marked with red dashed lines, and potential necking bands with blue dashed lines.)

Fig. 6. Forming limit diagrams of the 1.5 mm (QS-1) (a) and 2 mm (QS-2) (b) thick AA 2219-O sheet under QS tensile loading. (Colors are used to identify the various results of the repeated test samples.)

Fig. 7. Forming limit diagrams of the 1.5 mm (a, b) and 2 mm (c, d) thick AA 2219-O sheet under EM (a, c) and MD (b, d) tensile loadings. (a) EM-1, (b) MD-1, (c) EM-2, and (d) MD-2. (Colors are used to identify the various results of the repeated test samples.)

Table 5 Forming limit evaluation of the test groups with different thicknesses under QS, EM, and MD tensile loadings.

Group	QS-1	QS-2	EM-1	MD-1	EM-2	MD-2
Description	1.5 mm, quasi-static	2 mm, quasi-static	1.5 mm, electromagnetic dynamic	1.5 mm, mechanical dynamic	2 mm, electromagnetic dynamic	2 mm, mechanical dynamic
Strain ratio, ρ	-0.296~-0.214	-0.393~-0.233	-0.384~-0.196	-0.295~-0.205	-0.448~-0.224	-0.417~-0.217
Average strain ratio, ρ¯	-0.250	-0.309	-0.299	-0.259	-0.346	-0.317
Critical effective strain, ε¯c	0.251	0.251	0.365	0.352	0.365	0.350

Fig. 8. Critical effective strain for AA 2219-O sheet of different thicknesses under QS, EM, and MD tensile loadings.

Fig. 9. Comparison of the experimental (a) and simulated (b) effective strain distribution in the 1.5 mm thick AA 2219-O sheet sample under MD tensile loading (MD-1). The strain distributions along the length of the sample were given in (c).

Fig. 10. Effect of the maximum strain rate on the forming limit of AA 2219-O sheet. The maximum strain rate was extracted from corresponding simulation results.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the microhardness as a function of effective strain for the 1.5 mm thick AA 2219-O sheet samples under different loadings.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the force distributions under EM and MD tensile loadings (EM-1 and MD-1). (a, b) Electromagnetic force density. (c) The evolution of the electromagnetic and contact forces. (d) The evolution of the body force.

Fig. 13. Evolution of the velocity (a) and strain rate (b) at position A on the samples under EM and MD tensile loadings.

Fig. 14. Comparison of stress states of two dynamic loading modes. (a) Schematic of the body force and planar force, along with the through-thickness stress distribution of the samples, under EM (EM-1) and MD (MD-1) tensile tests. (b) The ratio of the through-thickness stress to the longitudinal stress at Position A. (c) Evolution of the stress triaxiality at typical locations on the samples.

Fig. 15. The simulated stress vs. strain curve (a) and current density history (b) of the element at Position A on the sample under EM tensile loading (EM-1).

References 62

[1]	W.Y. Luo, L. Huang, J.J. Li, X.L. Liu, Z.Q. Wang, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 214(2014), pp. 2811-2819.
[2]	J. Xu, Y. Zhou, J. Cui, L. Huang, X. Zhang, G. Li, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 95(2017), pp. 3319-3333.[3]J. Li, L. Li, M. Wan, H. Yu, L. Liu, Procedia Manuf., 15(2018), pp. 14-30.
[4]	H.W. Jiang, N. Li, Z. Xu, C. Yan, D.Z. Wang, X.T. Han, Mater. Des., 81(2015), pp. 54-58. DOI URL
[5]	J.S. Li, R.N. Raoelison, T. Sapanathan, Y.L. Hou, M. Rachik, Acta Mater., 195(2020), pp. 404-415. DOI URL
[6]	J. Cui, G. Sun, G. Li, Z. Xu, P.K. Chu, Appl. Phys. Lett ., 105(2014), Article 221901.
[7]	R. Guan, Y. Shen, Z. Zhao, X. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 33(2017), pp. 215-223.
[8]	J.P. Hou, R. Li, Q. Wang, H.Y. Yu, Z.J. Zhang, Q.Y. Chen, H. Ma, X.M. Wu, X.W. Li, Z.F. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 35(2019), pp. 742-751.
[9]	J. Cui, Y. Li, Q. Liu, X. Zhang, Z. Xu, G. Li, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 264(2019), pp. 273-282.
[10]	F. Feng, S. Huang, Z. Meng, J. Hu, Y. Lei, M. Zhou, Z. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 594(2014), pp. 334-343. DOI URL
[11]	J. Xu, X. Xie, Z. Wen, J. Cui, X. Zhang, D. Zhu, Y. Liu, J. Manuf. Process ., 37(2019), pp. 402-412.
[12]	Q. Luo, Y. Guo, B. Liu, Y. Feng, J. Zhang, Q. Li, K. Chou, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 44(2020), pp. 171-190. DOI URL
[13]	E. Thibaudeau, B.L. Kinsey, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 215(2015), pp. 251-263.
[14]	H. Su, L. Huang, J. Li, F. Ma, P. Huang, F. Feng, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 124(2018), pp. 99-116. DOI URL
[15]	H. Gong, L. Huang, J. Li, Y. Dai, Q. Cao, X. Han, L. Li, Mater. China, 35(2016), pp. 284-291.
	(in Chinese.)
[16]	S.F. Golovashchenko, AIP Conf. Proc., 778(2005), pp. 284-285.
[17]	E. Iriondo, B. Gonzalez, M. Gutierrez, V. Vohnout, G. Daehn, B. Hayes, Proc. Second. Int. Conf.High Speed Form., Dortmund(2006), pp. 153-160.
[18]	J. Li, W. Qiu, L. Huang, H. Su, H. Tao, P. Li, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 135(2018), pp. 65-77. DOI URL
[19]	V. Psyk, D. Risch, B.L. Kinsey, A.E. Tekkaya, M. Kleiner, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 211(2011), pp. 787-829.
[20]	J. Cui, H. Liao, L. Duan, H. Jiang, G. Li, Thin-Walled Struct ., 153(2020), Article 106789.
[21]	V.S. Balanethiram, X. Hu, M. Altynova, G.S. Daehn, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 45(1994), pp. 595-600. DOI URL
[22]	J.D. Thomas, M. Seth, G.S. Daehn, J.R. Bradley, N. Triantafyllidis, Acta Mater., 55(2007), pp. 2863-2873. DOI URL
[23]	C. Li, D. Liu, H. Yu, Z. Ji, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 49(2009), pp. 117-124. DOI URL
[24]	J.M. Imbert, S.L. Winkler, M.J. Worswick, D.A. Oliveira, S. Golovashchenko, J. Eng. Mater . Technol., 127(2005), p. 145.
[25]	S.F. Golovashchenko, J. Mater. Eng . Perform., 16(2007), pp. 314-320.
[26]	D.A. Oliveira, M.J. Worswick, M. Finn, D. Newman, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 170(2005), pp. 350-362.
[27]	G. Li, H. Deng, Y. Mao, X. Zhang, J. Cui, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 255(2018), pp. 373-386.
[28]	J.R. Xu, Q.Q. Lin, J.J. Cui, C.F. Li, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 72(2014), pp. 665-676. DOI URL
[29]	X. Hu, R.H. Wagoner, G.S. Daehn, S. Ghosh, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 25(1994), pp. 2723-2735. DOI URL
[30]	V. Balanethiram, G.S. Daehn, Scripta Metal. Mater., 27(1992), pp. 1783-1788. DOI URL
[31]	M.A. Meyers, John Wiley & Sons 1994.
[32]	J. Imbert, S. Winkler, M. Worswick, S. Golovashchenko, Proc. First. Int. Conf.High Speed Form., Dortmund(2004), pp. 201-210.
[33]	H. Zhu, L. Huang, J. Li, X. Li, H. Ma, C. Wang, F. Ma, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 714(2018), pp. 124-139. DOI URL
[34]	N. Li, H.P. Yu, Z. Xu, Z.S. Fan, L. Liu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 673(2016), pp. 222-232. DOI URL
[35]	W.H. Gourdin, J. Appl. Phys ., 65(1989), pp. 411-422.
[36]	G. Wang, Y. Zhao, Y. Hao, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 34(2018), pp. 73-91. DOI URL
[37]	H. He, Y. Yi, S. Huang, Y. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 35(2019), pp. 55-63.
[38]	Y. Zhou, X. Lin, N. Kang, W. Huang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 37(2020), pp. 143-153. DOI URL
[39]	R. Zhang, J. Li, Q. Li, Y. Qi, Z. Zeng, Y. Qiu, X. Chen, S.K. Kairy, S. Thomas, N. Birbilis, Corros. Sci., 150(2019), pp. 268-278. DOI URL
[40]	Standard E8/E8M, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken 2013.
[41]	H. Zhu, L. Huang, Z. Wang, J. Li, H. Ma, H. Su, J. Mater. Sci., 54(2019), pp. 9857-9874. DOI URL
[42]	C. Maris, A. Hassannejadasl, D.E. Green, J. Cheng, S.F. Golovashchenko, A.J. Gillard, Y. Liang, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 235(2016), pp. 206-219.
[43]	Q. Hu, L. Zhang, Q. Ouyang, X. Li, X. Zhu, J. Chen, Int. J. Plast., 103(2018), pp. 143-167. DOI URL
[44]	A. Jenab, D.E. Green, A.T. Alpas, S.F. Golovashchenko, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 255(2018), pp. 914-926.
[45]	H.-w. Li, S.-l. Yan, M. Zhan, X. Zhang, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 263(2019), pp. 423-439.
[46]	MatWeb, https://www.matweb.com, 2020.
	( Accessed 3 March 2020).
[47]	LSTC, LS-DYNA R8.0 keyword user’s manual, 2015.
[48]	S. Yan, H. Yang, H. Li, X. Yao, Int. J. Plast., 85(2016), pp. 203-229. DOI URL
[49]	J. Fang, J. Mo, X. Cui, J. Li, B. Zhou, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 238(2016), pp. 395-408.
[50]	Y. Tian, L. Huang, H.J. Ma, J.J. Li, Mater. Des., 54(2014), pp. 587-597. DOI URL
[51]	P.J. Noell, J.D. Carroll, B.L. Boyce, Acta Mater., 161(2018), pp. 83-98. DOI URL
[52]	Y. Zhong, L. Liu, J. Zou, X. Li, D. Cui, Z. Shen, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 42(2020), pp. 97-105. DOI URL
[53]	Q. Zheng, H. Yu, J. Mater. Process. Technol ., 279(2020), Article 116582.
[54]	F.C. Liu, Z.Y. Ma, F.C. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 28(2012), pp. 1025-1030.
[55]	J.-T. Gau, P.-H. Chen, H. Gu, R.-S. Lee, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 213(2013), pp. 376-382.
[56]	H. Ma, L. Huang, M. Wu, J. Li, Procedia Eng., 81(2014), pp. 787-792. DOI URL
[57]	T. Rahmaan, A. Bardelcik, J. Imbert, C. Butcher, M.J. Worswick, Int. J. Impact Eng., 88(2016), pp. 72-90. DOI URL
[58]	T.C. Cheng, R.S. Lee, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 253(2018), pp. 134-159.
[59]	H. Yu, Q. Zheng, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 104(2019), pp. 743-756. DOI URL
[60]	F.Q. Li, J.H. Mo, J.J. Li, L. Huang, H.Y. Zhou, Mater. Des., 52(2013), pp. 337-344. DOI URL
[61]	Q. Zhang, L. Huang, J. Li, F. Feng, H. Su, F. Ma, K. Zhong, J. Mater. Process . Technol., 265(2019), pp. 20-33.
[62]	H. Altenbach, O. Morachkovsky, K. Naumenko, D. Lavinsky, Continuum Mech. Thermodyn., 28(2015), pp. 1421-1433. DOI URL