A Seminar Report on

Finite element analysis of shear punch testing and experimental validation

By Mr. Nishant Gaurav Roll No 302160

Guide Prof. V.D Padalkar

Mechanical Engineering Department Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune 411 041 [2013-14]

Sinhgad Technical Education Societys

Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune 41

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr Nishant Gaurav(roll no302160) ,has successfully completed the Project work entitled Finite element analysis of shear punch testing and experimental validation, under my supervision, in the partial fulfillment of T.E.(Mechanical) Engineering of University of Pune.
Date :

Place :
Guide Prof. V.D Padalkar Assistant Professor , Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune Prof. (Dr) H. V. Vankudre Head Mechanical Engineering Department Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune

External Examinar

Prof. (Dr) S. D. Lokhande Principal,

Seal

SinhgadCollege of Engineering, Pune

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my great pleasure to present to you this seminar report titled Finite element analysis of shear punch testing and experimental validation. while doing so ,I would like to acknowledge all those who have made it possible for me to complete this seminar succesefully.It gives me great pleasure to express deep gratitude towards my seminar guide Prof. V.D Padalkarfor his constant support and help from time to time . I take this opportunity to express my gratitude towards Dr. H. V. Vankudre,our head of department , Dr. J.J Minase ,our seminar coordinator. Lastly , I would like to thank all the staff members and all my colleagues for their valuable support and suggestions.

NISHANT GAURAV Third year mechanical engineering Div 2nd (Batch c)

ABSTRACT
In this work, finite element analysis (FEA) of the shear punch testing is carried out to study the specimen deformation up to yielding and the results are compared and validated with experimental data for fourdifferent materials. The elastic portion of the FEA generated load displacement curve overlaps with thecorresponding experimental curve only when the fixture compliances are eliminated in experiments.Based on through thickness plasticity in the FEA study, the shear yield stress estimated at an offset of0.15% of normalized displacement compares well with the experimentally determined shear yieldstrength and satisfies the von Mises yield relation.

LIST OF FIGURES
FIG NO NAME OF FIGURES PAGE NO

Fig.1 Sketch of the shear punch fixture

Fig.2 Sketch of the mesh used in the present study

Fig.3 Shear stress versus crosshead displacement trace for a real shear punch test of a cold-worked steel, and shear stress versus punch tip displacement trace for an FEA simulated shear punch test on the same steel. Fig.4 Comparison of a real trace and an FEA simulated trace where the FEA punch tip displacement data has been converted to a hypothetical crosshead displacement

Fig.5 Von Mises stress contour profiles before yield, at yield (0.15% offset) and after yield for SS316. Yielding is indicated by the fully developed through thickness plastic zone.

Fig.6 Linear fit between tensile and shear yield strengths of various materials for the 0.15% and 1% offset definitions with the corresponding fit parameters.

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO

NAME OF TABLES

PAGE NO

Table 1

chemical composition of the materials

Table 2

experimentally obtained shear yield strength at 0.15% offset and shear yield strength obtained from FEA curves

INTRODUCTION
Shear punch (ShP) test is a mechanical test technique in which a thin disc specimen clamped between a set of dies is blanked using flat cylindrical punch at a constant speed. The sizes of the specimen are usually in the range of 0.30.5 mm in thickness and 38 mm in diameter. The specimen deformation occurs in the small annular zone between the punch and the lower die. The loaddisplacement curve (LDC) obtained during the slow blanking operation is very similar to that obtained in a conventional uniaxial tensile test. It shows a linear region, followed by nonlinear increase of load with displacement up to maximum load and decrease in load leading to separation of the punched out piece. The strength and ductility parameters obtained by analyzing the ShP test curve can be correlated with the corresponding conventional tensile properties. The ShP technique require very small volumes of material as compared to the conventional tensile test and hence find promising applications especially in situations where conventional mechanical tests are practically not possible like in weld joints , coatings, failed components, etc. This technique has been widely used for testing very small volumes of irradiated materials , biomaterials, composites and metallic glass. This technique is also gaining importance as a useful tool for structural integrity assessment of power plant components using small volumes of scooped out specimens. Finite element analysis (FEA) has been used extensively for contact problems like blanking and other materials processing techniques. The modeling studies have been largely limited to onset of yielding. The initial work on FEA of ShP tests by Toloczko showed that the use of the cross-head movement as an approximate measure of punch displacement altered the slope of the loading curve masking the true yield point.This was due to the large compliance in the test frame and test fixtures as compared to the specimen compliance.The FEA of ShP testing by Guduru et al. showed that theelastic loading lines of FEA generated LDC was found to be muchsteeper than the experimental curve. Based on the developmentof plastic deformation zone completely through the specimen thickness, Guduru et al. proposed an offset definition of 0.15% (ofinitial linear portion of FEA generated stress-normalized displacement curve) to represent the shear yield stress. However, this corresponded to an offset of 1% in their actual experiments due to thecompliance effects of the test fixtures. In one of our recent work, a modified shear punch experimental setup in which displacement was measured at specimenbottom directly using a Linear Variable Differential Transformer(LVDT) has been demonstrated to eliminate the effects of punchand die compliances on the LDC. The shear yield strength evaluated using a 0.15% offset definition resulted in a best fit with tensile yield strength and satisfied the von Mises yield relation. The intent of current work is to simulate the shear punch test using FEA and compare the initial loading curves with the experimentally generated curves from the modified experimental setup for four different materials. The offset criteria required for estimation of shear yield strength is examined from the development of plasticity across the specimen thickness and verified with the experimental data of the modified setup.

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 1

Experimental procedure
Four different materials namely low carbon steel, AISI SS316,2.25Cr1Mo and Modified (Mod.) 9Cr1Mo steel were chosen forthe present study. The chemical composition of the materials studied is given in the table.
Material AISI type 1025 carbon steel 2.25Cr1Mo steel Mod. 9Cr1Mo steel AISI 316 S C 0.23 0.06 0.09 0.06 Si Mn 0.40 0.48 0.46 2.0 Cr Mo Ni N Nb V Fe Bal Bal 0.1 17.0 0.05 2.4 0.08 12 0.22 Bal Bal Condition annealed Normalized and tempered Normalized and tempered annealed

0.18 0.32 1.0

2.18 8.72 17.0

0.93 0.90 2.4

A punch of 3 mm diameter and die of 3.04 mm diameter was used for the present study.Ideally, the load on the punch is measured as a function of punch tip displacement, but due to the difficulty in actually measuring the punch tip displacement, it has been previously assumed that crosshead displacement is approximately equal to punch tip displacement, and thus, the load on the punch has been measured as a function of crosshead displacement. Shear punch load versus crosshead displacement traces are similar in appearance to uniaxial tensile test traces.

Fig 1:Sketch of the shear punch fixture

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 2

The loaddisplacement data is converted to stress-normalized displacement data using the following expressions

Shear stress

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

Experimental: The Finite Element Analysis Simulation

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

Fig 2 : Sketch of the mesh used in the present study As with any finite element analysis, material properties must be inserted into the model. For this simulation, the punch and the receiving die were assigned the elastic properties of BCC steel (E = 200 GPa, = 0.28). The specimen was assigned the uniaxial deformation behavior of several different materials of interest. The FEA boundary conditions were as follows: 1) Translations in the radial direction were prevented because the model is axisymmetric.

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 3

2) The bottom of the receiving die was held stationary in the axial direction. 3) An immovable boundary was placed in contact with a portion of the top of the specimen to simulate the presence of the upper-half of the shear punch fixture. No clamping force was applied to the specimen with this boundary condition. 4) Friction between the components was set equal to zero. The previous FEA based study has shown the effect of friction between components to be minimal. Under the assumption that real shear punch tests are performed in the strain rate independent realm,the FEA simulations were run in static mode.Due to the difficulty in simulating the cutting and failure behavior which occur in a real shear punch test, the FEA simulations were run to only a small amount beyond yield.Simulated shear punch tests were performed on several different materials. Different materials were tested by assigning true stress versus true plastic strain data and elastic deformation properties from different materials to the specimen elements. During a simulation, the MARC program keeps track of the load on the punch and the displacement of the top of the punch.To obtain the punch tip displacement, it was necessary to run simulations using a rigid punch and receiving die. Comparing the elastic loading obtained from a rigid component test to an elastic component test, it was possible to measure the compliance of the punch and receiving die.

Fig 3: a) Shear stress versus crosshead displacement trace for a real shear punch test of a coldworked steel, and b) shear stress versus punch tip displacement trace for an FEA simulated shear punch test on the same steel.

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 4

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

where x is the punch tip displacement, x is the displacement at the to p of the punch, P is the load on the punch, and C is the measured compliance of the punch and receiving die.

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

Fig 4 : Comparison of a real trace and an FEA simulated trace where the FEA punch tip displacement data has been converted to a hypothetical crosshead displacement

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 5

The equation which describes this hypothetical crosshead displacement is

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

Yield stress management

Initially yielding takes place at the punch and die corners and interior is still elastically deformed.The transition from elastic to plastic deformation in the specimen occurswithin a few microns of punch displacement. As the punch penetrates the specimen, the plastic deformation extends throughoutthe specimen. Yielding in the specimen was assumed when theplastic deformation takes place through the thickness. It is see from Fig. that at a stress corresponding to 0.15% offset of normalized displacement, fully developed plastic deformation spreads through the thickness of the sample. We conclude that the stress evaluated at 0.15% offset truly represents the shear yield stress based on through section plasticity. Using the experimental data, shear yield strength is computed at offsets of 0.15% and 1%. It has been found that the experimentally obtained shear yield strength at 0.15% offset compares well with that obtained from FEA curves for all the materials studied(see Table 2)
Experimental shear yield strength (MPa) 117.72 164.41 261.35 289.92 FEA shear yield strength (MPa) 114.15 167.72 249.20 296.76

Material

SS316 Low carbon steel 2.25Cr-1Mo Mod 9Cr-1Mo

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 6

Fig. 5 :Von Mises stress contour profiles before yield, at yield (0.15% offset) and after yield for SS316. Yielding is indicated by the fully developed through thickness plasticzone.

Fig. 6:Linear fit between tensile and shear yield strengths of various materials forthe 0.15% and 1% offset definitions with the corresponding fit parameters.

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 7

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

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

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14

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

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14

References
1. Hamilton ML, Toloczko MB, Lucas GE. Recent progress in shear punch testing.In: Hans Ullmaier, Peter Jung, editors. miniaturized specimens for testing of irradiated materials. IEA international symposium; 1995. p. 4651 2. Guduru RK, Nagasekhar AV, Scattergood RO, Koch CC, Murty KL. Finite element analysis of a shear punch test. Metall Trans A 2006;37:147783

SCOE, Mechanical Engineering 2013-14 10