Issue 72

H.E. Lakache et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 72 (2025) 62-79; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.72.06

39.3 kN of force (Fig. 11b). This significant variation can be attributed to the presence of perforation holes, which reduces the energy required for material deformation.

Figure 10: Comparison between experimental results and numerical predictions.

Specimen width (mm)

24

50

68

90

110 130 150 170

Num

5.0 4.6

7.8 7.2

9.1 12.5 15.2 26.8 34.6 37.8 7.3 14.9 25.4 30.8 35.5 39.3 31.0 18.7 26.5 37.0 41.9 42.8 25.2 22.0 26.4 34.4 44.3 44.5

Stamping force (kN)

Exp

Num

44.0 41.6

36.0 36.3

Maximum tool displacement (mm)

NPSM

Exp

Num

3.0 5.0

4.0 5.5

4.6 7.5

5.9

9.0 10.1 11.5 11.8

Stamping force (kN)

Exp

8.5 10.7 10.8 10.5 11.3

Num

17.8 20.4

14.9 16.8

13.6 14.0 16.4 17.5 17.3 17.2

Maximum tool displacement (mm)

PSM

Exp 14.4 14.8 15.6 17.5 16.4 16.4 Table 5: Experimental and numerical values of stamping force and maximum tool displacement for NPSM and PSM specimens. Although the tool displacement range differs between the two specimen types (See Figs. 12a and 12b), larger widths consistently result in relatively high maximum tool displacement values for both. However, for PSMs, the tool displacement remains consistently lower across the entire range of specimen widths.

70