PSI - Issue 2_B

Reza H. Talemi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 3135–3142

3141

Reza H. Talemi et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

7

[inside]

r

Punch

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 -0.006 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0

(c)

Fixed

δ

Experiment

Bending specimen

40

Simulation

30

Experiment

0

1

2

3

Die

20

( c )

Displacement [mm]

BENDING (a) ( a )

0

1

2

3

10

Strain gauges

Fixed side

0

Simulation

8 mm

Y-Symmetry

0 0.5 1

Fatigue specimen

Y

Displac

Z

X

F

Experiment

Z-Symmetry

(b) [outside] Fig. 4. Finite element mesh, loading and boundary conditions of (a) the bending and (b) the fatigue model; (c) comparison of the engineering strains and load versus displacement between numerical simulation and experimental observation at F = 40kN. FATIGUE (b) (

loading conditions. To this end, the mesh was imported into the model without any residual stress profile from the bending process. To model the fatigue loading conditions, instead of maximum axial load, the maximum displacement after the stabilization point was applied which was measured experimentally for each loading level.

1.3

1.3

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

70

60 50 40 30

1.2

70 60 50 40 30

1.2

70 60 50 40 30

1.1

l 3 / t = 0.3

1

1.1

0

1

2

3

4

0

0.5

1

0

0.5

1

l 1 /t [-] (a)

l 3 /t [-]

l 2 /t [-]

(b)

(c)

5

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

70

70

70 60 50 40 30

4

4

3

3

60

60

2

2

30 40 50

50 40 30

0 1

1

0

0

0.5

1

0

1

2

3

4

0

0.5

1

l 1 /t [-] (d)

l 3 /t [-]

l 2 /t [-]

(e)

(f)

Fig. 5. Distribution of normalized maximum principal stress ( σ 11 ) and equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) along the (a and d) path 1 ( l 1 ), (b and e) path 2 ( l 2 ) and (c and f) path 3 ( l 3 ) respectively. Paths are normalized with respect to the specimen thickness.