Response to the letter to editor
- PDF / 628,842 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 99 Downloads / 222 Views
LETTER TO EDITOR
Response to the letter to editor Nitin Chandola 1 & Oana Cazacu 1
&
Benoit Revil-Baudard 1
Received: 31 July 2020 / Accepted: 10 August 2020 # Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract This extended comment is in response to the letter of Barlat (Int J Mater Form 2020) concerning our recent article (Chandola et al. (Int J Mater Form 12(6):943–954 2019)). The main issue raised is an apparent “mismatch” between some of the F.E. results presented and cup forming data of Tucker (Acta Metall 9:275-286 1961). There is no mismatch because the simulation results presented in our paper correspond to a different material than the one used by Tucker (Acta Metall 9:275-286 1961). Specifically, the F.E. results correspond to an Al-Cu single crystal for which uniaxial tension characterization data were reported in Karnop and Sachs (Z Für Phys 49:480–497 1928) and was processed differently than Tucker’s material. Furthermore, in the letter of Barlat (Int J Mater Form 2020), the scope and findings of our study are misrepresented, and all the quotations from our paper are taken out of context. Detailed responses to the issues raised by Barlat (Int J Mater Form 2020) are given. Keywords Yield criterion . Single crystal . Cup drawing
Introduction This extended comment is in response to the letter of Barlat [1] concerning our recent article (Chandola et al. [2]). The main issue raised is an apparent “mismatch” between some of the F.E. results presented and cup forming data of Tucker [3]. There is no mismatch because the simulation results presented in our paper correspond to a different material than the one used by Tucker [3]. Specifically, the F.E. results correspond to an Al-Cu single crystal for which uniaxial tension characterization data were reported in Karnop and Sachs [4] and was processed differently than Tucker’s material. Furthermore, in the letter of Barlat [1], the scope and findings of our study are misrepresented, and all the quotations from our paper are taken out of context. Detailed responses to the issues raised by Barlat [1] are given. Firstly, in Chandola et al. [2], we presented the results of a numerical study on the effect of single crystal orientation on cup drawing and hole expansion for single-crystal sheets. For this purpose, 3-D fully implicit finite element (F.E.) simulations were conducted using the new single-crystal model
* Oana Cazacu [email protected] 1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, REEF, 1350 N. Poquito Rd., Shalimar, FL 32579, USA
developed by Cazacu et al. [5]. The same values for the anisotropy coefficients were used in all the simulations. A key outcome of this study is that according to the new singlecrystal criterion, the number of ears of the drawn cup depends on the single-crystal orientation. While the F.E. results presented correspond to a specific parametrization which was obtained using the experimental uniaxial tensile yield stresses for an Al-Cu single crystal alloy reported in [4], we dem
Data Loading...
