Comparison of experimental and numerical analysis of Quasi-Static punch shear test for stainless steel sheet material

Abstract

In this study, Quasi-Static Punch Shear Test (QS-PST) for AISI-304 stainless steel sheet material with 0.5 mm thickness was performed experimentally and numerically, then the results were compared. QS-PST was designed non-standard according to the need and is especially used to determine the puncture resistance of composite plate materials against low-speed loading. Since the results obtained from QS-PST are similar to those from ballistic tests, this has attracted the attention of researchers. The experimental study was carried out by integrating the die and punch which were specially produced for this test, into an electromechanical tensile-compression test device with a capacity of 100 kN. In order to define the material properties correctly in numerical analysis, the tensile tests of the relevant material were also carried out with the same device. Then, the CAD model of the experimental system was generated and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed. In FEA, the mesh structure was determined as tetrahedral, since it gave closer results in such tests and the analyzes were performed by increasing the number of mesh from 16700 to 151800 elements. Finally, the experimentally and numerically obtained results were compared and it was observed that the result were very close depending on increasing the number of mesh.

Keywords

• Sheet Metal
• Finite Element Analysis
• Punch Test

References

1. Al-Bakri A A, Sajuri Z, Ariffin A K, Razzaq M A & Fafmin M S (2016). Tensile and fracture behaviour of very thin 304 stainless steel sheet. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(6–9), 45–50. doi: 10.11113/jt.v78.9146
2. Aydın K & Karaağaç İ (2019). DP600 ve HSLA300 Sac Malzemelerde Geri Esneme Davranışlarına Proses Parametrelerinin Etkisinin Deneysel Araştırılması. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7(3), 1456–1465. doi: 10.29130/dubited.532628
3. Ayten A İ, Ekici B & Taşdelen M A (2020). A numerical and experimental investigation on quasi-static punch shear test behavior of aramid/epoxy composites. Polymers and Polymer Composites, 28(6), 398–409. doi: 10.1177/0967391119881554
4. Çağdaş I U & Taşkın M (2020). A modified analytical expression to determine the quasi-static pre-indentation loads of metal-faced sandwich beams. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials, 22(5), 1404–1425. doi: 10.1177/1099636218785829
5. Çeliker S, Eşsiz E S & Oturakcı M (2021). Integrated AHP-FMEA risk assessment method to stainless tank production process. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 5(3), 118–122. doi:10.31127/TUJE.702369
6. Emi̇rler B, Tolun M & Yıldız A (2019). Eğik Çekme Yükü Etkisindeki Tekil Kazığın Üç Boyutlu Sayısal Analizi. Çukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture 34(2), 219-229. doi: 10.21605/cukurovaummfd.609235
7. Hasçelik A & Aslantaş K (2021). Mikro tornalama işleminde kesme kuvveti katsayılarının mekanistik ve nümerik modelleme ile tespiti. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi.; 37(1): 235-246. doi:10.17341/gazimmfd.794462
8. Kaoumi D & Liu J (2018). Deformation induced martensitic transformation in 304 austenitic stainless steel: In-situ vs. ex-situ transmission electron microscopy characterization. Materials Science and Engineering A, 715, 73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2017.12.036

9. Karajibani E, Hashemi R & Sedighi M (2017). Forming limit diagram of aluminum-copper two-layer sheets: numerical simulations and experimental verifications. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 90(9–12), 2713–2722. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9585-1
10. Kawano S, Kaminishi K, Yamashita M & Shimizu S (1988). Energy-absorbing capacity of ductile thin metal sheet under quasi-statical penetration by conical punch. JSME Int J Ser 1, 31(1), 108–116. doi: 10.1299/jsmea1988.31.1_108
11. Köleoğlu Gürsoy Ö & Esener E (2019). Malzeme Modellerinin Sac Metal Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi Tahmin Performansına Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1). doi: 10.35193/bseufbd.549657
12. Longère P & Dragon A (2015). Dynamic vs. quasi-static shear failure of high strength metallic alloys: Experimental issues. Mechanics of Materials, 80(PB), 203–218. doi: 10.1016/j.mechmat.2014.05.001
13. Öğüt S, Kaya H, Kentli A & Uçar M (2021). Applying hybrid equal channel angular pressing (HECAP) to pure copper using optimized Exp.-ECAP die. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 116(11–12), 3859–3876. doi:10.1007/s00170-021-07717-9
14. Salman S D, Leman Z, Ishak M R, Sultan M T H & Cardona F (2018). Quasi-static penetration behavior of plain woven kenaf/aramid reinforced polyvinyl butyral hybrid laminates. Journal of Industrial Textiles, 47(7), 1427–1446. doi:10.1177/1528083717692593
15. Seyedzavvar M, Seyedzavvar M, Olıaeı S N B & Abbasi H (2022). Numerical simulation and experimental investigation: Metal spinning process of stepped thin-walled cylindrical workpiece. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 6(1), 67–80. doi:10.31127/TUJE.824890
16. Şahbaz M, Kentli A, Yilmaz M, Köten H & Yükselentürk Y (2013). Modeling and Thermal Analysis of High Power Led Armature. International Symposium on Computing in Science & Engineering. Proceedings, 164–168.
17. Şahbaz M, Öğüt S & Kentli A (2016). Cadde Tipi Led Armatürün Isı Yayıcısında SEY ve YSA Modeli Kullanılarak Sıcaklık Tahmini Yapılması. Marmara Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(2). doi: 10.7240/mufbed.09519
18. Şahbaz M, Kaya H, Kentli A, Uçar M, Öğüt S & Özbeyaz K (2019). Analytical and Numerical Analysis Comparison of Equal Channel Angular Pressing for Al5083 Alloy. Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, 11(11), 1100–1103. doi:10.1166/asem.2019.2461
19. Şener B, Kılıçaslan E S & Firat M (2020). Modelling anisotropic behavior of AISI 304 stainless steel sheet using a fourth-order polynomial yield function. Procedia Manufacturing, 47, 1456–1461. Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.320
20. Türkoğlu T & Ay I (2021). Investigation of mechanical, kinetic and corrosion properties of borided AISI 304, AISI 420 and AISI 430. Surface Engineering. doi: 10.1080/02670844.2021.1884332
21. Uçtu Ö, Sevim İ, Karataş B & Şahin B (2017). Determination of optimum mesh size to measure tooth root stress of spur gear using finite element analysis. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 1(1), 37–43. doi:10.31127/TUJE.320047
22. Vatansever H & Esener E (2019). Sonlu Elemanlar Hesaplama Parametrelerinin Sac Metal Şekillendirme Simülasyon Süresi ve Hassasiyetine Etkisinin Tespiti. European Journal of Science and Technology, 16, 92-108 doi: 10.31590/ejosat.555491