A novel phenomenological model using a sine function for finite-element simulation of large-strain hot deformation

Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

In hot deformation, the flow stress curves of steels always present as two typical types: at relatively high temperature and low strain rate, the flow stress may first increase and then attain a steady value without reaching an obvious peak stress; in other situations, the flow stress decreases after reaching peak stress and then attains a steady value. A new phenomenological model, described by a sine-function equation, is proposed to define the relationship between flow stress and deformation parameters. A series of isothermal compressions for a carbon steel were carried out, as a case study, to obtain basic experimental data. Parameters of the new model were sequentially determined. The predicted results of the proposed model were compared with actual measured data. Good accuracy was found in the standard statistical parameters of correlation coefficient, root mean square error, and average absolute relative error with the values of 0.935, 7.137 MPa and 4.352%, respectively. Discussion of applications of different models in finite-element simulation demonstrated the benefit of the new model. When comparing the simulation results of three different deformation patterns with large strain, the new model showed 10%–20% lower predicted forming load than the original Arrhenius equation, and better applicability and reliability than modified Arrhenius equations.

Keywords

phenomenological model high temperature large strain finite-element simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lin Y C, Chen X M. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive descriptions for metals and alloys in hot working. Mater Des, 2011, 32: 1733–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van de Langkruis J, Lof J, Kool W H, et al. Comparison of experimental AA6063 extrusion trials to 3D numerical simulations, using a general solute-dependent constitutive model. Comput Mater Sci, 2000, 18: 381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Cold Forging Group. Process Simulation in Cold Forging: Material Testing and Modeling. Bamberg: Meisenbach Verlag, 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zerilli F J, Armstrong R W. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics calculations. J Appl Phys, 1987, 61: 1816–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goetz R L, Seetharaman V. Modeling dynamic recrystallization using cellular automata. Scr Mater, 1998, 38: 405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voyiadjis G Z, Almasri A H. A physically based constitutive model for fcc metals with applications to dynamic hardness. Mech Mater, 2008, 40: 549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheikh H, Serajzadeh S. Estimation of flow stress behavior of AA5083 using artificial neural networks with regard to dynamic strain ageing effect. J Mater Process Technol, 2008, 196: 115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mandal S, Sivaprasad P V, Venugopal S, et al. Artificial neural network modeling to evaluate and predict the deformation behavior of stainless steel type AISI 304L during hot torsion. Appl Soft Comput, 2009, 9: 237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sterjovski Z, Nolan D, Carpenter K R, et al. Artificial neural networks for modelling the mechanical properties of steels in various applications. J Mater Process Technol, 2005, 170: 536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson G R, Cook W H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics. Den Haag, The Netherlands, 1983. 541–543Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samantaray D, Mandal S, Bhaduri A K. A comparative study on Johnson Cook, modified Zerilli-Armstrong and Arrhenius-type constitutive models to predict elevated temperature flow behaviour in modified 9Cr–1Mo steel. Comput Mater Sci, 2009, 47: 568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rohr I, Nahme H, Thoma K, et al. Material characterisation and constitutive modelling of a tungsten-sintered alloy for a wide range of strain rates. Int J Impact Eng, 2008, 35: 811–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prawoto Y, Fanone M, Shahedi S, et al. Computational approach using Johnson-Cook model on dual phase steel. Comput Mater Sci, 2012, 54: 48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao J, Ding H, Zhao W, et al. Modelling of the hot deformation behaviour of a titanium alloy using constitutive equations and artificial neural network. Comput Mater Sci, 2014, 92: 47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang H, Wen W, Cui H. Behaviors of IC10 alloy over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures: Experiments and modeling. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2009, 504: 99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liang R, Khan A S. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive models for BCC and FCC metals over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. Int J Plast, 1999, 15: 963–980CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zener C, Hollomon J H. Effect of strain rate upon plastic flow of steel. J Appl Phys, 1944, 15: 22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin Y C, Liu G. A new mathematical model for predicting flow stress of typical high-strength alloy steel at elevated high temperature. Comput Mater Sci, 2010, 48: 54–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu X Y, Pan Q L, He Y B, et al. Flow behavior and microstructural evolution of Al-Cu-Mg-Ag alloy during hot compression deformation. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2009, 500: 150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Momeni A, Dehghani K. Characterization of hot deformation behavior of 410 martensitic stainless steel using constitutive equations and processing maps. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2010, 527: 5467–5473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chai R, Guo C, Yu L. Two flowing stress models for hot deformation of XC45 steel at high temperature. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2012, 534: 101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haghdadi N, Zarei-Hanzaki A, Abedi H R. The flow behavior modeling of cast A356 aluminum alloy at elevated temperatures considering the effect of strain. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2012, 535: 252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solhjoo S. Determination of flow stress and the critical strain for the onset of dynamic recrystallization using a sine function. arXiv preprint, arxiv: 1405.0196, 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0196Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wedberg D, Lindgren L E. Modelling flow stress of AISI 316L at high strain rates. Mech Mater, 2015, 91: 194–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ji G, Li F, Li Q, et al. Prediction of the hot deformation behavior for Aermet100 steel using an artificial neural network. Comput Mater Sci, 2010, 48: 626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cai Z, Chen F, Guo J. Constitutive model for elevated temperature flow stress of AZ41M magnesium alloy considering the compensation of strain. J Alloys Compd, 2015, 648: 215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solhjoo S, Vakis A I, Pei Y T. Two phenomenological models to predict the single peak flow stress curves up to the peak during hot deformation. Mech Mater, 2017, 105: 61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cai Y, Wan L, Guo Z H, et al. Hot deformation characteristics of AZ80 magnesium alloy: Work hardening effect and processing parameter sensitivities. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2017, 687: 113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeng F, Hu C, Zhao Z. Modelling of hot compressive deformation behaviour of 55 steel considering strain. Int J Mater Prod Technol, 2017, 54: 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    El Hassani F B, Chenaoui A, Dkiouak R, et al. Characterization of deformation stability of medium carbon microalloyed steel during hot forging using phenomenological and continuum criteria. J Mater Process Technol, 2008, 199: 140–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang C Q, Deng J, Wang S X, et al. A physical-based constitutive model to describe the strain-hardening and dynamic recovery behaviors of 5754 aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Eng-A, 2017, 699: 106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quan G, Luo G, Liang J, et al. Modelling for the dynamic recrystallization evolution of Ti-6Al-4V alloy in two-phase temperature range and a wide strain rate range. Comput Mater Sci, 2015, 97: 136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen F, Feng G, Cui Z. New constitutive model for hot working. Metall Mat Trans A, 2016, 47: 1229–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu J, Cui Z, Li C. Modelling of flow stress characterizing dynamic recrystallization for magnesium alloy AZ31B. Comput Mater Sci, 2008, 41: 375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin Y C, Chen M S, Zhong J. Effect of temperature and strain rate on the compressive deformation behavior of 42CrMo steel. J Mater Process Technol, 2008, 205: 308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Changizian P, Zarei-Hanzaki A, Roostaei A A. The high temperature flow behavior modeling of AZ81 magnesium alloy considering strain effects. Mater Des, 2012, 39: 384–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hu C, Zeng F, Zhao Z, et al. Process optimization for design of duplex universal joint fork using unequal thickness flash. Int J Precis Eng Manuf, 2015, 16: 2517–2527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forming Technology & EquipmentShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations