Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2559–2564 | Cite as

Prediction of limit strains in superplastic materials

  • M. P. Miles
  • G. S. Daehn
  • R. H. Wagoner


A simple model has been developed to study the effects of static and dynamic grain growth and strain rate on the ductility of superplastic materials. One-half of a tensile specimen was modeled numerically using a power-law creep constitutive equation, with either a constant strain rate or constant extension rate. Static grain growth was shown to reduce material ductility at all rates of growth, except when the imposed strain rate was very low. Dynamic grain growth was shown to enhance ductility at lower growth rates and for intermediate imposed strain rates, while decreasing ductility at higher growth rates. Comparison of simulated and experimental results reveals the relationship between strain and grain size, thus justifying the treatment of dynamic grain growth as a function of accumulated strain.


Ductility Material Transaction Constant Strain Rate Limit Strain True Strain Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T.G. Langdon: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, vol. 13A, pp. 689–701.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.F. Ashby and R.A. Verrall: Acta Metall., 1973, vol. 21, pp. 149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.R. Springarn and W.D. Nix: Acta Metall., 1978, vol. 26, pp. 1389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.H. Hamilton: Metall. Trans. A, 1989, vol. 20A, pp. 2783–92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Weertman: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1963, vol. 227, p. 1475.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.K. Ghosh and C.H. Hamilton: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, vol. 13A, pp. 773–43.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.H. Wagoner and J.-L. Chenot: Fundamentals of Metal Forming, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1996, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Takayama, N. Furushiro, T. Tozawa, and H. Kato: Mater. Sci. Forum, 1994, vols. 170–172, pp. 561–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Rai and N.J. Grant: Metall. Trans. A, 1975, vol. 6A, pp. 385–90.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O.N. Senkov and M.M. Myshlyaev: Acta Metall., 1986, vol. 34, pp. 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.D. Verhoven: Fundamentals of Physical Metallurgy, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1975, p. 209.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.S. Wilkinson and C.H. Cáceres: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1984, vol. 3, pp. 395–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.R. Lesuer, C.K. Syn, K.L. Cadwell, and C.S. Preuss: in Advances in Superplasticity and Superplastic Forming, N. Chandra, H. Garmestani, and R.E. Goforth, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1993, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.K. Rabinovich and V.G. Trifonov: Acta Mater., 1996, vol. 44 (5), pp. 2073–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.S. Daehn: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, unpublished research, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International & TMS-The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Miles
    • 1
  • G. S. Daehn
    • 2
  • R. H. Wagoner
    • 2
  1. 1.Manufacturing Engineering Technology, College of Engineering and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvo
  2. 2.the Department of Materials Science and EngineeringOhio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations