Advertisement

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 43, Issue 9, pp 4855–4861 | Cite as

A Ductile Damage Criterion for AISI 321 Austenitic Stainless Steel at Different Temperatures and Strain Rates

  • Mehdi Shaban Ghazani
  • Beitallah Eghbali
Research Article - Mechanical Engineering
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, the variation of the critical ductile damage during hot deformation was investigated using hot compression testing and finite element simulation. Based on the obtained results, the critical ductile damage diagram was developed for AISI 321 austenitic stainless steel. Results showed that the value of critical damage is not constant during deformation in the temperature range of 800–1200 \(^{\circ }\)C. It is also concluded that the critical ductile damage value is varied between 0.24 and 0.41 depending on hot deformation conditions. This means that, the critical ductile damage value is increased with increasing deformation temperature and decreased by increasing strain rate.

Keywords

Hot compression deformation Finite element simulation Critical ductile damage Failure Austenitic stainless steel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bontcheva, N.; Petzov, G.: Microstructure evolution during metal forming processes. Comput. Mater. Sci. 28, 563–573 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2003.08.014 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reis, G.G.; Jorge, A.M.; Balancin, O.: Influence of the microstructure of duplex stainless steel on their failure characteristics during hot deformation. Mater. Res. 3, 31–35 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392000000200006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart, G.R.; Jonas, J.J.; Montheillet, F.: Kinetics and critical conditions for the initiation of dynamic recrystallization in 304 stainless steel. ISIJ Int. 44, 1581–1589 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.44.1581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jafari, M.; Najafizadeh, A.; Rasti, J.: Dynamic recrystallization by necklace mechanism during hot deformation of 316 stainless steel. Int. J. ISSI 4, 16–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaban, M.; Eghbali, B.: Determination of critical conditions for dynamic recrystallization of a microalloyed steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527, 4320–4325 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.03.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samuel, F.H.; Yue, S.; Jonas, J.J.; Barnes, K.R.: Effect of dynamic recrystallization on microstructural evolution during strip rolling. ISIJ Int. 30, 216–225 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.30.216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dargon, A.: Plasticity and ductile fracture damage: study of void growth in metals. Eng. Fract. Mech. 21, 875–885 (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(85)90094-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu, X.; Guo, Q.; Jie, Z.: Effect of temperature and strain rate on critical damage values of AZ80 magnesium alloy. Trans. Nonferrous Metal Soc. 20, 580–583 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(10)60542-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duan, X.; Velay, X.; Sheppard, T.: Application of finite element method in the hot extrusion of aluminium alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 369, 66–75 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2003.10.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bao, Y.; Wierzbicki, T.: A comparative study on various ductile fracture crack formation criteria. J. Eng. Mater. Trans. ASME 126, 314–324 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1755244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo, R.B.; Cetlin, P.R.; Langdon, T.G.: The processing of difficult-to-work alloys by ECAP with an emphasis on magnesium alloys. Acta Mater. 55, 4769–4779 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2007.04.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quan, G.Z.; Wang, F.B.; Liu, Y.Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhou, J.: Evaluation of varying ductile fracture criterion for 7075 aluminum alloy. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 23, 749–755 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62525-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han, Y.; Qiao, G.; Sun, J.; Zou, D.: A comparative study on constitutive relationship of as-cast 904L austenitic stainless steel during hot deformation based on Arrhenius-type and artificial neural network models. Comput. Mater. Sci. 67, 93–103 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.07.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, Y.P.; Onodera, E.; Matsumoto, H.; Chiba, A.: Correcting the stress–strain curve in hot compression process to high strain level. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 40, 952–990 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-009-9783-7 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McQueen, H.J.: Development of dynamic recrystallization theory. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 387–389, 203–208 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2004.01.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nes, E.; Marthinsen, K.; Brechet, Y.: On the mechanisms of dynamic recovery. Scr. Mater. 47, 607–611 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6462(02)00235-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Derby, B.: Dynamic recrystallization: the steady state grain size. Scr. Metall. Mater. 27, 1581–1586 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-716X(92)90148-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials Science EngineeringUniversity of BonabBonabIran
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science EngineeringSahand University of TechnologyTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations