Experimental Observation and Modelling of the Electroplastic Effect in Nonferromagnetic Ductile Metals

Abstract

In this study, an innovative methodology to experimentally distinguish the ElectroPlastic (EP) effect from the thermal expansion and thermal softening was developed and applied to validate the proposed theoretical electro-mechanical model. Two series of quasi-static uniaxial tension experiments with titanium and copper were conducted and a quadratic dependence was observed of the EP strain on the electric current density, corrected for increased dislocation density levels. This study experimentally confirmed the existence of EP phenomenon in ductile metals. The significance of the non-EP effects in the electro-mechanical coupling problems was estimated and the experimental procedure limitations were thoroughly discussed as well as the sensitivity and uncertainty, associated with each of the model parameters. Conclusions and suggestions for future work supplement the study. This piloting work on electro-mechanical coupling provides a solid foundation for further modelling and experimental observation of the electroplastic effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Guan L, Tang G, Chu PK (2010) Recent advances and challenges in electroplastic manufacturing processing of metals. J Mater Res 25:1215–1224

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Roh J-H-H, Seo J-J-J, Hong S-T-T, Kim M-J-J, Han HN, Roth JT (2014) The mechanical behavior of 5052-H32 aluminum alloys under a pulsed electric current. Int J Plast 58:84–99

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kukudzhanov KV, Kolomiets AV, Levitin AL (2014) Process of deformation and fracture stochatically inhomogeneous elastoplastic materials with defects under electrodynamic and thermomechanical loading. ChGPU IQJakovlev 4(22):11–21

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bilyk SR, Ramesh KT, Wright TW (2005) Finite deformations of metal cylinders subjected to electromagnetic fields and mechanical forces. J Mech Phys Solids 53:525–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gallo F, Satapathy S, Ravi-Chandar K (2012) Plastic deformation in electrical conductors subjected to short-duration current pulses. Mech Mater 55:146–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bammann DJ (1990) Modelling the temperature and strain rate dependent large deformation of metals. Appl Mech Rev 43:312–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Horstemeyer MF (2012) Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) for Metals. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bammann DJ, Solanki KN (2010) On kinematic, thermodynamic , and kinetic coupling of a damage theory for polycrystalline material. Int J Plast 26:775–793

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wang X, Xu J, Shan D, Guo B, Cao J (2016) Modeling of thermal and mechanical behavior of a magnesium alloy AZ31 during electrically-assisted micro-tension. Int J Plast 85:230–257

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sprecher AF, Mannan SL, Conrad H (1986) Overview no. 49. On the mechanisms for the electroplastic effect in metals. Acta Metall 34:1145–1162

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Okazaki K, Kagawa M, Conrad H (1978) A study of the elctroplastic effect in metals. Scr Metall 12:1063–1068

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Spitsin VI, Troitskii OA (1985) Electroplastic Deformation of Metals, Nauka. USSR, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Conrad H (2000) Electroplasticity in metals and ceramics. Mater Sci Eng A 287:276–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Savenko VS, Troickij OA, Silivonec AG (2017) The contribution of pondermotive factors in implementation of electroplasticity deformation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Physical-Technical Series, vol 1, pp 85–91

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Troitskii OA, Likhtman VI (1963) The effect of the anisotropy of electron and g radiation on the deformation of zinc single crystals in the brittle state. Kokl Akad Nauk SSSR 148:332–334

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    N.K. Dimitrov, Y.-C. Liu, and M.F. Horstemeyer, “Electroplasticity: A review of mechanisms in electro-mechanical coupling of ductile metals”, accepted by Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2020.1789925

  17. 17.

    Andrawes JS, Kronenberger TJ, Perkins TA, Roth JT, Warley RL (2007) Effects of DC current on the mechanical behavior of AlMg1SiCu. Mater Manuf Process 22(1):91–101

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Okazaki K, Kagawa M, Conrad H (1979) Additional results on the electroplastic effct in metals. Scr Metall 13(4):277–280

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Timsit RS (1981) Remarks on recent experimental observations of the electroplastic effect. Scr Metall 15(4):461–464

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hariharan K, Kim M-J, Hong S-T, Kim D-D, Song J-H, Lee M-G, Han H-N (2017) Electroplastic behaviour in an aluminum alloy and dislocation density based modelling. Mater Des 124:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    N.K. Dimitrov, Y.-C. Liu, and M.F. Horstemeyer, “An electroplastic internal state variable (ISV) model for nonferromagnetic ductile metals”, accepted by Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2020.1793240

  22. 22.

    Dimitrov NK, Liu Y-C, Horstemeyer MF (2019) On the thermo-mechanical coupling of Bammann plasticity-damage internal state variable model. Acta Mech 230(5):1855–1868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dimitrov NK, Liu Y-C, Horstemeyer MF (2018) A thermo-electro-elasto-viscoplastic damage internal state variable model for ductile metals. IMECE2018–86598, ASME 2018 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Pittsburgh

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Conrad H (2002) Thermally activated plastic flow of metals and ceramics with an electric field or current. Mater Sci Eng A 322:100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    N.K. Dimitrov, “Internal state variable modeling of electroplastic effects in metals”, PhD dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State University, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Okazaki K, Kagawa M, Conrad H (1979) Effects of strain rate, temperature and interstitial content on the electroplastic effect in titanium. Scritpa Metallurgica 13(6):473–477

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cao W-D, Sprecher AF, Conrad H (1989) Effect of strain rate on electroplastic effect in Nb. Scritpa Metallurgica 23(1):151–155

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fleck NA, Muller GM, Ashby MF, Hutchinson JW (1994) Strain gradient plasticity: theory and experiment. Acta Metall Mater 42:475–487

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Sudmanns M, Gumbsch P, Schulz K (2018) Plastic flow and dislocation strengthening in a dislocation density based formulation of plasticity. Comput Mater Sci 151:317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Molotskii MI (2000) Theoretical basis for electro- and magnetoplasticity. Mater Sci Eng A 287:248–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Alshits VI, Darinskaya EV, Koldaeva MV, Petrzhik EA (2009) Electric amplification of the magnetoplastic effect in nonmagnetic crystals. J Appl Phys 105:063520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Alshits VI, Darinskaya EV, Kazakova OL, Mikhina EY, Petrzhik EA (1994) Magnetoplastic effect in non-magnetic crystals and internal friction. J Alloys Compd 211-212:548–533

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Alshits VI, Darinskaya EV, Koldaeva MV, Petrzhik EA (2003) Magnetoplastic effect: basic properties and physical mechanisms. Crystallography Rep 48:768–795

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Çetinarslan CS (2009) Effect of cold plastic deformation on electrical conductivity of various materials. Mater Des 30:671–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lipińska M, Bazarnik P, Lewandowska M (2016) The influence of severe plastic deformation processes on electrical conductivity of commercially pure aluminium and 5483 aluminium alloy. Arch Civil Mech Eng 16:717–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) of Mississippi State University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Liu.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Lorenz force (pinch effect) in the electromechanical coupling of ductile metals

Electromagnetic forces in a current carrying conductor

The current induced magnetic field exerts an additional magnetic stress on the current carrying conductor. This effect is referred to as the Lorenz force, named after the Lorenz force law, or as the pinch effect, a term from the plasma physics which describes the self-constriction of a beam of accelerated charged particles. Additionally, an electrostatic force may occur from the unbalanced nonequilibrium surface charge distributions.

For nonferromagnetic metallic conductors with relative permittivity ϵr = 1 and relative permeability μr ≈ 1, the above-mentioned electromagnetic phenomena can be described with the Maxwell equations in a free space (vacuum) as follows:

$$ \nabla \cdotp \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{E}}={\rho}_q/{\epsilon}_0 $$
(A.1)
$$ \nabla \times \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}}-{\epsilon}_0{\mu}_0\underset{\_}{\dot{\mathbbm{E}}}={\mu}_0\underset{\_}{j} $$
(A.2)
$$ \nabla \times \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{E}}+\underset{\_}{\dot{\mathbbm{B}}}=0 $$
(A.3)
$$ \nabla \cdotp \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}}=0 $$
(A.4)

where \( \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{E}} \) is the electric field vector, \( \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}} \) is the magnetic induction field vector, ρq is the charge density per unite volume, \( \underset{\_}{j} \) is the current density vector, ϵ0 = 8.854 × 10−12 N · V−2 is the vacuum permittivity, and μ0 = 1.257 × 10−8N · A−2 is the (magnetic) permeability of free space.

The Maxwell equations are used to determine the magnetic and electric fields induced by the electric current that passes through a metallic material. The force density per unit volume (\( {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM} \)), exerted by those fields on the current-carrying conductor is calculated by the Lorenz force law:

$$ {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM}={\rho}_q\underset{\_}{\mathbbm{E}}+\underset{\_}{j}\times \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}} $$
(A.5)

Another approach for calculating the electromagnetic force is through the Maxwell stress tensor (\( \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{T}} \)), defined as follows:

$$ {\mathbbm{T}}_{ik}={\epsilon}_0\left({\mathbbm{E}}_i{\mathbbm{E}}_k-{\delta}_{ik}\frac{1}{2}{\mathbbm{E}}^2\right)+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\left({\mathbbm{B}}_i{\mathbbm{B}}_{\mathrm{k}}-{\delta}_{ik}\frac{1}{2}{\mathbbm{B}}^2\right) $$
(A.6)

where δik is the Kronecker delta.

In the next two sections both approaches, the Lorentz force law and the Maxwell stress tensor, are used to estimate the mechanical stresses, induced by the electromagnetic forces in a long titanium wire. It is expected that the results obtained from both approaches should be the same since the Maxwell stress tensor is derived from the Lorentz force law.

Problem statement: A steady electric current with density j = 500 A/mm2 flows through a long titanium wire with radius R = 1mm.

Maxwell stress tensor

We choose the direction of the main axis (x1) of the Cartesian coordinate system (\( {\hat{x}}_1,{\hat{x}}_2,{\hat{x}}_3 \)) along the wire axis (and the current direction). The magnetic induction field (\( \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}} \)) inside the conductor is calculated from the following expression:

$$ \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}{\mathbbm{B}}_1=0\\ {}{\mathbbm{B}}_2=-\frac{\mu_0j}{2}{x}_3\\ {}{\mathbbm{B}}_3=\frac{\mu_0j}{2}{x}_2\end{array}\right\} for\ \left({x}_1^2+{x}_2^2\right)\le {R}^2 $$
(A.7)

The electric field inside the conductor is uniform:

$$ \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{E}}=\mathbbm{E}{\hat{x}}_1={\rho}_{el}\underset{\_}{j} $$
(A.8)

where ρel is the resistivity of the material (ρel, Ti = 4.2 × 10−7Ω · m).

The Maxwell stress tensor equation (equation A.6) is then simplified to the following:

$$ \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{T}}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}{\epsilon}_0{\mathbbm{E}}^2-{\mu}_0^{-1}{\mathbbm{B}}^2& 0& 0\\ {}0& -{\epsilon}_0{\mathbbm{E}}^2+{\mu}_0^{-1}\left({\mathbbm{B}}_2^2-{\mathbbm{B}}_3^2\right)& 2{\mu}_0^{-1}{\mathbbm{B}}_2{\mathbbm{B}}_3\\ {}0& 2{\mu}_0^{-1}{\mathbbm{B}}_2{\mathbbm{B}}_3& -{\epsilon}_0{\mathbbm{E}}^2+{\mu}_0^{-1}\left({\mathbbm{B}}_3^2-{\mathbbm{B}}_2^2\right)\end{array}\right\} $$
(A.9)

The Maxwell stress tensor is a physical quantity in the electromagnetic theory that resembles the stress tensor in mechanics. Yet, the Maxwell stress tensor does not directly represent the mechanical stress on the material caused by electro-magnetic forces. Computation of the electromagnetic contribution to the mechanical stress state is a boundary value problem, and the Maxwell stress tensor could be used to determine the electromagnetic force density (\( {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM} \)) as follows:

$$ {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM}=\nabla \cdotp \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{T}} $$
(A.10)

The electromagnetic force density (\( {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM} \)) inside the conductor is then calculated by substitution of equation (A.9) into equation (A.10).

$$ {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM}=-\frac{\mu_0{j}^2}{2}\left\{\begin{array}{c}0\\ {}{x}_2\\ {}{x}_3\end{array}\right\} $$
(A.11)

As evident from equation (A.11) the contribution of the electric field (i.e. the applied voltage) to the calculated electromagnetic forces is cancelled out. Furthermore, the current-carrying wire is not subjected to an additional axial force, such force may occur as an elastic response to the straining in radial direction from magnetic forces.

Equation (A.11) is verified with the Lorentz force law in the following section.

Lorenz force law

We define a cylindrical coordinate system (\( \hat{r},\hat{\theta},\hat{z} \)) with z-axis along the applied current direction (the wire axis). The magnetic force density is calculated from equation (A.5) as follows:

$$ {\underset{\_}{f}}_{EM}=\underset{\_}{j}\times \underset{\_}{\mathbbm{B}}=-\frac{\mu_0{j}^2}{2}\left\{\begin{array}{c}r\\ {}0\\ {}0\end{array}\right\} $$
(A.12)

Equation (A.12), when converted to a Cartesian coordinate system (\( {\hat{x}}_1,{\hat{x}}_2,{\hat{x}}_3 \)), gives the same results as equation (A.11).

The compressive stress (σr) acting on the current-carrying wire (the pinch effect) is estimated by integration of equation (A.12) over the wire cross-section as follows:

$$ {\sigma}_r=-\frac{\mu_0{j}^2}{4}\left({R}^2-{r}^2\right) $$
(A.13)

Converted to Cartesian coordinates (\( {\hat{x}}_1,{\hat{x}}_2,{\hat{x}}_3 \)) equation (A.13) results in:

$$ \sigma =-\frac{\mu_0{j}^2}{4}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ {}0& \frac{\left({R}^2-{r}^2\right)}{r}{x}_2& 0\\ {}0& 0& \frac{\left({R}^2-{r}^2\right)}{r}{x}_3\end{array}\right\},r=\sqrt{x_2^2+{x}_3^2}\le R $$
(A.14)

Substituting j = 500 A/mm2, R = 1mm, and x2 = x2 = 0 into equation (A.13) gives the maximum compressive electromagnetic stress exerted on the current-carrying conductor:

$$ \min {\sigma}_r\left(r=0\right)=-\frac{\mu_0{j}^2}{4}{R}^2=-7.85\times {10}^{-4}\ MPa $$
(A.15)

When compared to the yield strength of the material, the electromagnetic stress is six magnitudes smaller. Furthermore, the electromagnetic stress is in the radial direction, only a small portion of it is expected to propagate in the axial direction. For precise computation of the axial stress and comparison with the electroplastic stress drop, thorough analysis of the entire mechanical system is required. For a constrained elastic system with the same geometry, the averaged axial contribution of the electromagnetic forces (∆σz) was estimated as follows:

$$ \Delta {\sigma}_z\approx -\frac{{\nu \mu}_0{j}^2}{2}\frac{1}{R^2}\underset{0}{\overset{R}{\int }}r\left({R}^2-{r}^2\right) dr=-6.2\times {10}^{-6}\ MPa $$
(A.16)

where ν is the Poisson ration (νTi = 0.32).

Conclusion

The Maxwell stress tensor cannot be simply added to the mechanical stress tensor. Solutions of boundary-value problems and more calculations are necessary to convert the information expressed with the Maxwell stress tensor to mechanical stresses.

In our estimations, the electromagnetic force acting on a current-carrying conductor was found to be magnetic in essence, the electric (electrostatic) part in the Maxwell stress tensor calculations was redundant.

The pinch effect was found to be negligible. The contribution of the electromagnetic forces (the pinch effect) to the mechanical stress state was estimated to be six magnitudes smaller than the yield strength of the material. However, the pinch effect may have to be considered if the applied current density is significantly stronger and the cross-sectional area of the specimen is larger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dimitrov, N., Liu, Y. & Horstemeyer, M. Experimental Observation and Modelling of the Electroplastic Effect in Nonferromagnetic Ductile Metals. Exp Tech (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-021-00443-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Electroplasticity
  • Electro-mechanical coupling
  • Titanium
  • Copper
  • Quasi-static tension
  • Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis