journal article·2014-08Open access

Optimisation of material properties for the modelling of large deformation manufacturing processes using a finite element model of the Gleeble compression test

Christopher J Bennett, Wei Sun

Abstract

The finite element modelling of manufacturing processes often requires a large amount of large plastic strain flow stress data in order to represent the material of interest over a wide range of temperatures and strain rates. Compression data generated using a Gleeble thermo-mechanical simulator is difficult to interpret due to the complex temperature and strain fields, which exist within the specimen during the test. In this study, a non-linear optimisation process is presented, which includes a finite element model of the compression process to accurately determine the constants of a five-parameter Norton–Hoff material model. The optimisation process is first verified using a reduced three-parameter model and then the full five-parameter model using a known set of constants to produce the target data, from which the errors are assessed. Following this, the optimisation is performed using experimental target data starting from a set of constants derived from the test data using an initial least-squares fit and also an arbitrary starting point within the parameter space. The results of these tests yield coefficients differing by a maximum of less than 10% and significantly improve the representation of the flow stress of the material.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metallurgy and Material Forming · Advanced machining processes and optimization · Metal Alloys Wear and Properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

References (16)

Show source-provided references
1. Roebuck B · 1997
2. 10.1179/02670830110151084310.1179/026708301101510843 ↗
3. 10.1179/02670840222500719510.1179/026708402225007195 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.07.01610.1016/j.commatsci.2010.07.016 ↗
5. 10.1007/s12289-010-0977-810.1007/s12289-010-0977-8 ↗
6. 10.1177/030932471142172310.1177/0309324711421723 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2012.05.01110.1016/j.ijmecsci.2012.05.011 ↗
8. Åkerström P · J Phys IV · 2004 · 120 · 625
9. 10.1016/S0924-0136(98)00205-210.1016/S0924-0136(98)00205-2 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.09.02210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.09.022 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.01.02610.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.01.026 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.01.00310.1016/j.commatsci.2013.01.003 ↗
13. 10.1093/oso/9780195044027.001.000110.1093/oso/9780195044027.001.0001 ↗
14. 10.1017/CBO978051154128510.1017/CBO9780511541285 ↗
15. Moal A
16. The MathWorks, Inc · 2012