Assessment of ductile failure models in single-pass wire drawing processes
Source abstract
Abstract
The present work reports a comparative study of ductile failure models applied to an Al-2011 aluminum alloy single-pass wire drawing process using different reductions. The material damage experienced in the wire after passing through the die is evaluated using the well-known Rice and Tracey, Cockcroft and Latham, Brozzo and Modified Chaouadi models. Due to the fact that nonrealistic damage predictions are found for the highest studied wire reduction, an alternative uncoupled failure criterion combining the effect of deformation and triaxility is proposed. The ability of these five models in predicting the formation of chevrons in the process is the main focus of this research. First, the model parameters are characterized by means of numerical simulations of the tensile test. Then, the predictions of the numerical analyses of the drawing process are compared with available experimental results where physical evidence of chevrons was found. Relevant variables are analyzed to determine their incidence in the formation of central bursts. Finally, the performance of this new model is assessed for the full reduction scenarios.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming · Microstructure and mechanical properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Chile
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica y Metalúrgica, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Avitzur B · 1983
2. Brozzo P · Proceedings of the seventh biannual conference of the international deep drawing research group · 1972
3. 10.1088/0965-0393/12/4/S0910.1088/0965-0393/12/4/S09 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.03.00810.1016/j.ijplas.2007.03.008 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.finel.2008.09.00110.1016/j.finel.2008.09.001 ↗
6. 10.1080/1042691090318000310.1080/10426910903180003 ↗
7. 10.1007/BF0002008010.1007/BF00020080 ↗
8. 10.1007/s12206-010-0605-z10.1007/s12206-010-0605-z ↗
9. Cockcroft M · Journal of Institute of Metals · 1968 · 96 · 33
10. Freudenthal AM · 1950
11. 10.1016/0022-5096(52)90004-510.1016/0022-5096(52)90004-5 ↗
12. 10.1115/1.344340110.1115/1.3443401 ↗
13. Haddi A, Imad A and Vega G (2012) The influence of the drawing parameters and temperature rise on the prediction of chevron crack formation in wire drawing. International Journal of Fracture 176: 171–180.10.1007/s10704-012-9739-6 ↗
14. 10.1115/1.289768610.1115/1.2897686 ↗
15. Ko D and Kim B (2000) The prediction of central burst defects in extrusion and wire drawing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 102: 19–24.10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00461-6 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00035-310.1016/S0020-7403(03)00035-3 ↗
17. 10.1115/1.322577510.1115/1.3225775 ↗
18. 10.1007/s10704-005-3470-510.1007/s10704-005-3470-5 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.10.01410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.10.014 ↗
20. 10.1007/BF0018893910.1007/BF00188939 ↗
21. Norasethasopon S and Yoshida K (2008) Prediction of chevron crack initiation in inclusion cooper shaped-wire drawing. Engineering Failure Analysis 15: 378–393.10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.01.003 ↗
22. Orbegozo JI · Annals of the CIRP · 1968 · 16 · 319
23. Pardoen T · Journal de Physique · 1996 · 6 · 145
24. 10.1177/105678951557818110.1177/1056789515578181 ↗
25. 10.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-710.1016/0022-5096(69)90033-7 ↗
26. 10.1007/BF0256077110.1007/BF02560771 ↗
27. 10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00275-710.1016/S0924-0136(99)00275-7 ↗