Parallel finite element tool to predict distortion induced by initial residual stresses during machining of aeronautical parts
Source abstract
Abstract
Aeronautical parts are often large and complex monolithic parts machined from rolled plates or forged parts. Nowadays, one of the main objective in the aeronautical manufacturing is to produce light parts with better mechanical properties and therefore more environmentally friendly planes. One way to achieve that goal is the development of new grades and the optimisation of manufacturing processes. The machining process is an essential step in the manufacturing of aeronautical parts where issues can occur. The post-machining distortion due to the re-equilibrium of the initial residual stresses inside the initial workpiece is the main problem which leads to geometrical and dimensional variabilities of parts and then unexpected extra conforming steps. There is therefore an essential need to predict distortions during the machining of large and complex parts to anticipate or avoid additional step. In this paper a new parallel finite element tool is introduced which enables to predict the non-linear behaviour of the workpiece during machining due to its changing geometry resulting from fixture/workpiece contacts. The numerical methods used are described (removal of material approach, parallelization, fixture/workpiece contact) and an example of the simulation of a part machined from a rolled plate is presented. Results obtained are then compared with experimental results, showing a good agreement.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced machining processes and optimization · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Manufacturing Process and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Das S, Chandra U (1999) Residual stress and distortion. In: Totten GE, Mackenzie DS (eds) Handbook of aluminum metallurgy: processes and equipment, vol 1. Marcel Dekker, New York
2. Denkena B, de Leon Garcia L, Kohle J (2007) In: FEM-Simulation of high-performance-milling. Proceeding of the CIRP conference on modelling of machining operations, Sicily
3. Denkena B, Boehnke D, de Leon Garcia L (2008) Prod Eng 2(3):247. doi: 10.1007/s11740-008-0097-110.1007/s11740-008-0097-1 ↗
4. Wu N, Chan K (1996) Comput Ind Eng 31:919. doi: 10.1016/S0360-8352(96)00264-1 . 18th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering10.1016/S0360-8352(96)00264-1 ↗
5. Li B, Melkote SN (1999) Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39(6):871. doi: 10.1016/S0890-6955(98)00072-810.1016/S0890-6955(98)00072-8 ↗
6. Satyanarayana S, Melkote S (2004) Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44(9):903. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.02.01010.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.02.010 ↗
7. Asante J (2008) Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39(5–6):578. doi: 10.1007/s00170-007-1187-510.1007/s00170-007-1187-5 ↗
8. Liu S, Zheng L, Zhang Z, Wen D (2006) Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(7–8):653. doi: 10.1007/s00170-004-2425-810.1007/s00170-004-2425-8 ↗
9. Wang SP, Padmanaban S (2004) AIP Conf Proc 712(1):1371. doi: 10.1063/1.176672010.1063/1.1766720 ↗
10. Wei Y, Wang X (2007) Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(3–4):260. doi: 10.1007/s00170-006-0470-110.1007/s00170-006-0470-1 ↗
11. Bi Y, Dong H, Cheng Q, Ke Y (2008) Key Eng Mater 392–394: 841. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.392-394.84110.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.392-394.841 ↗
12. Rai JK, Xirouchakis P (2008) Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(6):629. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2007.11.00410.1016/j.ijmachtools.2007.11.004 ↗
13. Pierard O, Barboza J, Duflot M, DAlvise L, Perez-Duarte A (2008) Int J Mater Form 1(1):563. doi: 10.1007/s12289-008-0318-310.1007/s12289-008-0318-3 ↗
14. Ma K, Goetz R, Svrivatsa S (2010) Handbook, A S M. Met Process Simul 22B:38610.31399/asm.hb.v22b.a0005537 ↗
15. Sim W (2010) Int J Microstruct Mater Prop 5:446. doi: 10.1504/IJMMP.2010.037621
16. Denkena B, Leon LD (2009) Int J Mach Mach Mater 4(4): 335. doi: 10.1504/IJMMM.2008.023717
17. Yang Y, Li M, Li K (2013) Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s00170-013-5431-x10.1007/s00170-013-5431-x ↗
18. Chenot J (1989) In: Computational plasticity: models, software and applications. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference held in Barcelona, Spain, pp 793–816
19. Coupez T, Digonnet H, Ducloux R (2000) Appl Math Model 25(2):153. doi: 10.1016/S0307-904X(00)00045-710.1016/S0307-904X(00)00045-7 ↗
20. Arnold D, Brezzi F, Fortin M (1984) CALCOLO 21(4):337. doi: 10.1007/BF0257617110.1007/BF02576171 ↗
21. Lequeu P, Smith K, Danielou A (2010) J Mater Eng Perform 19(6): 841. doi: 10.1007/s11665-009-9554-z10.1007/s11665-009-9554-z ↗
22. Prime MB, Hill MR (2002) Scr Mater 46(1):77. doi: 10.1016/S1359-6462(01)01201-510.1016/S1359-6462(01)01201-5 ↗
23. Fourment L, Chenot JL, Mocellin K (1999) Int J Numer Methods Fluids 46(9):143510.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19991130)46:9<1435::AID-NME707>3.0.CO;2-9 ↗
24. Wriggers P (2002) Computational contact mechanics. Wiley, New York
25. Snir M, Otto S, Huss-Lederman S, Walker D, Dongarra J (1998) MPI-the complete reference, vol 1: the MPI core, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
26. Rai JK (2008) Fem-mill: a finite element based 3d transient milling simulation environment for process plan verification and optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne
27. Osher S, Fedkiw RP (2001) J Comput Phys 169(2):463. doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.663610.1006/jcph.2000.6636 ↗
28. Lervag KY, Muller B, Munkejord ST (2013) Comput Fluids 84:218. doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.06.00410.1016/j.compfluid.2013.06.004 ↗
29. Coupez T, Fourment L, Chenot J (1998) In: Ladevze P, Oden J (eds) Advances in adaptive computational methods in mechanics, studies in applied mechanics, vol 47. Elsevier, pp 365–381. doi: 10.1016/S0922-5382(98)80021-410.1016/S0922-5382(98)80021-4 ↗