Deep drawing behaviour of ultrafine grained copper: modelling and experiment
Source abstract
Abstract
Ultrafine grained materials produced by severe plastic deformation methods possess attractive mechanical properties such as high strength compared with traditional coarse grained counterparts and reasonable ductility. Between existing severe plastic deformation methods the Equal Channel Angular Pressing is the most promising for future industrial applications and can produce a variety of ultrafine grained microstructures in materials depending on route, temperature and number of passes during processing. Driven by a rising trend of miniaturisation of parts these materials are promising candidates for microforming processes. Considering that bi-axial deformation of sheet (foil) is the major operation in microforming, the investigation of the influence of the number of ECAP passes on the bi-axial ductility in micro deep drawing test has been examined by experiments and FE simulation in this study. The experiments have showed that high force was required for drawing of the samples processed by ECAP compare to coarse grained materials. The limit drawing ratio of ultrafine grained samples was in the range of 1.9–2.0 with ECAP pass number changing from 1 to 16, while a higher value of 2.2 was obtained for coarse grained copper. However, the notable decrease in tensile ductility with increase in strength was not as pronounced for bi-axial ductility. The FE simulation using standard isotropic hardening model and von Mises yielding criterion confirmed these findings.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Microstructure and mechanical properties · Metallurgy and Material Forming
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (12)
Show source-provided references
1. Geiger M, Kleiner M, Eckstein R et al (2001) Manuf Technol 50:44510.1016/S0007-8506(07)62991-6 ↗
2. Geiger M, Meßner A, Engel U (1997) Prod Eng 41:55
3. Valiev RZ, Langdon TG (2006) Rev Adv Mater Sci 13(1):15
4. Miyazaki S, Shibata K, Fujita H (1979) Acta Mater 27:85510.1016/0001-6160(79)90120-2 ↗
5. Michel JF, Picart P (2003) J Mater Process Technol 141:43910.1016/S0924-0136(03)00570-3 ↗
6. Raulea LV, Goijaerts AM, Govaert LE et al (2001) J Mater Process Technol 115:4410.1016/S0924-0136(01)00770-1 ↗
7. Kals TA, Eckstein R (2000) J Mater Process Technol 103:9510.1016/S0924-0136(00)00391-5 ↗
8. Lapovok R, McKenzie PWJ, Thomson PF et al (2007) J Mater Sci 42(5):1649. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0967-x10.1007/s10853-006-0967-x ↗
9. Lapovok R, Timokhina I, McKenzie PWJ et al (2008) J Mater Process Technol 200(1–3):44110.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.08.083 ↗
10. Dalla Torre F, Lapovok R, Sandlin J et al (2004) Acta Mater 52(16):481910.1016/j.actamat.2004.06.040 ↗
11. Marciniak Z, Duncan JL, Hu SJ (2002) Mechanics of sheet metal forming. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
12. Conrad H, Narayan J (2000) Scr Mater 42:102510.1016/S1359-6462(00)00320-1 ↗