A Comparative Study on Johnson–Cook, Modified Johnson–Cook, Modified Zerilli–Armstrong and Arrhenius-Type Constitutive Models to Predict Hot Deformation Behavior of TA2
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The true strain data and true stress data are obtained from the isothermal compression tests under a wide range of strain rates (0.1–20 s −1 ) and temperatures (933–1,133 K) over the Gleeble-3500 thermomechanical simulator. The data are employed to generate the constitutive equations according to four constitutive models, respectively, the strain-compensated Arrhenius-type model, the modified Zerilli–Armstrong (ZA) model, the modified Johnson–Cook (JC) model and the JC model. In the meanwhile, a comparative research was made over the capacities of these four models and hence to represent the elevated temperature flow behavior of TA2. Besides, a comparison of the accuracy of the predictions of average absolute relative error, correlation coefficient ( R ) and the deformation behavior was made to test the sustainability level of these four models. It is shown from these results that the JC model is not suitable for the description of flow behavior of TA2 alloy in α + β phase domain, while the predicted values of modified JC model, modified ZA model and the strain-compensated Arrhenius-type model could be consistent well with the experimental values except under some deformation conditions. Moreover, the strain-compensated Arrhenius-type model can be also used to track the deformation behavior more precisely in comparison with other models.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metallurgy and Material Forming · High Temperature Alloys and Creep · Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Metallurgy Engineering , Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology , Xi’an , China
National & Local Engineering Researching Center for Functional Materials Processing , Xi’an , China
Xi’an Saite Metal Materials Development Co., LTD , Northwest Institute for Nonferrous Metal Research , Xi’an , China
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. J.H. Su, Y.W. Han, F.Z. Ren, S.Z. Wei and Z.Q. Chan, Cailiao Rechuli Xuebao., 35 (2014) 196–200.
2. Z. Zeng, Y. Zhang and S. Jonsson, Mater. Des., 30 (2009) 3105–3111.10.1016/j.matdes.2008.12.00210.1016/j.matdes.2008.12.002 ↗
3. Y.Y. Zong, Y.C. Liang, Z.W. Yin and D.B. Shan, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy., 37 (2012) 13631–13637.10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.03610.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.036 ↗
4. H.Y. Li, Y.H. Li, D.D. Wei, J.J. Liu and X.F. Wang, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 530 (2011) 367–372.10.1016/j.msea.2011.09.09710.1016/j.msea.2011.09.097 ↗
5. P. Changizian, A. Zarei-Hanzaki and A.A. Roostaei, Mater. Des., 39 (2012) 384–389.10.1016/j.matdes.2012.02.04910.1016/j.matdes.2012.02.049 ↗
6. C. Li, M. Wan, X.D. Wu and L. Huang, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 527 (2010) 3623–3629.10.1016/j.msea.2010.02.04710.1016/j.msea.2010.02.047 ↗
7. Y. Han, G. Qiao, J.P. Sun and D. Zou, Comput. Mater. Sci., 67 (2013) 93–103.10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.07.02810.1016/j.commatsci.2012.07.028 ↗
8. D. Samantaray, S. Mandal and A.K. Bhaduri, Mater. Des., 31 (2010) 981–984.10.1016/j.matdes.2009.08.01210.1016/j.matdes.2009.08.012 ↗
9. H.J. Mcqueen and N.D. Ryan, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 322 (2002) 43–63.10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01117-010.1016/S0921-5093(01)01117-0 ↗
10. Y.J. Qin, Q.L. Pan, Y.B. He, W.B. Li, X.Y. Liu and X. Fan, Adv. Manuf. Process., 25 (2010) 527–533.10.1080/1042691090318001110.1080/10426910903180011 ↗
11. Z.W. Yuan, F.G. Lin, H.J. Qiao, M.L. Xiao, J. Cai and J. Li, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 578 (2013) 260–270.10.1016/j.msea.2013.04.09110.1016/j.msea.2013.04.091 ↗
12. S. Varoutis, S. Naris, V. Hauer, C. Day and D. Valougeorgis, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 527 (2009) 328–333.10.1016/j.msea.2009.08.008
13. J. Lin and Y. Liu, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 143 (2003) 281–285.10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00472-2 ↗
14. X. He, Z. Yu, G. Liu, W. Wang and X. Lai, Mater. Des., 30 (2009) 166–169.10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.04610.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.046 ↗
15. D. Samantaray, S. Mandal and A.K. Bhaduri, Comput. Mater. Sci., 47 (2010) 568–576.10.1016/j.commatsci.2009.09.025 ↗
16. A.K. Gupta, V.K. Anirudh and S.K. Singh, Mater. Des., 43 (2013) 410–418.10.1016/j.matdes.2012.07.00810.1016/j.matdes.2012.07.008 ↗
17. A. Abbasi-Bani, A. Zarei-Hanzaki, M.H. Pishbin and N. Haghdadi, Mech. Mater., 71 (2014) 52–61.10.1016/j.mechmat.2013.12.00110.1016/j.mechmat.2013.12.001 ↗
18. Y.C. Lin and X.M. Chen, Mater. Des., 32 (2011) 1733–1759.10.1016/j.matdes.2010.11.04810.1016/j.matdes.2010.11.048 ↗
19. D. Samantaray, S. Mandal, U. Borah, A.K. Bhaduri and P.V. Sivaprasad, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 526 (2009) 1–6.10.1016/j.msea.2009.08.00910.1016/j.msea.2009.08.009 ↗
20. H. Zhan, G. Wang, D. Kent and M. Dargusch, Mater. Sci. Eng., A., 612 (2014) 71–79.10.1016/j.msea.2014.06.03010.1016/j.msea.2014.06.030 ↗
21. C.M. Sellars and W.J. Mctegart, Acta Metall., 14 (1966) 1136–1138.10.1016/0001-6160(66)90207-0 ↗
22. P. Geng, G. Qin, J. Zhou and Z. Zou, J. Manuf. Process., 32 (2018) 469–481.10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.03.01710.1016/j.jmapro.2018.03.017 ↗
23. Y.C. Lin, M.S. Chen and J. Zhong, Comput. Mater. Sci., 42 (2008) 470–477.10.1016/j.commatsci.2007.08.01110.1016/j.commatsci.2007.08.011 ↗
24. Y.B. Tan, Y.H. Ma and F. Zhao, J. Alloys Compd., 741 (2018) 85–96.10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.12.265 ↗
25. Y. Zhang, H.L. Sun, A.A. Volinsky, B.H. Tian, K.X. Song, B.J. Wang and Y. Liu, Vacuum., 146 (2017) 35–43.10.1016/j.vacuum.2017.09.01710.1016/j.vacuum.2017.09.017 ↗