0
Research Papers

Material Behavior Modeling in Machining Simulation of 7075-T651 Aluminum Alloy

[+] Author and Article Information
Shuhui Li

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital
Autobody Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: lishuhui@sjtu.edu.cn

Bo Hou

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital
Autobody Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 11, 2013; final manuscript received August 7, 2013; published online October 25, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Tetsuya Ohashi.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 136(1), 011001 (Oct 25, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: MATS-13-1059; doi: 10.1115/1.4025425 History: Received April 11, 2013; Revised August 07, 2013

Accurate modeling of workpiece material behavior in machining is critical to analyze and design a process. The workpiece material behavior in the machining process involves dynamic flow stress and damage/fracture behavior, which are very difficult to be determined. In this study, the extended split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) test is conducted to determine the dynamic flow stress curves of 7075-T651 aluminum alloy, which enables the strain, strain rate and the temperature obtained in the test to approach that in the cutting condition. A damage criterion under the typical stress state of orthogonal cutting is established to reflect the material damage initiation in primary shear zone. The damage criterion parameters of 7075-T651 alloy are determined by comparing the numerical and experimental results of the proposed inner high-pressure piercing fracture test. The orthogonal cutting test and simulation of 7075-T651 alloy are conducted. It is demonstrated that the determined flow stress and the established damage criterion produces realistic process outputs in agreement with experimental results.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Denkena, B., Boehnke, D., and de León, L., 2008, “Machining Induced Residual Stress in Structural Aluminum Parts,” Prod. Eng., 2, pp. 247–253. [CrossRef]
Lee, W.-S., Sue, W.-C., Lin, C.-F., and Wu, C.-J., 2000, “The Strain Rate and Temperature Dependence of the Dynamic Impact Properties of 7075 Aluminum Alloy,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 100, pp. 116–122. [CrossRef]
Shatla, M., Kerk, C., and Altan, T., 2001, “Process Modeling in Machining. Part I. Determination of Flow Stress Data,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 41, pp. 1511–1534. [CrossRef]
Guo, Y. B., 2003, “An Integral Method to Determine the Mechanical Behavior of Materials in Metal Cutting,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 142, pp. 72–81. [CrossRef]
Özel, T., and Zeren, E., 2006, “A Methodology to Determine Work Material Flow Stress and Tool-Chip Interfacial Friction Properties by Using Analysis of Machining,” J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 128, pp. 119–129. [CrossRef]
El-Magd, E., and Abouridouane, M., 2006, “Characterization, Modelling and Simulation of Deformation and Fracture Behaviour of the Light-Weight Wrought Alloys Under High Strain Rate Loading,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32, pp. 741–758. [CrossRef]
Recht, R. F., 1964, “Catastrophic Thermoplastic Shear,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 31, pp. 189–193. [CrossRef]
Van Luttervelt, C. A., 1997, “The Split Shear Zone-Mechanism of Chip Segmentation,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol.25(1), pp. 33–37.
Nakayama, K., Arai, M., and Kanda, T., 1988, Machining Characteristics of Hard Materials,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol., 37(1), pp. 89–92. [CrossRef]
Barry, J., Byrne, G., and Lennon, D., 2001, “Observations on Chip Formation and Acoustic Emission in Machining Ti-6Al-4V Alloy,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 41, pp. 1055–1070. [CrossRef]
Mabrouki, T., Girardin, F., Asad, M., and Rigal, J.-F., 2008, “Numerical and Experimental Study of Dry Cutting for an Aeronautic Aluminum Alloy (A2024-T351),” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 48, pp. 1187–1197. [CrossRef]
Guo, Y. B., Wen, Q., and Woodbury, K. A., 2006, “Dynamic Material Behavior Modeling Using Internal State Variable Plasticity and Its Application in Hard Machining Simulations,” J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 128, pp. 749–759. [CrossRef]
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P. E., 1976, “Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements,” Cem. Concr. Res., 6, pp. 773–782. [CrossRef]
Riddle, R. A., Streit, R. D., and Finnie, I., 1988, “The Failure of Aluminum Compact Shear Specimens Under Mixed-Mode Loading,” Proceedings of Fracture Mechanics: Eighteenth Symposium (ASTM STP 945), Boulder, CO, June 25–27, D. T.Read and R. P.Reed, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Paper No. STP23237S, pp. 118–133. [CrossRef]
Wu, Z.-G., Li, S.-H., Zhang, W.-G., and Wang, W.-R., 2010, “Ductile Fracture Simulation of Hydropiercing Process Based on Various Criteria in 3D Modeling,” Mater. Des., 31, pp. 3661–3671. [CrossRef]
Komanduri, R., 1982, “Some Clarifications on the Mechanisms of Chip Formation When Machining Titanium Alloys,” Wear, 76, pp. 15–34. [CrossRef]
Hou, B., Wu, Y. F., Li, S. H., Lin, Z.-Q., and Yu, Z.-Q., 2011, “A Comparative Study of Different Chip Separation Approaches for Numerical Modeling of Orthogonal Cutting,” Proceedings of SimulTech'2011, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, July 29–31, pp. 458–464.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cylindrical compression specimens of two kinds of dimensions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental true flow stress curves of 7075-T651 aluminum alloy at true strain rates of (a) 1400 s−1, (b) 3000 s−1, (c) 7000 s−1, (d) 16,000 s−1, and (e) 22,000 s−1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mechanics model of orthogonal cutting and stress state analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of the compression-torsion loading of thin-walled cylinder

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mechanics model of inner high-pressure piercing and stress state analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Tube hydropiercing tooling and hydroforming system. (a) Hydroforming system, (b) hydropiercing tools, and (c) hydropiercing punch.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The inner high-pressure piercing tool and insert

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

FE-model of the inner high-pressure piercing fracture test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of the constants of Mode II damage criterion on effective strain ɛ¯D where (a) C2 = 0.1, C1 = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 and (b) C1 = 0.1, C2 = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The predicted maximum principal strain contour with (a) C2 = 0.1, C1 = 0.1, (b) C2 = 0.1, C1 = 0.2, (c) C2 = 0.1, C1 = 0.3, and (d) C2 = 0.1, C1 = 0.4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The predicted maximum principal strain contour with (a) C1 = 0.1, C2 = 0.2, (b) C1 = 0.1, C2 = 0.3, and (c) C1 = 0.1, C1 = 0.4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The predicted sheared surface with (a) C1 = 0.1, C2 = 0.1, (b) C1 = 0.1, C2 = 0.2, and (c) experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Schematic of the orthogonal cutting test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

The orthogonal cutting test setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Chip morphology for Vc = 400 m/min and feed rate of (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Chip morphology for Vc = 600 m/min and feed rate of (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Chip morphology for Vc = 800 m/min and feed rate of (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

FE-model of the orthogonal cutting process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Chip formation simulation and experimental results with Vc = 400 m/min and different feed rates: (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Chip formation simulation and experimental results with Vc = 600 m/min and different feed rates: (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Chip formation simulation and experimental results with Vc = 800 m/min and different feed rates: (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of the predicted average cutting force and the experimental data at feed rates of (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

The predicted temperature field distribution at tool-chip interface with Vc = 800 m/min and different feed rates: (a) 0.1 mm/rev, (b) 0.2 mm/rev, and (c) 0.3 mm/rev

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In