0
Research Papers

Influence of Inhomogeneous Deformation on Tensile Behavior of Sheets Processed Through Constrained Groove Pressing

[+] Author and Article Information
Sunil Kumar

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: mez158170@iitd.ac.in

S. Venkatachalam

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: aerovenkat74@gmail.com

Hariharan Krishnaswamy

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: hariharan@iitm.ac.in

Ravi Kumar Digavalli

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: dravi@mech.iitd.ac.in

H. S. N. Murthy

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: mhsn@iitm.ac.in

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology. Manuscript received November 29, 2018; final manuscript received April 3, 2019; published online May 9, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Huiling Duan.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(4), 041007 (May 09, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: MATS-18-1312; doi: 10.1115/1.4043492 History: Received November 29, 2018; Accepted April 08, 2019

Constrained groove pressing (CGP) is a severe plastic deformation technique to produce the ultra-fine grained sheet. The inhomogeneous strain distribution and geometry variation induce differential mechanical properties in the processed sheet. The improved mechanical properties of CGP sheets is due to the composite effect of weak and strong regions formed by geometric and strain inhomogeneities. Weaker regions exhibit large strain, lower yield strength, and higher strain hardening compared to stronger regions. The estimation of mechanical properties is influenced by these defects leading to the difference in the mechanical properties along different orientations. Experimental investigation revealed that the commonly used tensile samples cut perpendicular to the groove orientation exhibit variation in thickness along the gauge length affecting the results from tensile tests. To further understand the effect of geometric variation, a typical CGP specimen was reverse engineered and finite element (FE) simulation was performed using the actual geometry of the CGP processed specimen. The strain distribution from FE simulation was validated experimentally using the digital image correlation data. Based on the numerical and experimental studies, miniature specimens were designed to eliminate the geometric effects from the standard parallel specimen. Miniature parallel specimens showed lower yield strength and total elongation compared to the standard specimens. However, the statistical scatter of total elongation of the miniature specimens was much less than that of the standard specimens, indicating better repeatability. Probably this is the first study to quantify the contribution of composite geometric effect in the mechanical properties of CGP.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Shin, D. H., Park, J.-J., Kim, Y.-S., and Park, K.-T., 2002, “Constrained Groove Pressing and Its Application to Grain Refinement of Aluminum,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 328(1–2), pp. 98–103. [CrossRef]
Lee, J., and Park, J., 2002, “Numerical and Experimental Investigations of Constrained Groove Pressing and Rolling for Grain Refinement,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 130, pp. 208–213. [CrossRef]
Khodabakhshi, F., Kazeminezhad, M., and Kokabi, A., 2010, “Constrained Groove Pressing of Low Carbon Steel: Nano-Structure and Mechanical Properties,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527(16–17), pp. 4043–4049. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z.-S., Guan, Y.-J., Wang, G.-C., and Zhong, C.-K., 2015, “Influences of Die Structure on Constrained Groove Pressing of Commercially Pure Ni Sheets,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 215, pp. 205–218. [CrossRef]
Gupta, A. K., Maddukuri, T. S., and Singh, S. K., 2016, “Constrained Groove Pressing for Sheet Metal Processing,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 84, pp. 403–462. [CrossRef]
Peng, K., Su, L., Shaw, L. L., and Qian, K.-W., 2007, “Grain Refinement and Crack Prevention in Constrained Groove Pressing of Two-Phase Cu–Zn Alloys,” Scr. Mater., 56(11), pp. 987–990. [CrossRef]
Mou, X., Peng, K., Zeng, J., Shaw, L. L., and Qian, K.-W., 2011, “The Influence of the Equivalent Strain on the Microstructure and Hardness of H62 Brass Subjected to Multi-Cycle Constrained Groove Pressing,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 211(4), pp. 590–596. [CrossRef]
Yadav, P. C., Sinhal, A., Sahu, S., Roy, A., and Shekhar, S., 2016, “Microstructural Inhomogeneity in Constrained Groove Pressed Cu-Zn Alloy Sheet,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 25(7), pp. 2604–2614. [CrossRef]
Yoon, S. C., Krishnaiah, A., Chakkingal, U., and Kim, H. S., 2008, “Severe Plastic Deformation and Strain Localization in Groove Pressing,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 43(4), pp. 641–645. [CrossRef]
Kumar, S. S., and Raghu, T., 2011, “Tensile Behaviour and Strain Hardening Characteristics of Constrained Groove Pressed Nickel Sheets,” Mater. Des., 32(8–9), pp. 4650–4657. [CrossRef]
Lockwood, W. D., Tomaz, B., and Reynolds, A. P., 2002, “Mechanical Response of Friction Stir Welded AA2024: Experiment and Modeling,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 323(1–2), pp. 348–353. [CrossRef]
Genevois, C., Deschamps, A., and Vacher, P., 2006, “Comparative Study on Local and Global Mechanical Properties of 2024 T351, 2024 T6 and 5251 O Friction Stir Welds,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 415(1–2), pp. 162–170. [CrossRef]
He, C., Huang, C., Liu, Y., Li, J., and Wang, Q., 2015, “Effects of Mechanical Heterogeneity on the Tensile and Fatigue Behaviours in a Laser-Arc Hybrid Welded Aluminium Alloy Joint,” Mater. Des. (1980–2015), 65, pp. 289–296. [CrossRef]
ASTM International, 2016, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Technical Report, Report No. ASTM E8 / E8M - 13.
Zhao, Y., Liao, X., Zhu, Y., Horita, Z., and Langdon, T., 2005, “Influence of Stacking Fault Energy on Nanostructure Formation Under High Pressure Torsion,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 410, pp. 188–193. [CrossRef]
Hosseini, E., and Kazeminezhad, M., 2011, “A New Microstructural Model Based on Dislocation Generation and Consumption Mechanisms Through Severe Plastic Deformation,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 50(3), pp. 1123–1135. [CrossRef]
Yapici, G. G., Karaman, I., and Maier, H. J., 2006, “Mechanical Flow Anisotropy in Severely Deformed Pure Titanium,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 434(1–2), pp. 294–302. [CrossRef]
Kumar, S. S., and Raghu, T., 2014, “Structural and Mechanical Behaviour of Severe Plastically Deformed High Purity Aluminium Sheets Processed by Constrained Groove Pressing Technique,” Mater. Des., 57, pp. 114–120. [CrossRef]
Nazari, F., and Honarpisheh, M., 2018, “Analytical Model to Estimate Force of Constrained Groove Pressing Process,” J. Manuf. Process., 32, pp. 11–19. [CrossRef]
Zrnik, J., Kovarik, T., Novy, Z., and Cieslar, M., 2009, “Ultrafine-Grained Structure Development and Deformation Behavior of Aluminium Processed by Constrained Groove Pressing,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 503(1–2), pp. 126–129. [CrossRef]
Leitão, C., Galvão, I., Leal, R., and Rodrigues, D., 2012, “Determination of Local Constitutive Properties of Aluminium Friction Stir Welds using Digital Image Correlation,” Mater. Design, 33, pp. 69–74. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Tensile specimen as per ASTM standard for both materials and miniaturized tensile specimen design for (b) low carbon steel and (c) aluminum (all dimensions are represented in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Finite element meshed model of perpendicular tensile specimen with boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tensile specimens from CGP processed samples of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum with surface unevenness and cracks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) A 3D scanned CGP processed sample, (b) section of the scanned geometry indicating surface unevenness, and (c) extracted tensile specimens along and perpendicular direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Scanning electron microscopic images of the CGP processed low carbon steel sample in the thickness direction indicating the surface defects such as (a) surface uneven profile, (b) cracks on the top edge, and (c) cracks on the lower edge after the fifth pass

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Stress–strain curves of CGP processed standard (ASTM E8M) specimens of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Variation of yield strength (YS), ultimate strength (UTS), and uniform elongation (UE) ratio with pass number of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic of the CGP processed sample with deformed regions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The variation of strain with transverse distance of perpendicular tensile specimens of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Inhomogeneous variation of hardness and surface strain with transverse distance of CGP processed sample of low carbon steel after one pass

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Local stress–strain distributions of a perpendicular tensile specimen of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum materials of different regions and comparison with average curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Perpendicular tensile specimen incorporated in simulation with partitioned regions to assign local properties

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Variation of strain distribution with distance for a typical experiment using DIC and finite element model of (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel tensile specimen of low carbon steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Strain distribution map of a perpendicular tensile specimen of low carbon steel using (a) DIC and (b) finite element simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Strain distribution map of a parallel tensile specimen of low carbon steel using (a) DIC and (b) finite element simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Schematic of the standard parallel tensile specimen with loading and the left-side plane view indicating the bending moment during tensile test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The comparison of tensile behavior using standard and miniature tensile specimen of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Variation of yield strength and uniform elongation with pass number of the CGP processed sample of (a) low carbon steel and (b) aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Variation of total elongation with pass number of miniature and standard specimens from the CGP processed sheet of low carbon steel and aluminum

Tables

Errata

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