4.6 Article

Numerical simulation and experimental study on the tube sinking of a thin-walled copper tube with axially inner micro grooves by radial forging

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 213, 期 6, 页码 987-996

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2012.12.002

关键词

Radial forging; Swaging; TCTAIG; Tube sinking; Finite element simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50975096, 51175186]
  2. Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [S2011010002225]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [2012ZZ0053]
  4. Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Planning Project of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current work presents a simulation and experimental study on the formation characteristics of sinking thin-walled copper tube with axially inner micro grooves (TCTAIG) through radial forging. A finite element (FE) model is established. The deformation of grooves, distribution of equivalent stress and strain, and the effects of process parameters are analyzed using a FE software. Experiments with the same parameter settings are compared with the simulations. The axial elongation and radial shrinkage of TCTAIG can be obtained. The grooves are twisted as helical lines in the sinking zone. The metal flows axially and tangentially. The maximal equivalent stress and strain occur at the bottom of the grooves. The equivalent strain increases as the step increases, and finally stays at a certain value: bottom of grooves, 0.9; outer surface, 0.8; and top of teeth, 0.3. The equivalent strain becomes more uniform, the force of dies reduces, and the elongation ratio decreases with increasing feed speed. The equivalent stress, force of dies, and axial pushing force increases rapidly with increasing shrinkage rate. Apparent collapse occurs and the surface quality of the forged part becomes worse at a low feed speed or a shrinkage rate of 50%. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据