Thermal effects of direct-liquid-cooled split disk laser

Yang, Huajun

doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2022.107945

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The manufacturing of ductile materials via high-speed machining, such as drilling, milling, friction stir welding, and explosive welding, often leads to strain rates of the deforming material higher than 10 5 s −1 [1]. A given material can also experience a wide range of temperatures, from cryogenic to melting point, in manufacturing processes such as cryogenic machining [2] and laser ablation [3][4][5][6]. Similar or even more severe loading rates and temperature conditions are involved when ductile materials encounter ballistic or high-speed impacts [7], penetration [8], blasting, and explosion [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow Stress Description Characteristics of Some Constitutive Models at Wide Strain Rates and Temperatures

Shin

Choi

et al. 2022

Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The commonly employed mathematical functions in constitutive models, such as the strain hardening/softening model, strain-rate hardening factor, and temperature-softening factor, are reviewed, and their prediction characteristics are illustrated. The results may assist one (i) to better understand the behavior of the constitutive model that employs a given mathematical function; (ii) to find the reason for deficiencies, if any, of an existing constitutive model; (iii) to avoid employing an inappropriate mathematical function in future constitutive models. This study subsequently illustrates the flow stress description characteristics of twelve constitutive models at wide strain rates (from 10−6 to 106 s−1) and temperatures (from absolute to melting temperatures) using the material parameters presented in the original studies. The phenomenological models considered herein include the Johnson–Cook, Shin–Kim, Lin–Wagoner, Sung–Kim–Wagoner, Khan–Huang–Liang, and Rusinek–Klepaczko models. The physically based models considered are the Zerilli–Armstrong, Voyiadjis–Abed, Testa et al., Steinberg et al., Preston–Tonks–Wallace, and Follansbee–Kocks models. The illustrations of the behavior of the foregoing constitutive models may be informative in (i) selecting an appropriate constitutive model; (ii) understanding and interpreting simulation results obtained using a given constitutive model; (iii) finding a reference material to develop future constitutive models.

show abstract