2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.08.134
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study on modified and optimized Zerilli-Armstrong and arrhenius-type constitutive models to predict the hot deformation behavior in 30Si2MnCrMoVE steel

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the well-known physically based models is the Zerilli-Armstrong (ZA) model 21 . In fact, the original ZA model does not take deformation parameters into account; therefore, an accurate prediction for the flow behavior is not certified, and some modifications are introduced 39 42 . Samantaray et al 43 introduced one of the famous modifications for the ZA model, in which the coupled effect between temperature and both strain and strain rate are considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the well-known physically based models is the Zerilli-Armstrong (ZA) model 21 . In fact, the original ZA model does not take deformation parameters into account; therefore, an accurate prediction for the flow behavior is not certified, and some modifications are introduced 39 42 . Samantaray et al 43 introduced one of the famous modifications for the ZA model, in which the coupled effect between temperature and both strain and strain rate are considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Still, this model requires more material parameters, which are not easy to obtain, and high experimental accuracy should be guaranteed. The constitutive model established by the neural network isn’t easily implemented in finite element modeling [ 15 , 16 ]. In contrast, phenomenological models contain fewer parameters, which are easy to determine, making them popular in the finite element study of metal-forming processes [ 17 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the Z-A model is a physical constitutive model [6][7][8] with small calculation, concise expressions, and higher accuracy than other physical instants, which can better account for the effects of strain rate, temperature, and strain on the flow stress. In recent years, some scholars have started to study various alloys using the Z-A model, and initial progress has been obtained [7,9]. Sim et al [10] used the Z-A and Khan-Huang-Liang instantonal models to predict the thermal deformation behavior of Ti-22Al-25Nb alloy at 950-1070°C and 0.001-1s -1 and found that the optimized Z-A and KHL models were better predictors under the current study conditions and other deformation conditions, and the correlation coefficient of the Z-A model and the average relative error improved from 0.9773 and 8.73% before optimization to 0.9896 and 6.14%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%