2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2015.12.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microstructural strain distribution in ductile iron; comparison between finite element simulation and digital image correlation measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
46
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
5
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They used models where the microstructure was considered as biphasic, and models with the nodules that were considered as holes, and demonstrated that it is not possible to consider graphite nodules as holes, because in addition to being unrealistic, such considerations decrease the intensification of the stress near of the graphite nodules. In the same sense, there is the work of Kasvayee et al [14] which studied the distribution of strains produced in a tensile test of a DCI; in their work, as Di Cocco does, demonstrated that the assumption of graphite nodules as holes in the microstructure is not valid, since taking into account this consideration occurred high deformations around all of the graphite nodules, unlike when the nodules are considered as solids, where the deformations were only located on some specific nodules. Therefore, the models that consider graphite nodules as holes, despise the effects on the mechanical properties of graphite in the microstructure of DCIs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…They used models where the microstructure was considered as biphasic, and models with the nodules that were considered as holes, and demonstrated that it is not possible to consider graphite nodules as holes, because in addition to being unrealistic, such considerations decrease the intensification of the stress near of the graphite nodules. In the same sense, there is the work of Kasvayee et al [14] which studied the distribution of strains produced in a tensile test of a DCI; in their work, as Di Cocco does, demonstrated that the assumption of graphite nodules as holes in the microstructure is not valid, since taking into account this consideration occurred high deformations around all of the graphite nodules, unlike when the nodules are considered as solids, where the deformations were only located on some specific nodules. Therefore, the models that consider graphite nodules as holes, despise the effects on the mechanical properties of graphite in the microstructure of DCIs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Table 1 shows the models obtained from four nodules (A, B, C and D) using the three different methods mentioned, besides the CSF est and E r values for each graphite nodule are shown, where the maximum errors are highlighted in bold. Regarding the models that are generated using a fixed Bézier degree for all the nodules, three different models were created with the following degrees: 4, 10, and 18. high CSFest values and high Er values, therefore do not approximate adequately to the geometry of the digital contours; on the other hand, as the curve degree increases (degree 10), the curves approximate to the contours obtained digitally preserving the smoothness that characterizes them, unlike the models that are obtained with commercial img2CAD software and the models that are obtained by another methodologies [11,14,16], where no smooth algorithms has been applied. Table 1.…”
Section: Geometric Comparison Of the Obtained Modelsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Once the matrix-nodule debonding is completed, the localized plastic strain is the driving mechanism for the development of ductile damage [17]. Fig.…”
Section: Micro-scale Damage Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%