Investigation and Comparison of Heat Transfers Analysis Used in Commercial FEM for Metal Forming

Abstract:

During an Aluminium extrusion process, the extrusion parameters, i.e. friction, heat transfer, etc. are significantly influence by the temperature gradients produced in the billet during transfer to the container and after upsetting the container. The heat transfer at the tool/billet interface governs the temperature profile throughout the billet and tools during extrusion and consequently has a critical influence on the results. Although FEM technique offers great potential, care must be taken when applying the analysis to the hot extrusion of rate sensitive alloys. The most useful approach of an FEM simulation would thus be to include both the tooling and the billet in the calculation as discretised meshes. Because of the occurrence of the conductive and convective heat transfer, the deformation during hot extrusion is not adiabatic and estimation of the temperature increase is alloy dependent. The aim of this paper is to investigate and to compare how commercial FEM codes assign and deal with the heat transfer parameter at the tool/material interface. Three commercial FEM codes were investigated and compared; Simufact, Deform and Forge. The usefulness and limitation when using commercial FEM codes are discussed. Methods to assess difficulty of comparison are presented. The work illustrates the essentials of numerical analysis in the comprehension of the thermo-mechanical events occurring during large deformation. Results are presented for velocity distribution and temperature evolution in both materials and tools. It is shown that the heat transfer parameter to be extremely sensitive when attempting to simulate the hot deformation. Moreover, the accuracy of the results does not only depended on the geometric definition of the tooling and material data but also the governing boundary conditions between the material and tooling.

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volumes 773-774)
• Pages: 176-185
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.773-774.176
• Online since: November 2013
• Authors: Isaac Flitta, Thomas Hatzenbichler, Bruno Buchmayr
• Keywords: Aluminum (Al), DEFORM, Finite Element Method (FEM), FORGE, Metal Forming, Simufact

References

[1] I. Flitta, Sheppard T and Peng Z, FEM analysis to predict development of structure during extrusion and subsequent solution soak cycle, Journal Materials Science and Technology, 23(5), May 2007 , pp.582-592(11) (2007)

DOI: 10.1179/174328407x158668

[2] Scientific Forming Technologies Corp. DeformTM 2D User's Manual: Version 9.1, Ohio,20

[3] Transvalor SA User's guide Forge2007, Mougins Cedex, 2007.

[4] Simufact Engineering GmbH. simufactforming User's Manual: Version 9.0, Hamburg, 2010.

[5] T. Hatzenbichler O. Harrer, S. Wallner, F. Planitzer M. Kuss, R. Pschera and B. Buchmayr

DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2011.12.020

[6] (2012) "Deviation of the results obtained from different commercial finite element solvers due to friction formulation. Tribology International (2012)

DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2011.12.020

[7] Sellars, C.M. and D. Tegart. (1972), Hot Workability. International Metallurgical reviews Vol. 17

DOI: 10.1179/imtlr.1972.17.1.1

[8] T. Sheppard, and D. Wright (1979). Determination of Flow Stress: Constitutive equation for Aluminium Alloys at Elevated Temperatures. Metal Technology. 6(6), pp.215-223.

DOI: 10.1179/030716979803276264

[9] T. Sheppard, and A. Jackson. (1997). Constitutive equations for use in prediction of flow stress during extrusion of aluminium alloys. Materials Science and Technology. Vol. 13, pp.203-209.

DOI: 10.1179/mst.1997.13.3.203