Abstract
This article presents two methods to determine pressing forces to the M1 copper plate. The first approach employs the upper-bound method, and the second method combines numerical simulation with a central composite design. The upper-bound method uses physical analysis to determine the deformation zone and establish the division of the rigid block model. The findings were identical to the slip-line solution method. The results obtained from the three-dimensional simulation performed using Qform software combined with a central composite design have provided regression equations that help determine the force and punching pressure. The impact of each parameter on the pressing force is similar in both approaches, and the difference between the two methods is insignificant and falls within a dependable range.
Publisher
Academy of Military Science and Technology
Reference12 articles.
1. [1]. V. M. Segal, V. I. Reznikov, A. E. Dobryshevshiy, and V. I. Kopylov, “Plastic working of metals by simple shear,” Russ. Metall., vol. 1, pp. 99–105, (1981).
2. [2]. R. Valiev, “Nanostructuring of metallic materials by SPD processing for advanced properties,” Int. J. Mater. Res., vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 757–761, (2009), doi: 10.3139/146.110095.
3. [3]. V. V Stolyarov, Y. T. Zhu, I. V Alexandrov, T. C. Lowe, and R. Z. Valiev, “Influence of ECAP routes on the microstructure and properties of pure Ti,” vol. 299, pp. 59–67, (2001).
4. [4]. V. M. Segal, “Slip line solutions, deformation mode, and loading history during equal channel angular extrusion,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, vol. 345, no. 1–2, pp. 36–46, (2003), doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00258-7.
5. [5]. A. V. Perig, “2D upper bound analysis of ecae through 2θ-Dies for a range of channel angles,” Mater. Res., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1226–1237, (2014), doi: 10.1590/1516-1439.268114.