<p>The thermal deformation behavior of FV520B stainless steel is investigated. Isothermal compression tests were conducted at temperatures ranging from 600 to 900&#xa0;°C and strain rates from 0.001 to 10&#xa0;s<sup>−1</sup>. The true stress–strain curves were corrected for friction and temperature due to the drum shape and adiabatic heating. The comparison shows that there is a large difference between the stress before and after the correction, which proves that the correction is necessary. Five constitutive models were developed: the original Arrhenius model, the strain correction Arrhenius model, a new modified Arrhenius model, the back propagation neural network model (BPNN) and the dandelion optimization BPNN model (DO-BPNN). The DO-BPNN model showed the highest prediction accuracy though it was more computationally intensive than the other models. The new modified Arrhenius model performed a better predictive capacity than the strain correction version, while it showed a negligible increase in the number of parameters and computational time. Although artificial neural network-based models exhibit superior accuracy compared to the Arrhenius models, their application in finite element simulations still faces notable challenges.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Improved constitutive model for FV520B steel on thermal deformation behavior

  • Ju-sen Li,
  • Yong-fei Wang,
  • Liang-yu Fei,
  • Wen-yu Zhu,
  • Yi-ming Zhang,
  • Fei Jiang,
  • Sheng-dun Zhao

摘要

The thermal deformation behavior of FV520B stainless steel is investigated. Isothermal compression tests were conducted at temperatures ranging from 600 to 900 °C and strain rates from 0.001 to 10 s−1. The true stress–strain curves were corrected for friction and temperature due to the drum shape and adiabatic heating. The comparison shows that there is a large difference between the stress before and after the correction, which proves that the correction is necessary. Five constitutive models were developed: the original Arrhenius model, the strain correction Arrhenius model, a new modified Arrhenius model, the back propagation neural network model (BPNN) and the dandelion optimization BPNN model (DO-BPNN). The DO-BPNN model showed the highest prediction accuracy though it was more computationally intensive than the other models. The new modified Arrhenius model performed a better predictive capacity than the strain correction version, while it showed a negligible increase in the number of parameters and computational time. Although artificial neural network-based models exhibit superior accuracy compared to the Arrhenius models, their application in finite element simulations still faces notable challenges.