Abstract

In this study, a crystal plasticity finite element method (CPFEM) model was used to study the deformation behaviour in an aluminium single crystal (1 1 2)[1 1 -1] processed by accumulative roll-bonding (ARB) up to 9 cycles. The simulation followed the real ARB process based on the developed finite element model. The predicted through-thickness texture matches well with the experimental observations. The deformation behaviours, in terms of crystal rotation, shear strain and slip system activation, in the first and second cycles (conventional rolling) were unidirectional, but the deformation was altered after ARB was applied from the third cycle onwards. Such alteration was found to be caused by the thickness position change and deformation discontinuity at interfaces, which were investigated in detail. The role that interfaces play became dominant over thickness position change as increasing ARB cycles.

Highlights

  • Accumulative roll-bonding (ARB), a severe plastic deformation (SPD) method, has been extensively applied to fabricate ultra-fine or even nanocrystalline grained materials[1,2]

  • The main advantage of the ‘full-field’ crystal plasticity finite element method (CPFEM) model over those above mentioned CP models is no homogenization assumption[7], in which the crystal plasticity constitutive model is incorporated into the finite element method (FEM) framework

  • Non-uniform through-thickness deformation and cutting-stacking in accumulative rollbonding (ARB) would result in misorientation angles at the bonded interfaces[15,16], as shown later in this study, and the deformation behaviour at the interfacial boundaries can be simulated by the CPFEM model because of its capability to access inter-grain interaction[8]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Accumulative roll-bonding (ARB), a severe plastic deformation (SPD) method, has been extensively applied to fabricate ultra-fine or even nanocrystalline grained materials[1,2]. Non-uniform through-thickness deformation and cutting-stacking in ARB would result in misorientation angles at the bonded interfaces[15,16], as shown later in this study, and the deformation behaviour at the interfacial boundaries can be simulated by the CPFEM model because of its capability to access inter-grain interaction[8]. The ARB simulation in ref.[2] was based on an elasto-plastic material constitution law without considering texture, while a VPSC model was used in ref.[7] but it only simulated up to 2 cycles. Li et al.[4] modelled the texture at the surface, centre and quarter up to 5 cycles with the ALAMEL model, but the simulation did not follow the real multi-cycle ARB. According to the authors’ best knowledge, no CPFEM simulation following the real ARB has been conducted up to a large cycle number (≥5)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call