Analysis of surface asperity flattening based on two different methods

Li, H; Öchsner, A; Ni, G; Wei, D; Jiang, Z

Analysis of surface asperity flattening based on two different methods

Li, H Öchsner, A Ni, G Wei, D

Jiang, Z

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 2016, 28 (6), pp. 1623 - 1634
Issue Date:: 2016-11-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Analysis of surface asperity flattening based on two different methods.pdf	Published Version	3.14 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Li, H	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Öchsner, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ni, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wei, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-8905	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Jiang, Z	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-11-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 2016, 28 (6), pp. 1623 - 1634	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0935-1175	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43987
dc.description.abstract	© 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. The stress state is an important parameter in metal forming processes, which significantly influences the strain state and microstructure of products, affecting their surface qualities. In order to make the metal products have a good surface quality, the surface stress state must be optimised. In this study, two classical methods, the upper bound method and the crystal plasticity finite element method, were investigated. The differences between the two methods were discussed in regard to the model, the velocity field, and the strain field. Then the related surface roughness is deduced.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s00161-016-0496-z	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Mechanical Engineering & Transports	en_US
dc.title	Analysis of surface asperity flattening based on two different methods	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	28	en_US
utslib.for	0915 Interdisciplinary Engineering	en_US
utslib.for	0102 Applied Mathematics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	28	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. The stress state is an important parameter in metal forming processes, which significantly influences the strain state and microstructure of products, affecting their surface qualities. In order to make the metal products have a good surface quality, the surface stress state must be optimised. In this study, two classical methods, the upper bound method and the crystal plasticity finite element method, were investigated. The differences between the two methods were discussed in regard to the model, the velocity field, and the strain field. Then the related surface roughness is deduced.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43987