Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s00170-011-3211-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Michel Guillot
Received: 19 May 2009 /Accepted: 31 January 2011 /Published online: 26 February 2011
M. Hrairi (*)
Nomenclature
Mechanical Engineering Department, International E()
Islamic University Malaysia, Youngs modulus as a
function of compact
Gombak, Malaysia
First order derivatives of
f the weighted penalty
density 1 functions with respect to
the parameters
q
Second order derivatives
of the weighted penalty
functions with respect to
Yield function of the the
Fs tension surface
parameters
Function Fs I 1 a qI1 g exp bI1 ep
f
2
H Elastoplastic
Yield function of the tangent moduli
shear surface I Fourth-order
in the shear failure surface equation
identity tensor
I1 First invariant of
Fc
stress tensor
Function Fc I 1; k s k; k k s k
2 J2 Second invariant
f3
of deviatoric stress tensor
I 1L k &
2 Yield function of the cap
surface J Jacobian matrix of
K() Bulk modulus as a
function of compact density
Number of parameters to
in the cap surface equation
be optimized
q Number of
constraints
cgljm
n, n+1 s
v
632 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 56:631647
Logarithmic strain
R volumetric
Relative density
Aspect ratio of the cap surface
0 Initial loose
Superscripts
state relative density
R Kirchhoff stress
Unbalanced load vector Cauchy stress tensor cal
calculated using finite
r z Weighted element
Residual vector penalty function e
elastic
r r r exp
1, 2, 3 x Tolerance for experimental
Material parameters describing the aspect convergence (specified k
positive number) iteration
s p
r
ratio of the cap surface R r1 r r2 3 w Non-negative weight pk plastic
Parameter correction
= Helmholtz
Deviatoric stress tensor free energy function
Cost function
* Objective
p function
tk s k s:s
Hardening parameter
Norm of the deviatoric stress tensor
li Plastic
consistency parameters T tangent
Levenberg-Marquardt parameter
Time t
() Trial trial or elastic
T Increment of a quantity prediction
Material parameter (tension cutoff) @
Partial derivative of a
u quantity 1 Introduction
Nodal displacement vector
Subscripts Powder metallurgy
W,D (P/M) has become
Material parameters for hardening rule 0 index for initial widely recognized as a
value robust process for
v
p
producing high-quality
1, 2, 3 indices for parts for a variety of
tension, shear and cap important applications.
failure surfaces This success is due to
the advantages the
" process offers over
respectively cap surface
geometric linearization other metal forming
technologies such as
forging and metal
index for the number of
casting; advantages in
constraints j=1,q
W 1 eDX k material utilization,
material
shape complexity, near-
net shape dimensional
Greek symbols indices for successive
control, among others [
,,, Material parameters for the shear failure Fs I 1 configurations shear
1]. The P/M process can
bI failure surface
a g e 1 qI1 be broken down into
three main manufacturing steps: mixing of the Since these models are a are naturally sensitive to
powder, compaction, and sintering. More than any simple extension of hydrostatic stress and
other operation, it is the compaction, which is classic elastoplasticity, consider the cohesion
generally performed using a set of punches and dies, they are consequently and friction among the
mounted onto a hydraulic or mechanical press that suitable to model the particles of granular
controls the practical application of powder behavior of powders in matter. As a result of the
metallurgy. The semi-finished product resulting from high-density zones but suggestion that the low
the compaction operation is a compact having a unfortunately cannot be strength of powder
used to model the first compacts in shear and
nearly final form but a very weak mechanical
tensile stress field must
resistance sufficient only to ensure its transfer to the stages of compression [
5]. Also, this type of be taken into account,
next step in the process: sintering.X models, such as the
model would require a
plasticity limit that is DruckerPrager cap
The modeling of the compaction operation is used to equivalent during model [ 6], the Cam
optimize not only this step, but ulterior steps as well. In compres-sion and Clay model [ 7], or the
recent years, several types of constitutive models have tension, which is not
DiMaggioSandler
been developed and applied in the analysis of the adequate for granular
compaction of metal powders. Most of the proposed model [ 8, 9] have been
mediums. Granular
constitutive models belong to one of the following two material models, adapted from soil
classes: porous material models and granular material originally developed for mechanics literature.
models. Porous material models are based on the These models are
rocks, soils, and other
classical von Mises model in which some modifications geological materials, are characterized by a yield
are introduced in order to account for the influence of based on a multiple yield criterion, a hardening
function and a flow rule
the hydrostatic pressures on the yield criterion [ 2 4]. criterion approach and
and theyX
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 56:631647
633
function, C is the
appropriate work conjugate pair of stress and strain fourth-order elasticity
measurements [ 25, 26]. The logarithmic strains tensor, I and 1 are the
fourth and second order surface
were chosen because they are the only measures that
identity tensors
permit an additive decomposition of the strain in the
e
respectively, G and K
large deforma-tion range into elastic ( ) and plastic are the shear and bulk
p
( ) deformation tensors [ 25 27].X moduli expressed as a f2=0
function of the powders
e p relative density .
"" " 1
Another main
For the chosen strain measure, the conjugate stress
component of the Capsurface
measure is the Kirchhoff stress which can be constitutive model is the
approxi-mated to the true Cauchy stress tensor in yield functions that
the case where elastic deformations are small separate the purely
compared to unity. The adopted stressstrain elastic behavior from f3=0
0 p p
bI
ge 1
6 L k
k if k > 0
7
k where FcI1
;
s
; k ksk 0 if k 0
X k k R Fs k
8
u
n1g
k
Km
12
Kg
R
n1g
Kl
f f
T
g
h
i k
h i 2
Solve for
k
T
where K m
3.2 Integration of the behavior law
displacement vector
The numerical integration procedure of the behavior model u
was completed according to the closest point projection n 1
Table 1
Algorithm for the finite element solver
0 f un1g
Rn1g
f Rn1g
Step
Set the iteration counter k to 0
Calculate the residual vector f
k
Step
1 Set k=k+1
Initialize the global Jacobian
K
T
0 k 1
and the nodal k
fu n1g
f un1g f un1g
;k
and
r
in addition
n1ep
@
ep
n 1 3
3
the residual @
"
l
Store all the material point i
variables
increment
schematic is based on the
algorithms proposed by
Simo et al. [ 32] for
implementation of the Cap
model. Since this is a multi- i1
surface elastoplasticity
model, there should be an
intermediate algorithmic
step between the elastic
prediction and the plastic
correction: that of the active
plasticity mode detection.X
If no convergence, then:
The numerical integration of
*For each element:
the behavior law is based on
the integration of the flow
*For each material integration point X
rule according to an implicit
Compute the strain increment
Euler scheme, with time
increment
Retrieve the material point variables sn; kn and rn t between the instants
Trial
I1 ;n1 I1;n 3K ep
H
"v;n1 f2=0 ds
19 n1
21
Trial
sn 1 sn 2G CapMode
e
n1 TensionCorner d"
f3=0
Tension
(
Trial
T
l
1;n1
Trial
T I1 ;n1
I
1;n1
9K
sTrial
Fs
T
l 0
2;n1
n1
l 0
3;n1
1
k
Trial
sn 1
k
Fs T
Tension corner
ITrial
1
T
l
1;n
8
1;n
2G
Trial
2G
Trial
T I1 ;n1
l
2
n
1
Trial
T I1 ;n1
l
1n
1
dFs T
>
F
s
T
<
s
n 1
< Fs
T
9K
;
dI1
<
9K dFs T =dI1
l 0
3;n1
>
Shear
:
I1Trial;n1
kn
l
1;n
1
0
T
Trial
Trial
I
1 ;n1
Fs T
I
<
1;n 1
Trial
k
l2 ;n 1
s
n1
k
Fs
>
s
n 1
2G
>
dFs T =dI1
l
3;n 1
>
>
>
>
k
n
Trial
<
Trial
I1;n 1
>
s
n1
< F
skn dFs kn =dI1
>
>
l
1;n
>
Compressive corner
>
Trial
>
Trial
:
I <k
1;n1 n
8
Trial
I1 ;n1
l
2;n 1
kI
n 1:n1
Trial
2G
kn
9KdFs
kn
=dI1
>
s
n
> Fs
kn
Trial
<
9K dFs k n=dI1
l
3;n1
s
n1
Fs k n
l
2;n1
Cap
>
Trial
kn
2G
:
Lkn
< I1
n
Trial
Trial
or
>X
kn
l
1;n
Trial
I
1;n 1
l
2;n1 p
<
s
n1
> Fc
I
1;n1
0
l
3;n 1
R2 F k
"v;n1 s n1
3 I1;n1 kn1
(r1, r2, r3) parameters for the surface and the hardening
approach, the parameter sets available do not reproduce real plasticity Cap model that law of the constitutive
practical situations. Thus, the identification of parameters are represented by the model are estimated by
using the inverse method directly from industrial produc-tion vector p=(E, G, T, a; b; g; means of inverse modeling,
components represents an attractive alternative to the the elastic parameters as
q, W, D, r1, r2, r3).
classical procedure since it emanates from practical sit- well as the shear failure
However, a sensitivity study parameters are
uations and avoids the hypothesis of homogenous defor- of the model showed that,
mation altogether [ 37, 38].X predetermined from an
when dealing with powder experimental material
compaction with no
4.1 Nonlinear optimization process characteriza-X
excessive distortion, only
the harden-ing law and cap
The optimization task is based on the LevenbergMar-quardt surface parameters exert a tion of the cap model [ 41].
algorithm [ 39, 40] in order to determine the parameter preponderant influence on Consequently, the parameter
corrections while the finite element solver handles the the final density prediction vector to be identified is
solution of the direct problem. The principal goal of this in the compact [ 41]. Thus, reduced to p=(W, D, r1, r2,
optimization process is to determine elasticity (E, G), failure only the parameters r3).X
surface (a; b; g; q), hardening law (W, D), and cap surface describing the cap failure
Estimating these parameters involves adjusting the is subject to constraints on
parameters in the finite element models until the calculated the parameters based on the
density vector
cal
coincides as the least square with the
2
i1
q q
26 @zj
the optimization process will
6 p 6p z jp stop and the final
optimization is achieved. The
k
parameter correction, p , at
X iteration k is calculated from g
j1
equations:
where the weighted penalty functions, zj, are the inverse
barrier functions: T
s 1; n
31
Jk Jk mkI hk
wj T
j 1; q dpk Jk rk gk @p s
27 29
z p where is Levenberg
j cj p
Marquardt damping
parameter (a non-negative
scalar), J is the Jacobian
6
i 1; m ; s 1; n
p k1 30
6 pk
<x @ps
28
@ps
2
@ zj
34
s; t
@p s @p t
1; n
35
A m I dp b
p
Ass A tt
37
dp
dps
p s
s 1; n 38
A
P
ss
(k)
Calculate the Jacobian matrix J using the finite differences method by solving n direct problems.
(k) (k)
Calculate the penalty function derivatives to form h and g
k k 1 k k
Solve Eq. 29 to determine the correction step to be applied to the parameters, dp and update the parameters p p dp X
k 1
and
(k+1) *(k+1)
Solve the direct finite element problem at p . Evaluate z j
*(k+1) *(k)
Check if <
k k
If false, increase and return to step 4c m 10 m
If true, stop
CAX4 shape function is
supplemented by placing
4.2.1 Finite element fine elements at the critical
regions of the part and by
manufactured by Domfer. The MP37HD powder grade used calculation of the answer the fact that the initial mesh
in this study was premixed with 0.375% Acrawax and was oriented in the direction
0.375% ST Lithium as lubricant and has a chemical Considering both loading
composition by weight of Cu 1.80%, graphite 0.75%, and the and geometric symmetries, of compaction (Fig. 4).X
balance is Fe. The industrial part, selected to apply the an axisymmetric element
inverse identification approach to, is one whose geometry needs to be used. Our The FE model consists of
and filling positions for the different tools are given in Fig. preliminary analyses only about 456 elements
3. It is an axisymmetrical part with two levels. The tooling, revealed that the eight-node and 591 nodes. We also
used in the manufacturing of this part comprises a die, a core CAX8 element has a place contact surfaces [ 42]
rod, an upper punch, and two lower punches.X problem with discontinuous at both the powder and tool
equivalent plastic strain at surfaces of Fig. 4. In
its mid-node. Thus, we use addition, since our main
The compaction sequence consists of four steps. The first the four node axisymmetric
two consist of the descent of upper punch 1 and lower punch element and two degrees of objective was the
2. Lower punch 1 stays fixed throughout the entire process. freedom per node CAX4 determination of the
During the third compaction phase, the die and core rod join which provides better compact"s density
the descent of the two punches. In the last step, only the die numerical stability distribution, the simplest
and the upper punch continue to descend. The compaction especially in the presence of and numerically cheapest
kinetics, described by the movement of the different tools way to achieve this was to
high nonlinearities [ 42]. impose nodal displacements
(position in mm), is given in Table 4.X
The lower degree of the atX
Corerod R C
24.5mm L
Upperpunch1 =
Lowerpunch1 14.98mm
Lowerpunch2 A
Fig. 3 Picture, geometry and tooling of the R=32.5mm Die
S 55.52mm
industrial part #1 e
12.7mm
640
Core rod
48
48
48
29.2
29.2
Die
48
48
48
29.2
22.6
Lower punch 1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
Lower punch 2
30.42
29.62
20.22
0
0
Upper punch 1
45.4
41.6
30.3
9.6
4.9
To this numerical
distribution, the
experimental distribution
the powder boundary node sets. Also, as it can be seen in Fig. 4,each one of the steps as
, determined using the
exp
large displacement contact with Coulomb friction was adopted indicated in Table 5. This
for the interface regions between the powder cavity and tooling table summarizes the number Vick-ers hardness method [
component sides. Moreover, since very small powder sliding of global equilibrium and 45], is correlated. It is
occurs on punch faces, tied (sticking) contact was adopted for contact iterations required by crucial that the initial guess
these interface regions. Both contact conditions were modeled the solver for each of the four of parameters is reasonable,
using the master-slave contact pair formulation in ABAQUS [ load increments. It also shows e.g., parameters for a
42]. This formula-tion requires the association of the master the average local iterations
different powder mix. The
surface with the stiffer interacting body (tooling component) needed at the integration
optimization procedure has
whereas the slave surface is associated with the second point level by the
to struggle with many local
deformable body (powder cavity). The friction coefficient was implemented algorithm. It is minima which may appear
clear that despite of the
assumed to be equal to 0.2 as in previous studies [ 43, 44] and far from physically
relatively large deformation
its reliability was verified by comparing simulated results with acceptable values. It is
increments, convergence of
experi-mental measurements as discussed in Section 5.X the closest point algorithm normally necessary to start
has required a relatively small the optimization from
Moreover, the initial relative density of the powder is number of iterations.X different starting points to
assumed to be uniformly spread and corresponds to a value check the behavior in the
of 36.5%. The applied load is translated into imposed motion 4.2.2 Parameters neighborhood of the
on the surface of the tools according to Table 4. The tool computed optimum. The
optimization
motion is imposed in increments. For each increment of initial parameter values
motion and for each element, the relative density of the were set close to the values
The optimization strategy obtained through the
powder at the integration points is calculated. Furthermore, consists of solving the direct
in the finite element calculation, the multi-criteria Cap type problem using an initial set traditional experimental pa-
constitutive model and the numerical integration schematic of the parameters, thus rameter estimation
procedure for another type
described above are used.X generating a calculated of powder, namely Distaloy
distribution of the final
AE [ 41].X
Furthermore, the four-step FE problem was solved by density of the compact, .
cal
ABAQUS with a relatively small number of increments for
deformed mesh surface)
Restrictedr
displacement Stickingcontact(slavesurface)
Imposedzdisplacement
Fig. 4 Boundary conditions and initial and
Stickingcontact(master Frictionalcontact(mastersurface)
Frictionalcontact(slave surface)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 56:631647
641
Statistic
Step 1
Step2
Step 3
Step 4
merical performance
Needed increments
17
18
18
18
5.2 Processing
of cost
0.030 0.015
ABAQUS is an FE solver capable of handling both 4
geometric and material nonlinearities, as well as the 8
frictional contact nonlinearities. One of its main advantages 12
is the open facility it offers for the definition of user material 16
models. In fact, the cap material model was
0
0.045 0.025
function Norm
0.040
Iteration
MP37HD
0.035
0.020 Fig. 5 Cost function evolution
642
0.93 MP37HD
4.5E-05
4.0E-05
0.91
3.5E-05
D
W
W
3.0E-05
Parameter
Parameter
0.89
D
2.5E-05
0.87
0.85
2.0E-05
1.5E-05
1
5
9
13
17
Iteration
implemented into
ABAQUS via the UMAT
facility that allows the user r2
to define a constitutive
model and implement its
numerical integration
algorithm as a FOR-TRAN
subroutine. Thus, UMAT is
called by the main program r1
at each element integration MP37HD
point within every
equilibrium iteration of
each load increment in the r3
deformation process. The
global FE problem was
solved using the classical
NewtonRaphson method
with a line-search algorithm
whereas the local material 0.900
integration was handled by
the closest point projection
algorithm.
0.800
5.3 Post-processing
The ABAQUS-Post
software is used mainly for
the visualization of the
predicted density maps
within the compacts. The
stress distribution, as well
as the deformed shape of
the tooling components,
could also be post-
processed by the same
software.
24
22
2
20
Parameter
18
0.700
,r
0.600
Parameters
16
0.500
0.400
12
14
1
5
13
17
0.300
Iteration
Meshing
Fig. 8 Integrated software framework for powder compaction simulation u material
Definepowd n
erand
tooling UMAT
parametersby
A
Graphical B
Identificatio inverse
nof A
macros materials B CapMaterialmodel
andfriction
coefficients
Boundaryregionselectionandidentification
interface N modeling
and o
boundary implementedinto
USER R
Transformth
eIdeas e
universal
file
I
IDEAS N
p
limits AbaqusUser
r
IDEQUS intoan
Abaqusinpu s
tfile oE
s MaterialRoutine
Definitionoftooling
Prescribethedisplacement
Generation
ofaFE
andpowdergeometries
sequenceofeachtool
minimum?
Boundary
Initialparameter
Yes
Experimentalsetup
calculation
Costfunction
estimates
conditions
Sensitivity
Material
Ta sure-ment of final core rod and die,
FEmodel bl density, is rather two upper
e insensitive to the punches and three
7, values of R (). lower punches. W
th Lower punch 1 0.864
As a result it is
e does not move, 0.847
hard to determine
inf lower punch 2 is 65.6
r1, r2, and r3 as mounted on a D
lu
en accurately as W spring, and there 0.4091E-4
and D. Therefore, is a level in upper 0.4418E-4
ce 8.0
of in addition to the punch 2.X
r
R( final density in 1
the compact, 0.621
) more measurable The compaction 1.148
su responses should sequence is made 1.45
parameters ms be taken into up of three steps. r2
to account in future During the first 16.7
research in order step, lower
4. 38
punches 2 and 3, 1.07
4 to accurately
r3
Parameterestimationstrategy
% determine all the as well as the two 0.383
co parameters of the upper punches, 0.208
m Cap plasticity begin to descend. 1.88
pa Lower punch 1
model.X
re remains fixed
d throughout the
6.2 Application of process. During
to
the results on an the second
a
industrial part
w
ho Table 7 Values and
pp The pressing of a relative importance
gear, as shown in of the iron powder
in parameters
g Fig. 10, is
65 simulated to
Parameter
.6 evaluate the Inverse method
Fig. 9 Flow-chart of the inverse method for
material parameters identification % estimated Classical tests
an material Contribution (%)
d parameters.
8 Manufacture of
% this part requires,
other than the
644
Corerod
Upperpunch1
Upperpunch2
Lowerpunch1
Lowerpunch2
Lowerpunch3
L
2.97
Die
11.45
8.09
2.01
.5
7.3
4.41
24.7
.6
a numerical, b experimental
A
A
C
C
Relativedensity(%)
Relativedensity(%)
63.5
D
65.1
80.5
66.8
81.0
68.5
|85.1 -82.8|=2.3%
81.6
B
70.1
82.2
71.8
82.8
73.5
75.1
83.4
76.8
|82.7 -80.7|=2.0%
84.0
78.5
84.6
80.1
85.2
81.8
83.5
85.7
85.1
86.3
PM part has been performed
material, geometric as well successfully thus
as contact nonlinearities. demonstrating the practical
While the last two industrial applications of the
However, one can notice a big discrepancy between the computational approach.
range of the relative density of simulation results which nonlinearities were handled
Indeed, a comparison
varies from 63.5% to 85.1% and that of the experimental dataautomatically by the between the experimental
which shows a variation between 80.5% and 86.38%. This ABAQUS FE solver, the results and those obtained
difference in range is seen only in the circled zone where first involves a material
model unavailable in by simulation, using
there is a sharp change of section (Fig. 11). The numerical parameters identi-fied
ABAQUS and hence the
simulation rightly predicts this important density gradient elastoplastic cap model had inversely, revealed that the
(63.580.1%). However, no local density measure-ments to be formulated and maximum absolute error
could be achieved in this region of the part. In fact, this integrated into the software between densities was found
region was fractured during its metallographic prepa-ration. in order to be able to to be 2.3% corresponding to
This fracture was predictable from the simulation results that simulate the behavior of the the precision of the
showed an important density gradient near this corner of the metal powder medium. The experimental method. Also,
part. Consequently, a global density measur-ing technique closest point projection the results from the current
was applied to the fractured region. The obtained value algorithm was used for the work show that inverse
(72%) agrees well with simulated results, stating that in that numerical integration of the modeling of the powder-
region, density varies between 63.5% and 80.1%X multisurface plasticity pressing experiment is a
model. Due to its flexibility viable method for deter-
Since the results obtained showed the desired degree of and capacity to represent all mining material parameters.
precision, the meshing initially proposed was deemed adequate the compaction stages, the It serves as an alternative to
and did not require further adjustment. The simulation of this cap material model was the already established
compaction sequence without the necessity for an intermediate shown to yield very good methods and is generally
meshing would not have been possible if the initial meshing had results as far as the final less expensive to carry out.
not been conceived as a function of the kinetics used in the density was the main The concept proposed in
manufacturing of this part. concern and despite the fact this work is a flexible
that the model was not approach for identification
completely characterized. of cap material model and
7 Conclusion This is however expectable can be useful to apply the
since the final density is results to metalworking
This work has been focused on a unified approach for mainly sensitive to the cap industry. The information
parameters identification of P/M specimens in powder hardening parameters which derived can be used for the
compaction process. Thus, it has created an integrated seem to have been correctly subsequent quantitative
simulation environment capable of using finite elements and identified. design as well as
inverse optimization to evaluate the density distribution optimization of the powder
resulting from the compaction process. The problem of rigid die Using this integrated metallurgy processes.
compaction of ductile metal powders involves simulation module, the
simulation of the
compaction of an industrial
646 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 56:631647
In the current work, the parameters describing the cap failure Wu CY, Ruddy OM, Bentham AC, Szantoa M, Bierb W, Fragec N,
surface and the hardening law of the constitutive model have Hancock BC, Best SM, Elliott JA Hartmannb S, Yosibash Z (2008)
(2005) Modeling the mechanical Experimental based finite
been determined. To be able to determine the elastic moduli behavior of pharmaceutical element simulation of cold
as a function of density and compacting pressure by means ofpowders during compaction. isostatic pressing of metal
inverse modeling, several unloading steps should be Powder Technol 152:107117 powders. Int J Mech Sci 50:405
incorporated in the experiment. This was not done in the 421
experiments carried out here, thus calls for further Wu CY, Hancock BC, Mills A,
investigations. It may be desirable also to have a separate Bentham AC, Best SM, Elliott JA Pizette P, Martin CL, Delette G,
(2008) Numerical and Sornay P, Sans F (2010)
experiment for the shear failure part of the model. Another experimental investigation of
research orientation will be the development of a 3D Compaction of aggregated
capping mechanisms during ceramic powders: from contact
simulation module, capable of modeling general non- pharmaceutical tablet laws to fracture and yield
axisymmetric applications. compaction. Powder Technol surfaces. Powder Technol
181:121129 198:240250
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Lynn Mason in editing this manuscript. Frenning G (2007) Analysis of Andersson DC, Larsson PL,
pharmaceutical powder compac- Cadario A, Lindskog P (2010)
tion using multiplicative On the influence from punch
hyperelasto-plastic theory. geometry on the stress
References Powder Technol 172:102112 distribution at powder
compaction. Powder Tech
German RM (1994) Powder metallurgy science. Metal Powder Gurson AL, Posteraro RA (1992) 202(13):7888
Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ Yield functions for metal
powders for use in the numerical Peric D (1992) On consistent
simulation of powder compac- stress rates in solid mechanics:
Gurson AL (1977) Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and
growth. Part I. Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. Transactions tion. TMS Conference, San computational implications. Int J
of the ASME. J Eng Mat Technol 99:215 Diego, CA Numer Methods Eng 33:799
817
Shima S, Oyane M (1976) Plasticity theory for porous materials. Int J
Mech Sci 18:285291 Peric D, Owen DRJ, Honnor ME
(1992) A model for finite strain
Chtourou H, Gakwaya A, Guillot
Gurson AL, McCabe J (1992) Experimental determination of yield elasto-plasticity based on
M (2002) Modeling of the metal
functions for compaction of blended metal powder. Adv Powder Metall powder compaction process logarithmic strains:
Part Mater 2:133147 computational issues. Comput
using the cap model. Part II:
Meth Appl Mech Eng 94:3561
numerical implementation and
Abou-Chedid G, Brown S (1992) On the mechanical behavior of metal practical applications. Int J
powder compaction. Adv Powder Metall Part Mater 2:110 Solids Struct 39:10771096 Chtourou H, Gakwaya A, Guillot
M, Hrairi M (1995) Implement-
ing a cap material model for the
Drucker D, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis on Erhart T, Wall WA, Ramm E
simulation of metal powder
limit design. Quart J Applied Math 10:157175 (2005) A robust computational
compaction. Net Shape
approach for dry powders under
Processing of Powder Materials,
quasi-static and transient impact
Schofield AN, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state solid mechanics. McGraw AMD-vol. 216, ASME, San
loadings. Comput Meth Appl
Hill, New York Fransisco, CA, pp. 1927
Mech Eng 194:41154134
DiMaggio, FL, Sandler, IS (1971) Material model for granular soils. J Alm O (1983) Mechanical testing
Rossi R, Alves MK, Al-Qureshi
Eng Mech Div 97:935950 of powders and powder
HA (2007) A model for the
compacts. Scand J Metall
simulation of powder compaction
Sandler IS, Rubin D (1979) An algorithm and a modular subroutine for processes. J Mater Process 12:302311
the Cap model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 3:173186 Technol 182:286296
Weber GG, Brown SB (1989)
Falgon D, Vidal-Salle E, Boyer JC, Peczalski R, Andrieu J (2005) Simulation of the compaction of
Khoei AR, Azami AR, Azizi S
Identification procedure of a hardening law for powder compaction. powder components. Adv
(2007) Computational modeling
Powder Technol 157:183190 Powder Metall Part Mater 1:105
of 3D powder compaction
118
processes. J Mater Process
Michrafy A, Ringenbacher D, Tchoreloff P (2002) Modeling the Technol 185:166172
Simo JC, Ortiz M (1985) A unified
compaction behavior of powders: application to pharmaceutical
approach to finite deformation
powders. Powder Technol 127:257266 Lee SC, Kim KT (2007) A study elastoplasticity based on the use of
on the Cap model for metal and hyperelastic constitutive equations.
Cunningham JC, Sinka IC, Zavaliangos A (2004) Analysis of tablet ceramic powder under cold Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng
compaction. I. Characterization of mechanical behavior of powder and compaction. Mater Sci Eng, A 49:222245
powder/tooling friction. J Pharm Sci 93:20222039 445 446:163169
Simo JC, Taylor RL (1986) A return mapping algorithm for plane stress thesis, University Joseph Fourier-
elastoplasticity. Int J Numer Methods Eng 22:649670 Grenoble I, Grenoble, France
Pavier E, Doremus P (1996)
Mechanical behaviour of a
Simo JC, Ju JW, Pister KS, Taylor RL (1988) Assessment of Cap model: lubricated iron powder. In: Cadle Gelin JC, Ghouati O (1995) An
consistent return algorithms and rate-dependent extension. J Eng Mech TM, Narasimhan KS (eds) inverse method for material
114:191218 Advances in powder metallurgy parameters estimation in the
and particulate materials1996. inelastic range. Comput Mech 16
Hofstetter G, Simo JC, Taylor RL (1993) A modified Cap model: closest Metal Pow-der Industries (3):143150
point solution algorithms. Comput Struct 46(2):203214 Federation, USA, pp 640
Mahnken R, Stein E (1996) A
Mosbah P (1995) Modeling and unified approach for parameter
Chtourou H, Gakwaya A, Guillot M (2002) Modeling of the metal
experimental study of metal identification of inelastic material
powder compaction process using the cap model. Part I: experimental
powders behaviour during models in the frame of the finite
material characterization and validation. Int J Solids Struct 39:1059 element method. Comput Meth
1075 comaction in closed die. Ph.D.
Appl Mech Eng 136:225258
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 56:631647
647
Levenberg K (1944) A method for the solution of certain nonlinear MPIF Standard 43 (1991).
problems in least squares. Quart Appl Math 2:164 168 Method for determination of
hardness of powder metallurgy
Marquardt DW (1963) An algorithm for least squares estimation of products, Princeton, NJ
nonlinear parameters. SIAM J Appl Math 11:431441