Comparisons Between 2D and 3D MPFEM Simulations in Modeling Uniaxial High Velocity Compaction Behaviors of Ti-6Al-4V Powder

• Published in: Archives of metallurgy and materials Vol. 67; no. 1; pp. 57 - 65
• Main Authors: Zhou, Jian, Xu, Hongkun, Zhu, Chenyu, Wang, Bin, Liu, Kun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Polish; English
• Published: Warsaw Polish Academy of Sciences 26.05.2021
• Subjects: Compacts; Densification; Dependence; Dimensional analysis; Energy; Experiments; Finite element analysis; Finite element method; impact energy per unit mass; multi-particle finite element method; Packing density; powder compaction; Powder metallurgy; relative green density; Simulation; Three dimensional models; ti-6al-4v; Titanium alloys; Titanium base alloys; True strain; Two dimensional models; Velocity
• ISSN: 2300-1909; 1733-3490; 2300-1909
• DOI: 10.24425/amm.2022.137472

Multi-particle finite element method (MPFEM) simulation has been proven an efficient approach to study the densification behaviors during powder compaction. However, comprehensive comparisons between 2D and 3D MPFEM models should be made, in order to clarify which dimensional model produces more accurate prediction on the densification behaviors. In this paper, uniaxial high velocity compaction experiments using Ti-6Al-4V powder were performed under different impact energy per unit mass notated as Em. Both 2D and 3D MPFEM simulations on the powder compaction process were implemented under displacement control mode, in order to distinguish the differences. First, the experimental final green density of the compacts increased from 0.839 to 0.951 when Em was increased from 73.5 J/g to 171.5 J/g. Then detailed comparisons between two models were made with respect to the typical densification behaviors, such as the density-strain and density-pressure relations. It was revealed that densification of 2D MPFEM model could be relatively easier than 3D model for our case. Finally, validated by the experimental results, 3D MPFEM model generated more realistic predictions than 2D model, in terms of the final green density’s dependence on both the true strain and Em. The reasons were briefly explained by the discrepancies in both the particles’ degrees of freedom and the initial packing density.