The ring compression test is a common method to measure friction factor, and the geometric dimension of the ring directly affected the sensitivity of the testing method. Taking the difference of the variation between inner diameters under two different frictional conditions as the goal, the geometric dimension of the ring was optimized based on multi-island genetic algorithm and FEM simulation, and the ratio of the optimized scheme was 30∶13∶5. However, compared with the traditional scheme (6∶3∶2), the difference of the inner diameter variation increased by 47.31%. Based on the improvement, a further comparison between the optimized scheme and the traditional scheme was conducted from the results of the equivalent strain fields, distributions of metal streamline, normal pressures and calibration curves, and the advantages of the optimized scheme were analyzed. Finally, according to the optimized geometric dimension, the practical experiment was also carried out with three friction factors measured under different lubricating conditions. The result shows that this testing method is feasible.
|
[1]Kunogi M. On plastic deformation of hollow cylinders under axial compressive loading [J]. Journal of Science and Research Institute, 1954, 50, 215-246. [2]Ohdar R K, Talukdar P, Equbal M I. Evaluation of friction coefficient of 38MnVS6 medium carbon micro-alloyed steel in hot forging process by using ring compression test [J]. Technology Letters, 2015,(2):12-16. [3]Krause A, Weirauch R, Bruer G, et al. Analysis of the friction behavior of DLC in warm bulk forming by using the ring compression test [J]. Production Engineering, 2015,(9):41-49. [4]Male A T, Cockcroft M G. A method for the determination of the coefficient of friction of metals under conditions of bulk plastic deformation [J]. Journal of the Institute of Metals, 1964, 93:38-46. [5]Male A T, Depierre V. The validity of mathematical solutions for determining friction from the ring compression test [J]. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 1970, 92:389-397. [6]Pierre V D, Gurney F, Male A T. Mathematical Calibration of the Ring Test with Bulge Formation [R]. NoDIRA: National Technical Information Service, 1972. [7]Rao K P, Sivaram K. A review of ring-compression testing and applicability of the calibration curves [J]. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 1993, 37:295-318. [8]李鹏, 胡成亮, 孟丽芬,等. 表面粗糙度对冷锻摩擦因子的影响[J]. 塑性工程学报, 2015, 22(5):24-28.Li P, Hu C L, Meng L F, et al. Effect of surface roughness on cold forging friction factor [J]. Journal of Plasticity Engineering, 2015, 22(5):24-28. [9]沈文涛, 张鹏, 赵彤,等. 利用圆环镦粗法测定7050铝合金高温变形摩擦系数[J]. 大型铸锻件, 2016,(5):32-35.Shen W T, Zhang P, Zhao T, et al. Determination of high temperature deformation coefficient of 7050 aluminum alloy by ring upsetting method [J]. Heavy Casting and Forging, 2016,(5):32-35. [10]林治平. 上限法在塑性加工工艺中的应用[M]. 北京:中国铁道出版社,1991.Lin Z P. Application of the Upper Bound Method in Plastic Processing Technology [M]. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House, 1991. [11]汪大年. 金属塑性成形理论[M]. 北京:机械工业出版社,1985.Wang D N. Theory of Metal Plastic Forming [M]. Beijing: China Machine Press, 1985. [12]Holland J H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1975. [13]Booker L B, Goldberg D E, Holland J H. Classifier systems & genetic algorithms [J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1989, 40:235-282. [14]Chung J S, Hwang S M. Process optimal design in forging by genetic algorithm [J]. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 2002, 124:397-408. [15]Poursina M, António C A C, Castro C F, et al. Preform optimal design in metal forging using genetic algorithms [J]. Engineering Computations, 2004, 21(5-6):631-650. [16]Alimirzaloo V, Sadeghi M, Biglari F. Optimization of the forging of aerofoil blade using the finite element method and fuzzy-Pareto based genetic algorithm [J]. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2012, 26(6), 1801-1810. [17]丁泉惠,王森,黄修长,等. 基于有限元法和多岛遗传算法的飞轮结构参数优化设计[J]. 噪声与振动控制,2016,36(2): 56-60.Ding Q H, Wang S, Huang X C, et al. Optimization design of flywheel structural parameters based on finite element analysis and MIGA method [J]. Noise and Vibration Control, 2016, 36(2):56-60. [18]Kay M D, Beckman R J, Conover W J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code [J]. Technometrics, 1979, 21, 239-245.
|