Numerical analysis of alpha-beta brass by constitutive model for prediction of hot flow stress

Figures & data

Table 1. The elemental composition for Alpha-Beta Brass alloy.

Element	Cu	Fe	Pb	other impurities	Zn
% wt.	61.64	0.075	0.068	0.082	Rem

Figure 1. Sub sized ASTM standard tensile specimen.

Figure 2. Experimental Samples.

Figure 3. Universal testing machine with two split zone furnace.

Figure 4. Sample location of deformed test specimen.

Figure 5. True stress versus true strain graphs of α-β brass alloy (a) with distinct temperatures at 0.1 s⁻¹ rate of strain in RD (b) with different strain rates at 873 k. (a) With different temperatures at 0.1 s^-1 strain rate. (b) With different strain rates at 873 K.

Table 2. Level of parameters.

Experiment run	Temperature (K)	Rate of strain (s^−1)	Orientation (0^0)	YS – (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	% E
1	773	0.1	0	109.72	123.21	0.50
2	773	0.1	45	119.04	123.02	0.55
3	773	0.1	90	114.16	122.21	0.41
4	773	0.01	0	103.23	146.06	0.32
5	773	0.01	45	146.93	146.96	0.33
6	773	0.01	90	140.11	147.31	0.26
7	773	0.001	0	66.30	67.02	0.36
8	773	0.001	45	66.21	66.59	0.38
9	773	0.001	90	72.43	72.48	0.41
10	873	0.1	0	86.44	90.86	32.50
11	873	0.1	45	100.67	116.08	31.05
12	873	0.1	90	100.36	101.70	21.44
13	873	0.01	0	51.10	52.99	28.05
14	873	0.01	45	49.42	40.61	24.85
15	873	0.01	90	55.61	56.44	17.17
16	873	0.001	0	22.50	24.18	15.97
17	873	0.001	45	18.47	19.29	16.20
18	873	0.001	90	22.07	23.70	15.96
19	973	0.1	0	12.87	14.15	38.56
20	973	0.1	45	14.22	15.41	25.30
21	973	0.1	90	18.33	20.71	33.92
22	973	0.01	0	3.90	4.89	24.83
23	973	0.01	45	4.02	4.63	19.60
24	973	0.01	90	5.13	6.01	20.34
25	973	0.001	0	5.04	8.23	22.61
26	973	0.001	45	6.56	7.06	19.29
27	973	0.001	90	5.13	6.23	20.57

Figure 6. True stress versus true strain graphs of α-β brass alloy at different orientation. (a) 673 K, (b) 773 K and (c) 873 K.

Figure 7. Variation of ln(strain rate) versus ln(stress) at various temperatures and strain rates.

Table 3. Values for strain rate sensitivity (m).

Temperature (K)	773	873	973
Strain rate sensitivity (m)	−0.07939	−0.05964	1.64472

Figure 8. Fracture tensile test specimens of α-β Brass alloy at (a) 773 K, (b) 873 K, and (c) 973 K.

Figure 9. Comparison of the JC model projected flow stress for various strain rates and experimentally measured flow stress (a) at 773 K and (b) at 973 K.

Table 4. Statistical parameters obtained for JC model.

Constitutive model	JC model
Coefficient of correlation (R)	0.9677
average absolute error (Δ%)	5.29
Deviation standard (S%)	6.53

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article any other data required will be available from the corresponding author, Bandhavi Challa, upon reasonable request.