Please wait a minute...
浙江大学学报(工学版)
J4  2013, Vol. 47 Issue (11): 2020-2024    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2013.11.020
机械工程、化学工程     
不同控制模式对单轴拉伸试验结果的影响
郑津洋,黄泽,缪存坚,高晓哲,朱晓波,舒翔宇,晓风清,马利
浙江大学 化工机械研究所, 浙江 杭州 310027
Effect of different control modes during tensile experiment
ZHENG Jin-yang, HUANG Ze, MIAO Cun-jian, GAO Xiao-zhe, ZHU Xiao-bo,
SHU Xiang-yu, XIAO Feng-qing, Ma Li
Institute of Process Equipment, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China
 全文: PDF  HTML
摘要：

为了研究横梁位移控制和引伸计控制对材料拉伸试验结果的影响，以应变强化9%的奥氏体不锈钢S30408为研究对象，在20 ℃和-196 ℃下采用2种控制模式进行拉伸试验，并通过有限元模拟比较2种控制模式对拉伸结果的影响.结果表明：当横梁位移控制时，试样的实际变形速率小于引伸计控制时试样的变形速率，且标准中的修正公式不能有效消除由于变形速率引起的误差.在20 ℃时，横梁位移控制代替引伸计控制可以满足工程精度要求；在-196 ℃时，两者差异较大，建议采用引伸计控制.
Abstract:

To investigate the difference between tensile tests under displacement control mode and extensometer control mode, tensile tests of 9% cold stretched S30408 austenitic stainless steel were performed at 20 ℃ and -196 ℃ with each control mode respectively and using finite element simulation to find the connection of two different modes. Results show that the actual strain rate in displacement control mode is lower than that in extensometer control mode and the standard correction formula cannot eliminate the error caused by the difference between actual strain rates of specimen in different modes.The results of two different modes are nearly the same at 20 ℃, but have an nonnegligible difference at -196 ℃. Using displacement control mode instead of extensometer control mode can also meet the engineering requirements at 20 ℃, but it is advised to use extensometer control mode at -196 ℃.
出版日期: 2013-11-01
:  TG 115.52  
基金资助:

“十二五”国家科技支撑计划资助项目(2011BAK06B02-05)；国际科技合作项目（2010DFB42960）；质检公益性行业科研专项项目(201210242-2).
通讯作者: 马利，女，讲师.     E-mail: mali@zju.edu.cn
作者简介: 郑津洋(1964-)，男，教授，博导.主要从事氢能储输与氢安全技术,极端条件承压设备全寿命数字化设计技术和应变强化深冷容器.E-mail: jyzh@zju.edu.cn
服务　　
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章　　

引用本文:

郑津洋,黄泽,缪存坚,高晓哲,朱晓波,舒翔宇,晓风清,马利. 不同控制模式对单轴拉伸试验结果的影响[J]. J4, 2013, 47(11): 2020-2024.

ZHENG Jin-yang, HUANG Ze, MIAO Cun-jian, GAO Xiao-zhe, ZHU Xiao-bo,. Effect of different control modes during tensile experiment. J4, 2013, 47(11): 2020-2024.

链接本文:

http://www.zjujournals.com/eng/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2013.11.020    或    http://www.zjujournals.com/eng/CN/Y2013/V47/I11/2020

［1］ 吕丹, 苏洪英, 杨承波, 等. 不同控制模式下拉伸试验速率的测试及方法比较 ［J］.理化检验-物理分册, 2012, 48:47-54．
LV Dan, SU Hong-ying, YANG Cheng-bo，et al. Testing and method comparison of tensile testing rate in different control modes. ［J］.Ptca {Parta: Phys.Test}, 2012, 48:47-54．
［2］ GB/T 228.1-2010.金属材料 拉伸试验 第1部分：室温试验方法［S］.北京：中国标准出版社出版,2011．
GB/T 228.1-2010. Metallic materials-Tensile testing-Part 1:Method of test at room temperature ［S］. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2011．
［3］ AS1210-2010. Pressure Vessels ［S］.Sydney:The Council of Standards Australia, 2010．
［4］ Q/320582SDY7-2008.Pressure strengthening of cryogenic vessels from austenitic stainless steels-static vessels ［S］. ShanXi: Taiyuan Stainless Steel Incorporated Company, 2008．
［5］ KUNDU A, CHAKRABORTI P C. Effect of strain rate on quasistatic tensile flow behaviour of solution annealed 304 austenitic stainless steel at room temperature ［J］.Journal of Materials Science, 2010, 45(20):5482-5489．
［6］ 林高用, 张蓉, 张振峰, 等. 变形速度对304奥氏体不锈钢室温拉伸性能的影响 ［J］.湘潭大学自然科学学报, 2005, 27(3):91-94．
LIN Gao-yong, ZHANG Rong, ZHANG Zhen-feng. Influences of deformation rate on the tensile properties of 304 austenitic stainless steel at room temperature ［J］.Natural Science Journal of Xiangtan University, 2005, 27(3):91-94．
［7］ WANG Z F, CHEN X D. Study of strengthening process and design on strain hardening austenitic stainless steel pressure vessels ［D］. East China:China University of Petroleum, 2011:20-21．
No related articles found!