不同控制模式对单轴拉伸试验结果的影响  

Effect of different control modes during tensile experiment

作　　者：郑津洋[1] 黄泽[1] 缪存坚[1] 高晓哲[1] 朱晓波[1] 舒翔宇[1] 晓风清[1] 马利[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学化工机械研究所,浙江杭州310027

出　　处：《浙江大学学报（工学版）》2013年第11期2020-2024,共5页Journal of Zhejiang University：Engineering Science

基　　金："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)

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.To investigate the difference between tensile tests under displacement control mode and exten- someter control~ mode, tensile tests of 9% cold stretched $30408 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 er- ror 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 dis- placement 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 ℃.

关 键 词：奥氏体不锈钢 拉伸试验 应变强化 横梁位移控制 引伸计控制 

分 类 号：TG115.52[金属学及工艺—物理冶金]