1-20 of 48864
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Journal Articles
Image
Image
Image
Comparison of the ( a ) measured cross-sectional plane, ( b ) simulated eff...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 3 Comparison of the ( a ) measured cross-sectional plane, ( b ) simulated effective strain, ( c ) measured hardness, and ( d ) hardness profiles along the three directions of the 3D rod at the reduction ratio of 19.2% More
Image
Variations in ( a ) the numerically simulated and experimentally measured  ...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 4 Variations in ( a ) the numerically simulated and experimentally measured W 1 and b values and ( b ) errors between the simulated and measured W 1 and b values of the 3D rod as a function of R h More
Image
Comparison of the ( a ) IPF map, IQ map with Σ3 twin boundaries, and KAM ma...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 5 Comparison of the ( a ) IPF map, IQ map with Σ3 twin boundaries, and KAM map and ( b ) KAM value and relative twin density at the five regions in the 3D rod at the reduction ratio of 19.2% More
Image
Comparison of the ( a ) measured cross-sectional plane, ( b ) simulated eff...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 6 Comparison of the ( a ) measured cross-sectional plane, ( b ) simulated effective strain, ( c ) measured hardness, and ( d ) hardness profiles along the three directions of the 2D rod at the reduction ratio of 19.2% More
Image
Image
Comparison of the effective strain along the ( a ) horizontal and ( b ) ver...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 8 Comparison of the effective strain along the ( a ) horizontal and ( b ) vertical directions of the 2D and 3D rods against R h based on the effective strain contours from the FE analysis More
Image
Comparison of the  ɛ  max ,  ɛ  min , and  ɛ  ave  along the ( a ) horizont...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 9 Comparison of the ɛ max , ɛ min , and ɛ ave along the ( a ) horizontal and ( b ) vertical directions of the 2D and 3D rods against R h , and ( c ) comparison of SIF h and SIF v of the two forming processes against R h . The theoretical effective strain was calculated using ... More
Image
Schematic description of the deformation with the direction of the specimen...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 10 Schematic description of the deformation with the direction of the specimens during ( a ) rod flat rolling and ( b ) plane compression More
Image
Comparison of the strain contours with the direction of the two forming pro...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 11 Comparison of the strain contours with the direction of the two forming processes at the reduction ratio of 48.1% More
Image
Schematic description of the frictional effect at the rod–tool interface du...
Published Online: December 2, 2022
Fig. 12 Schematic description of the frictional effect at the rod–tool interface during the ( a ) 2D compression and ( b ) 3D rolling processes More
Image
Image