4.4 Article

Analytical solutions of the thermal field induced by moving double-ellipsoidal and double-elliptical heat sources in a semi-infinite body

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cnm.1324

关键词

double-ellipsoidal heat source; welding; analytical solution; finite element method

资金

  1. European Community [AST 5-CT 2006-030953]
  2. RAPOLAC (Rapid Production of Large Aerospace Components)
  3. CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Argentina)
  4. UNL (Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Argentina)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An analytical solution is computed for the thermal field induced in a semi-infinite body by a moving heat source whose shape was proposed by Goldak et al. for the simulation of welding processes. Owing to its ability to accommodate a wide variety of welding techniques, this model is widely used. Throughout two semi-ellipsoidal volumes, corresponding to the front and the rear parts of the moving source, the heat power density is distributed using a Gaussian function. In the literature, Nguyen et al. have proposed an analytical solution to this problem that is, however, only correct when both semi-ellipsoids are equal (i.e. for a single-ellipsoidal model). The current work presents an extension of the analytical solution of Nguyen et al. to the double-ellipsoidal case. As a special case, the solution for the temperature field induced by a double-elliptical surface heat source is also developed. In order to validate the analytical solutions, the problem is solved using both two- and three-dimensional finite element models in several test-cases. Solutions for double-ellipsoidal and double-elliptical sources are numerically computed and compared with the analytical solutions, while clearly demonstrating the differences with respect to the solution of Nguyen et al. At the same time, the two- dimensional numerical approximation is evaluated in terms of accuracy and computational cost. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据