(GLWRULDO0DQDJHUWPIRU([SHULPHQWDO0HFKDQLFV

0DQXVFULSW'UDIW

0DQXVFULSW1XPEHU(;0(5

7LWOH'HWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKH-RKQVRQ&RRNPDWHULDOSDUDPHWHUVXVLQJWKH6&6VSHFLPHQ

$UWLFOH7\SH%ULHI7HFKQLFDO1RWH

.H\ZRUGVVKHDUFRPSUHVVLRQVSHFLPHQ-RKQVRQ&RRNPRGHOILQLWHHOHPHQWVG\QDPLFORDGLQJ
TXDVLVWDWLFORDGLQJ

&RUUHVSRQGLQJ$XWKRU'U$YUDKDP'RURJR\3K'

&RUUHVSRQGLQJ$XWKRU
V,QVWLWXWLRQ7HFKQLRQ

)LUVW$XWKRU$YUDKDP'RURJR\3K'

2UGHURI$XWKRUV$YUDKDP'RURJR\3K''DQLHO5LWWHO

0DQXVFULSW5HJLRQRI2ULJLQ
Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: EXME588_rev1.doc

1
2
3
4
5
6 Technical note: Determination of the
7
8
9
10
11
Johnson-Cook material parameters
12
13
14
15
using the SCS specimen
16
17
18
A. Dorogoy* and D. Rittel
19
20
Mechanical Engineering Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
21 32000 , Haifa, Israel
22
23
24
25
26 Abstract
27
28
29 This note addresses the determination of the Johnson Cook material parameters using the
30
31 shear compression specimen (SCS). This includes the identification of the thermal
32
33 softening effect in quasi static and dynamic loading as well as and the strain rate
34
35
hardening effect in dynamic loading. A hybrid experimental-numerical (finite element)
36 procedure is presented to identify the constitutive parameters, with an application to
37
38 Ti6Al4V alloy. The present results demonstrate the suitability of the SCS for constitutive
39
40 testing.
41
42
43
44
45
Keywords: A. shear compression specimen. B. Johnson-Cook model .C. finite elements.
46
47 D. dynamic loading E. quasi-static loading
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 * A. Dorogoy, corresponding author: dorogoy@technion.ac.il
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 1. Introduction
5
6 The shear compression specimen (SCS), developed by Rittel et al. (2002)1,2, was
7
8 designed to investigate the mechanical behavior of materials at large strains, over a wide
9
10 range of strain-rates and temperatures. A thorough numerical investigation of the SCS for
11
12 both quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions, was presented in which the material
13
14
model was assumed to be bi-linear3 ,4. The validity of the specimen was established by
15 comparing stress-strain data obtained with the SCS to those obtained from uniaxial
16
17 (tension/compression) tests2, 5. More recently6, these results were extended to parabolic
18
19 hardening materials, which are quite common among metallic materials.
20
21 Several constitutive material models, which should adequately represent large strain
22
23 behavior over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures, have been proposed.
24
25
Examples of such models are Johnson-Cook7 (JC), Zerilli-Armstrong8 and Bodner-
26 Partom9 . The empirical model JC is widely used and incorporated in most commercial
27
28 finite elements packages, and will therefore be the subject of this note.
29
30 Our purpose is to present a simple method for the determination of the JC material
31
32 parameters using the SCS specimen test. The method is illustrated for a commercial
33
34 Ti6Al4V alloy.
35
The first part, which follows this introduction, introduces the specimen geometry and
36
37 material, the JC material model, and briefly reminds the data reduction technique for
38
39 parabolic hardening materials under quasi-static loading6. Next, we introduce the
40
41 technique used to determine the parameters related to thermal softening and strain rate
42
43 hardening. The second part addresses the determination of the parameters of the JC
44
45 model for Ti6Al4V SCS specimens. The results are discussed and compared to those
46 available in the literature
47
48
49
50 2. Experimental and constitutive model
51
52 2.1 Specimen geometry and material data
53
54 The shear compression specimen (SCS) is shown in Fig. 1. The specimen promotes shear
55
56
deformation in an inclined gauge-section, and it is aimed at large-strain constitutive
57 testing of materials under both quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions1-6, 10-11. For all
58
59 the investigated cases, the length, diameter, gauge thickness, gauge height and fillet root -
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 radius were chosen to be: L 20 mm , D 10 mm , t 2.5 mm , w 2.0 mm and
5
6
! 0.25 mm respectively. This set of geometrical parameters is commonly used in
7
8
9
experiments
10
11
12 The material of this study is annealed Ti6Al4V, supplied as 12.7 mm diameter rods. The
13
14 physical properties of Ti6Al4V alloy are listed in Table 1.
15
16
17
18
19
2.2 Johnson-Cook model and data reduction
20
21
22
23 The inelastic behavior of the investigated alloy is assumed to be described by Johnson-
24
25 Cook model7. This material model is particularly suited to model high strain rate
26
27 deformation of metals. It is generally used in adiabatic transient dynamic analysis. The
28 0
29 hardening is a particular type of isotropic hardening in which the yield stress is
30
31 assumed to be of the form:
32
33
34
35

" #n $ $ ! p %%
36
37 0
"
A & B " ! p # ((1 & C log ( ) )) 1 ' Tˆ m
* !0 + +
# (1)
38 *
39
40 Where
41
42 / 0 for T 2 Tr
43 ,
44 ,
45 , T ' Tr
46 T̂ . for Tr 1 T 1 Tm # "!
47 , Tm ' Tr
48 ,
49 , 1 for T 0 Tm
50 -
51
52
53
54
In equation (1) ! p is the equivalent plastic strain and A, B, C, n and m are material
55
56 parameters, to be identified. The natural logarithm is denoted "log". T̂ is a dimensionless
57
58
temperature defined in equation (2), where T is the current temperature, Tm is the
59
60 melting temperature and Tr is a reference temperature. A is the yield stress Y at
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
temperatures below Tr . ! 0 and C are usually measured at or below the reference
6
7 temperature.
8 The applied displacement d and the resultant force P are reduced into equivalent stress
9
10 and strain according to:
11
12 P
13 ˆ k1 "1 ' k 2 !ˆ # "$
14 Dt
15
16 d ' dY
!ˆ k 3 && "%
17 h
18
19 The coefficients for the data reduction " k1 , k2 , k3 # have been previously determined for
20
21
22
this material10 : k1 0.96, k2 0.18 and k3 1.133 .
23
24
25
3. The method
26
27
28
29 The method is of a hybrid experimental-numerical type which requires at least three
30
31 kinds of experiments in compression loading:
32
33 a. Quasi-static testing at room temperature.
34
35 b. Quasi-static testing at a higher temperature.
36 c. Dynamic testing at room temperature.
37
38 A preliminary stage consists of determining the ki coefficients6, 10.
39
40
41
42 3.1 Determination of B and n in the JC model
43
44 The experimental load-displacement curves (type a) together with the ki coefficients and
45
46
Eqns. (3)-(4) can be used to plot the plastic characteristic curve of the material at room

A & B " ! p # where A

47 n
48 temperature ' ! p . This curve is best fitted by to 0
Y is
49
50 known.
51
52
53
54 3.2 Determination of m in the JC model
55
56 Quasi static experimental results at both room (type a) and higher temperatures (type b)
57 are needed to determine m.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5 If quasi static experiments, at the same ! p , are carried out at two different temperatures
6 denoted by the superscripts (1) and (2), the ratio R between the stresses at a specific
7
8 plastic strain ! *p can be expressed as:
9
10
" #
m
11
12 R
"1#
0 "! *
p
, ! *p # 1 ' Tˆ " #
1

(5)
13
" #
0 "!
2
*
p
, ! *p # 1 ' "Tˆ " # #
2
m

14
15
16 If T " 2# Tr ( room temperature), then Tˆ " 2# 0 (Eqn. (2)) And m is given by
17
18 log "1 ' R #
m (6)
" #
19
log Tˆ " #
1
20
21
22 The method can be summarized as follows:
23
24 1. Use Eqns (3)-(4) to plot ˆ ' !ˆ p for experiments at room temperature and at a
25
26 higher temperature.
27
28 2. Determine the ratio R using Eqn. (5) over a wide range of !ˆ p .
29
30 3. Determine m according to Eqn. (6)
31
32
33
34 3.3 Determination of C in the JC model
35
36 Dynamic stress-strain curves, using for example a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB11)
37 at room temperature, are needed to determine the coefficient C which corresponds to the
38
39 strain rate effect. The experimental load displacement curve should be reduced for SCS
40
41 specimens into a strain-stress curve with the aid of Eqns (3)-(4). This curve is then best
42
43 fitted to Eq. (1) using the previously obtained parameters, with only one unknown,
44
45 namely the parameter C. The obtained value of C is then verified numerically.
46
47
48 4. Example
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
4.1 Determination of B and n
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 The quasi-static line for 24oC in figure 2 was best fitted using least square to the formula:
5
3 MPa 4 880 & B " ! p # . The obtained parameters with R2: 0.9923 are B
6 n
7 0 695 MPa
8
9 and n 0.3582 .
10
11
12 4.2 Determination of m
13
14
15 The stresses shown in Fig. 2a for temperatures 213oC and 416oC are divided by the
16
17 stresses at 24oC according to Eqn. (5). The result is plotted vs. ! p in Fig. 2b as well as
18
19 the average values in the range 0.05 2 ! p 2 0.35 . The averaged values are R=0.8061,
20
21 and R=0.6984 for 213oC and 416oC respectively. Substituting these values into Eqn . (6)
22
23 results in m = 0.7601 for 213oC and m = 0.8388 for 416oC. An average value of m = 0.8
24
25 is adopted.
26
27
28 4.3 Determination of C
29
30
31 A first estimation for the coefficient C is done by best fitting the dynamic experimental
32
33 stress-strain curves to the JC model with the already obtained material parameters. It is
34
35
assumed that the reference strain rate of Eqn. (1) is !ˆ0 1 1/ s . It is further assumed that
36
37 the specimen remains at room temperature, thus neglecting thermo-plastic coupling
38
39 effects, and hence Tˆ 0 . The average strain rate was 3000 1/s, and it was assumed that
40
41
this strain rate is constant during the experiment.
42
43
44 Under these assumptions the experimental stress – plastic strain curves shown in figure 3
45 were fitted with the formula:
46
47
48
49
50
0
3 MPa 4 " 880 & 695 " ! p #
0.3582
# $(*1 & C log $(* 3000 %%
)
1 + )+
(7)
51
52
53
54
For experiment 1 the obtained value is C = 0.041 while for experiment 2 the obtained
55 value is C = 0.051. Even for two experiments carried out at the same strain rate, a
56
57 difference of 0.01 in the value of C (equivalent to 25%), is observed. Increasing the
58
59 number of experiments at different strain rates will certainly improve the statistical
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 reliability of the obtained value of C over a wider range of the dynamic strain rate
5
6 region. In the present paper, we explain how to get this value using a minimum number
7
8 of experiments. It is therefore expected that the best fit here will be obtained at high
9
10 strain rates close to 3000 1/s at which the experiments were conducted.
11
12
13 The obtained values of C were verified numerically using the commercial finite elements
14
15 code Abaqus explicit version 6.7. The material model was JC with the above reported
16
17 parameters, together with a representative thermomechanical conversion factor " 0.4
18
19 according to the results of Rittel and Wang12. The properties of table 1 were used as well.
20
The experimentally measured velocities on the top and bottom face of the specimen were
21
22 applied as boundary conditions. The reaction force on the bottom of the specimen
23
24 (adjacent to the transmission bar of the SHPB) was determined for different values of C
25
26 namely: 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06. Figure 4 shows the numerical obtained reaction for the three
27
28 values of C together with the experimental measured values. A very good agreement is
29
30 observed for C = 0.04.
31
32
33
34
35
36 5. Summary and conclusions
37
38
39 Assuming that Ti6Al4V obeys the Johnson-Cook material model, its parameters were
40
41 determined using the SCS specimen . As a preliminary remark, it should be noted that the
42 JC model is a linear function of the logarithm of the normalized strain rate. Such a linear
43
44 relation is seldom observed for most metals and alloys. Usually two regions are evident13,
45
46 with a transition between them at strain rates in the range of 10 2 ' 10 3 s '1 . Consequently,
47
48 a more accurate representation of the material behavior would require a reference strain
49
50 rate of the order of the transition strain rate. However, this work, and many others assume
51
52 a reference strain-rate of 5 1s '1 , thus extending the range of validity of the JC model
53
54 into the quasi-static regime. We adopted the “traditional” value of 5 1s '1 to allow for
55
56 comparison with previous work.
57
58 An experimental-numerical approach is used. Three types of experiments were used: (1)
59
60 Quasi-static testing at room temperature. (2) Quasi-static testing at a higher temperature.
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 (3) Dynamic testing at room temperature. The numerical simulations are first used to
5
6 determine the data reduction coefficients " k1 , k2 , k3 # and further used to verify the value
7
8
9 of C. The determined parameters are detailed in table 2 and compared to those obtained
10 by other investigations14-16. An overall very good agreement is observed, with the
11
12 exception that the current work predicts that the material is more strain rate sensitive
13
14 since the value of C is almost three times the value obtained in other investigations15, 16 .It
15
16 is noted that the methodology described here may also be used with other specimens
17
18 (cylinders for example), with adequate data reduction procedures. In all cases, the value
19
20 of the C parameter can be fine tuned using numerical simulations, as illustrated for the
21 SCS specimen.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Acknowledgment
35
36
37 We would like to thank Dr. Zonggang Wang for his assistance with the dynamic tests,
38
39 and Mr. A. Amon and R. Amir for their technical assistance.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 References
9
10
11
12 1. Rittel, D., Ravichandran, G., and Lee, S., “A Shear Compression Specimen
13 for Large Strain Testing,” EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS, 42 (1),
14 58–64 (2002).
15
16
17 2. Rittel, D., Ravichandran, G., and Lee, S., “Large Strain Constitutive
18 Behavior of OFHC Copper over a Wide Range of Strain Rates Using the
19 Shear Compression Specimen,” Mechanics of Materials, 34 (10), 627–642
20 (2002).
21
22
23 3. Dorogoy, A. and Rittel, D., “Numerical Validation of the Shear Compression Specimen.
24 Part I: Quasi-static Large Strain Testing. EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS, 45 (2) 167-
25 177 (2005).
26
27
28
4. Dorogoy, A. and Rittel, D., “Numerical Validation of the Shear Compression Specimen.
29 Part II: Dynamic Large Strain Testing. EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS, 45 (2) 178-185
30 (2005).
31
32 5. Vural, M., Rittel, D., and Ravichandran, G., “Large Strain Mechanical Behavior of
33
34 1018 Cold Rolled Steel over a Wide Range of Strain Rates,” Metallurgical and Material
35 Transactions A, 34A (12), 2873–2885 (2003).
36
37 6. Dorogoy, A. Rittel, D., “ A numerical study of the applicability of the Shear
38
39
Compression Specimen to parabolic hardening materials ”, Exp. Mech. A, 46, 355-366
40 (2006).
41
42 7. Johnson, G.J. and Cook, W.H. , "A constitutive model and data for metals subjected
43 to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures", in: Proceedings of the Seventh
44
45
International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, 541–547(1983).
46
47 8. Zerilli, F.J. and Armstrong, R.W. , "Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive
48 relations for material dynamics calculations", J. Appl. Phys. 61 (5), 1816–1825(1987).
49
50 9. Bodner, S. R. and Partom, Y.,"Constitutive Equations for Elastic-Viscoplastic Strain-
51
52 Hardening Materials", J. Appl. Mech. (1975).
53
54 10. Rittel, D., Wang, Z.G. and Dorogoy, A., “ Geometrical imperfection and adiabatic
55 shear banding ”, Int. J. Impact Engineering, In press(2008).
56
57
58 11. Kolsky, H., “An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at Very High
59 Rates of Loading”, Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, 62B, 676–700 (1949).
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 12. Rittel, D. and Wang, Z., “ Thermo-mechanical aspects of adiabatic shear failure of
5
6 AM50 and Ti6Al4V alloys ”, Mechanics of Materials,40, 629-635, (2008).
7
8 13. Meyers, M.A., 1994. Dynamic Behavior of Materials. J. Wiley and Sons, New York,
9 NY.
10
11
12 14. Lee , W. S. and Lin, C. F., "Plastic deformation and fracture behaviour of Ti–6Al–4V
13 alloy loaded with high strain rate under various temperatures", Materials Science and
14 Engineering, A241, 48–59, (1998).
15
16
17 15. Meyer, H. W. and Kleponis, D. S., " Modeling the high strain rate behavior of
18 titanium undergoing ballistic impact and penetration", International Journal of Impact
19 Engineering, 26, 509-521, (2001).
20
21
22
16. Seo S. Min, O., Yang H., " Constitutive equation for Ti–6Al–4V at high temperatures
23 measured using the SHPB technique ,International Journal of Impact Engineering, 31,
24 735–754, (2005).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9 Captions of figures
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Fig. 1 - shear compression specimen.
18
19 Fig. 2 - Quasi static experimental results. a. The quasi-static experimental
20
21 characteristic curves at temperatures: 24oC, 213oC and 416oC . Note the
22
23 thermal softening effect. b. The ratio between stresses at elevated
24
25
temperature (213oC and 416oC) to stresses at room temperature (24oC) and
26 their average value R (Eqn. (5)).
27
28 Fig. 3 - The dynamic obtained stress-plastic strain curves together with the fitted JC
29
30 model of Eqn. (7) with the obtained parameters C = 0.041 and 0.051. . The
31
32 averaged strain rate is 3000 1/s.
33
34 Fig. 4 - The numerical calculated reaction force vs. time on the bottom face of the
35
specimen in the SHPB machine for C = 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06 along with the
36
37 two experimental results. Note the good agreement for C=0.04. . The
38
39 averaged strain rate is 3000 1/s.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9
10
11 FIGURES
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 Fig. 1- The shear compression specimen
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
7
8
9
1400
10
11
1200
12
13
1000
true stress [MPa]

14
15
800
16 o
17 T = 24
600
18 T = 213o
19
400 T =416o
20
21
200
22
23 0
24 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
25 plastic strain
26
27 a.
28
29 0.85
30
31
32 0.8
33
34 0.75
35
36
0.7
R

37
38 o
T = 213
39 0.65 R1 = 0.8061
40
o
41 T = 416
0.6
42 R2 = 0.6984
43
44 0.55
45 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
plastic strain
46
47 b
48
49
50 Fig. 2 - Quasi static experimental results. a. The quasi-static experimental characteristic
51
52 curves at temperatures: 24oC, 213oC and 416oC . Note the thermal softening effect. b. The
53
54 ratio between stresses at elevated temperature (213oC and 416oC) to stresses at room
55
56 temperature (24oC) and their average value R (Eqn. (5)).
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 1800
16 experiment 1
17 1600 experiment 2
18
19 1400
20
true stress [MPa]

21 1200
22
1000 experiment 1
23
24 C = 0.041
25 800 experiment 2
26 C = 0.051
600
27
28 400
29
30 200
31
32 0
33 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
34 plastic strain
35
36
37 Fig. 3 - The dynamic obtained stress-plastic strain curves together with the fitted JC
38
39 model of Eqn. (7) with the obtained parameters C = 0.041 and 0.051. The averaged strain
40 rate is 3000 1/s.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
50
bottom face reaction force [KN]

16
17
18
19
40
20
21
22 30
C = 0.02
23
24 C = 0.04
25 20 C = 0.06
26 experiment 1
27 experiment 2
28 10
29
30
31 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
32 time [microseconds]
33
34
35 Fig. 4 - The numerical calculated reaction force vs. time on the bottom face of the
36
37 specimen in the SHPB machine for C = 0.02, 0.04 and 0.06 along with the two
38
39 experimental results. Note the good agreement for C=0.04. The averaged strain rate is
40
41 3000 1/s.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9 TABLES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Table 1: properties of Ti6Al4V
22
23
24
25 Material E [GPa ] ! Y [ MPa] " [ Kg / m3 ] c p [ J / ( Kg C )] Tm [C ]
26
27
28
Ti6Al4V 113.8 0.342 880 4430 526.3 1660
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel
6
7
8
9
10
11 Table 2: A comparison of reported values of the Johnson-Cook parameters
12
13
14 A [MPa] B [MPa] n m C #!0
15
16 This work 880 695 0.36 0.8 0.04 1
17
18 Seo et al (2005) 998 653 0.45 0.7 0.0198 1
19
20 Meyer and Kleponis (2001) 896 656 0.5 0.8 0.0128 1
21
22 Meyer and Kleponis (2001)
23 CTH library standard 863 331 0.34 0.8 0.0120 1
24 material
25 !
Lee and Lin (1998) 724 683 0.47 1 0.035 10
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65