Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Evaluation of dynamic hardening models for BCC, FCC,

and HCP metals at a wide range of strain rates
Hoon Huh a,∗ , Kwanghyun Ahn a , Ji Ho Lim b , Hyung Won Kim c , Lee Ju Park c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
b
POSCO Global R&D Center, 180-1 Songdo-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 406-840, Republic of Korea
c
R&D Institute 4-2, Agency for Defense Development, 488 Bugyuseong Daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-152, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper is concerned with dynamic hardening models of metallic materials for various crystalline
Received 27 December 2012 structures. The dynamic response of metallic materials is indispensable for the analysis of deformation
Received in revised form in the high-speed condition. The description of the dynamic behavior, however, can be hardly suggested
22 December 2013
with a unique model that is capable of representing the dynamic hardening characteristics of all types
Accepted 2 February 2014
Available online 11 February 2014
of materials because the dynamic hardening behavior of a material is inherent characteristics which are
different in materials. It is important to select the most adequate model that is capable of representing
the dynamic hardening characteristics of a material accurately.
Keywords:
Dynamic hardening model In this paper, the fitting characteristics of several well-known models are investigated and verified
Strain rate sensitivity by experiments at a wide range of strain rates. By comparing the characteristics of the models with
High speed tensile test experimental results, the effective selecting of the most adequate model has been carried out to apply
Metallic materials experimental stress–strain curves to the numerical analysis accurately and effectively. Several hardening
models reported have been investigated and evaluated using the dynamic hardening characteristics of
three kinds of materials: 4340Steel (BCC); OFHC (FCC); and Ti6Al4V (HCP). Three well-known models
have been constructed and evaluated for the Johnson–Cook model, the Zerilli–Armstrong model, and the
Preston–Tonks–Wallace model using the test results of three materials. Several models suggested by the
authors have also been compared for the modified Johnson–Cook model and the modified Khan–Huang
model. Another novel dynamic hardening model is newly proposed and compared to the other models.
The changes in the strain rate and the temperature during the deformation process were considered for
the accurate application of the hardening models. The most applicable model for each material has been
suggested by comparison of results investigated.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The deformation behavior of metallic materials at high strain
rates has been investigated for the past several decades and
become a recent megatrend, especially in automobile industries
and defense industries. An accurate understanding of the mate-
rial properties at various strain rates is necessary to guarantee the
reliability of the analysis at high-speed deformation, such as high-
speed forming, crash analysis and warhead design. When a metallic
material deforms under a dynamic loading, the inertial effects and
the stress wave propagation become important since the mate-
rial properties are remarkably changed by the extent of the strain
rate. It is noted that the flow stress of a material increases as the
∗ Corresponding author at: 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701,
Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 42 350 3222; fax: +82 42 350 3210.
E-mail address: hhuh@kaist.ac.kr (H. Huh).
strain rate increases, and this tendency is regarded as the inherent
characteristics of the material. Although the dynamic character-
istics of metallic materials such as steel, aluminum, and copper
have been the challenging issue of extensive studies both exper-
imentally and theoretically, a unique equation that is capable of
representing the dynamic hardening characteristics of all types of
materials could not be suggested. This is quite natural because the
dynamic behavior of a material is inherent characteristics which
are different from materials to materials. The quantification of the
dynamic hardening characteristics using the dynamic hardening
model is still important and convenient for the representation of the
stress–strain relationship of a material. By using a dynamic harden-
ing model, complicate dynamic hardening properties of a material
can be expressed by one simple equation and applied to the numer-
ical analysis effectively. Various dynamic hardening models have
been suggested by many researchers to effectively represent the
dynamic hardening characteristics of various metallic materials.
Therefore, it is positively necessary to select the best model that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.02.004
0924-0136/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340
is capable of describing accurate dynamic hardening properties of
a material selected in order to apply the material properties to the
numerical analysis using the dynamic hardening model.
In this paper, well-known dynamic hardening models reported
have been investigated and evaluated using the dynamic harden-
ing characteristics of three kinds of materials: 4340Steel (BCC);
OFHC (FCC); and Ti6Al4V (HCP) to determine the most applicable
dynamic hardening model on the basis of the crystalline structures
of materials. The dynamic hardening characteristics of each mate-
rial have been obtained from uniaxial tensile tests and SHPB tests.
Uniaxial tensile tests have been performed at strain rates ranging
from 0.001 s−1 to 100 s−1 , and SHPB tests have been conducted at
strain rates ranging up to 4000 s−1 . Several well-known models
have been constructed using the test results and investigated for
applicability with the Johnson–Cook model, the Zerilli–Armstrong
model, and the Preston–Tonks–Wallace model for the three materi-
als. The modified Johnson–Cook model, the modified Khan–Huang
model, and a newly proposed model in this paper have also been
constructed using the test results for the accurate quantification
of hardening characteristics. An appropriate dynamic hardening
model is newly proposed in this paper to represent the strain hard-
ening change with the change of the strain rate in novel ways. The
changes in the strain rate and the temperature during the defor-
mation process were considered for accurate application of the
hardening models. The most applicable model for each material
has been suggested by comparison of the results constructed.
2. Review of dynamic hardening models
Various dynamic hardening models have been suggested to
represent the effect of the strain, the strain rate, and the tempera-
ture on the hardening characteristics of metallic materials. In this
section, three well-known models: the Johnson–Cook model; the
Zerilli–Armstrong model; and the Preston–Tonks–Wallace model,
and three suggested models: the modified Johnson–Cook model;
the modified Khan–Huang model; and a newly proposed model
have been reviewed prior to the quantification of the dynamic hard-
ening characteristics of three kinds of materials: BCC; FCC; and
HCP.
2.1. Johnson–Cook model
Johnson and Cook (1983) proposed a dynamic hardening model
that is capable of representing the effects of the strain, the strain
rate, and the temperature on the flow stress of metallic materials
as follows:
  T − T m
 n
 ε̇ r perature. In the BCC case, the strain hardening factor of C5 εn is
 = A + Bε 1 + C ln 1−
ε̇0 Tm − Tr
where ε is the equivalent plastic strain, ε̇/ε̇0 is the dimensionless
plastic strain rate for ε̇0 = 1 s−1 , and Tr and Tm are the reference
temperature and the melting temperature of the material, respec-
tively. The five constants are adopted as A, B, n, C, and m. The
expression in the first term of brackets provides the stress as a
function of strain for ε̇ = 1 s−1 and T = Tr . The expressions in the sec-
ond and third terms of brackets represent the effects of the strain
rate and the temperature, respectively. This model well describes
the behavior of copper alloys, and is the most widely used model
because of its simplicity and convenience, but it has several short-
comings in representing the hardening characteristics of all types
of materials. The strain rate hardening term in the second bracket is
expressed as a linear function of the logarithm of the strain rate. In
accordance with this expression, the yield stress of the model can
be increased only as a linear equation of the logarithm of the strain
rate. However, this relation is not valid in actual cases for general
1327
metallic materials. The yield stress of various metallic materials
does not have linearity to the logarithm of the strain rate. This
causes inaccurate fitting of stress–strain curves at a wide range
of strain rates. Another shortcoming of this model is that the vari-
ation of the strain hardening with the change of the strain rate
cannot be implemented independently following the actual strain
hardening behavior of a material with respect to the strain rate.
The slope of the stress–strain curve increases or decreases gener-
ally with increase of the strain rate, which is the inherent attribute
of a material with the crystalline structure. In this model, however,
the slope of the stress–strain curve only increase in proportion to
the value of the strain rate term due to the nature of the model. The
model represents the change in the stress–strain relationship with
the change in the strain rate by simply multiplying the value of the
strain rate term to the stress–strain curve at the reference strain
rate. This incorrect expression was pointed out by Liang and Khan
(1999). When the strain rate in the second bracket is determined,
the stress–strain curve at the designated strain rate is determined
by multiplication of the second bracket to the first bracket.
2.2. Zerilli–Armstrong model
Zerilli and Armstrong (1987) suggested two different types of
models for FCC and BCC materials based on the dislocation dynam-
ics as belows:
 √ 
 = C0 + C1 + C2 ε exp [−C3 T + C4 T ln ε̇] + C5 εn
√
for FCC (C1 = C5 = 0) :  = C0 + C2 ε exp [−C3 T + C4 T ln ε̇] (2)
for BCC (C2 = 0) :  = C0 + C1 exp [−C3 T + C4 T ln ε̇] + C5 εn
where C0 , C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , and C5 are the material constants. C0
is related to the Hall–Petch relation by C0 = G + kd−1/2 . The
Zerilli–Armstrong model suggests two different expressions using
the hardening characteristics of materials with a variety of crys-
talline structures. In the FCC case, the main consideration is that
the temperature softening and strain rate hardening dependencies
of the flow stress are greater with increased strain hardening. In the
BCC case, the strain hardening factor is uncoupled from the strain
rate hardening and the thermal softening terms. From the expres-
sions of the two different Zerilli–Armstrong models, a shortcoming
of each model can be discussed. In the FCC case, C0 is independent
of the strain rate and the temperature. This expression induces a
constant yield stress with the change in the strain rate and the tem-
perature. Therefore, the FCC model does not represent the change
in the yield stress with the change in the strain rate and the tem-
(1)
uncoupled from the strain rate hardening and the thermal soft-
ening terms. Because of this expression, the BCC model does not
show the hardening change with the change in the strain rate and
the temperature.
2.3. Preston–Tonks–Wallace model
Follansbee and Kocks (1988) suggested Mechanical Thresh-
old Stress model which is valid for thermal activation regime
(ε̇ < 105 s−1 ) based on dislocation dynamics. Preston et al. (2003)
extended the Mechanical Threshold Stress model to strain rates
ranging up to 1012 s−1 . The Preston–Tonks–Wallace model sug-
gests two different hardening characteristics at a thermal regime
(ε̇ < 105 s−1 ) and at a dislocation–drag dominated shock regime
(109 s−1 < ε̇ < 1012 s−1 ). The gap between the two regimes is
represented as the maximum value of the hardening expression
in the two regimes without introducing any additional material
1328 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

parameters. The Preston–Tonks–Wallace model can be represented same reason as the Johnson–Cook model. It shows deviations from
as follows: the dynamic characteristics of general metallic materials since the

 strain hardening of the most of materials should be changed as the
• At thermal regime ε̇ < 105 s−1
strain rate changes.
⎡ ⎧ ⎫⎤
   ⎨ ⎬
1
 p
s0 − ˆ y ln ⎣1 − 1 − exp −p s s −ˆy   ⎦
ˆ −ˆ
: ˆ = ˆ s + × exp −
  
p 0 y ⎩ s0 − ˆy exp −p ˆs −ˆy − 1 ⎭ (3)

 s0 −ˆy
• At shock regime 109 s−1 < ε̇ < 1012 s −1

ˇ
: ˆ s = ˆ y = constant × ˙ /˙
2.5. Modified Khan–Huang model
where ˆ is the normalized flow stress (ˆ = /G, where  is the shear
stress and G is the shear modulus), and ˆ s and ˆ y represent the nor- The Khan–Huang model in Eq. (7) was proposed by Khan and
malized work hardening saturation stress and the normalized shear Huang (1992) to describe the change in the strain hardening due to
stress, respectively.  is plastic strain and the variables, p, , and the change in the strain rate.
s0 , are dimensionless material constants. ˆ s and ˆ y are represented
  n1   T − T m
ln ε̇ r
as follows:  = A+B 1− p εn0 eC ln ε̇
1−
   ln D0 T − Tm

˙
ˆ s = s0 − (s0 − s∞ ) erf T̂ ln (4) where D0 = 106 s−1
p
(7)
˙
  

˙
ˆ y = y0 − (y0 − y∞ ) erf T̂ ln (5) The strain hardening term in the first bracket is described by a
˙ function of the strain and the strain rate. The parameter B which
where the material constants s0 and s∞ are the values of ˆ s at an denotes the strain hardening behavior is represented by the func-
absolute zero temperature and a very high temperature, respec- tion of the strain rate while the parameter B in the Johnson–Cook
tively. y0 and y∞ have analogous interpretations. and
are model is regarded as a constant value. The strain hardening param-
dimensionless material constants. The scaled temperature T̂ is eter B can decrease with increase of the strain rate. This expression
defined by T/Tm , where Tm is the melting temperature. ˙ /
˙ is the can overcome the shortcoming of the Johnson–Cook model. For
dimensionless strain rate variable. the Johnson–Cook model, the change in the strain hardening with
Since this paper addresses the hardening characteristics of the change in the strain rate cannot be controlled, but it can be
metallic materials at a strain rate range of up to 4000 s−1 , the controlled by the parameter n1 in this model.
Preston–Tonks–Wallace model at a shock regime has not been con- The strain rate hardening term of the Khan–Huang model is
structed. expressed as eC ln ε̇ . This term can be converted to ε̇C . It expresses
the strain rate hardening of a material as the exponential relation-
2.4. Modified Johnson–Cook model ship to the strain rate. As previously shown in Fig. 1, however,
general metallic material shows the exponential relationship to
Kang et al. (1999) developed the modified Johnson–Cook model the logarithm of the strain rate. Song and Huh (2007) suggested
through the modification of the strain rate hardening term of the modified Khan–Huang model in Eq. (8) by modifying the strain
the Johnson–Cook model. The linear expression of the strain rate rate hardening term in the Khan–Huang model as the one in the
hardening term in the Johnson–Cook model is substituted by the modified Johnson–Cook model. The strain hardening term in the
exponential expression as follows: first bracket is the same as that in the Khan–Huang model, and the
  p   T − T m
strain rate hardening term in the second bracket is the same as
 n
 ε̇ r that in the modified Johnson–Cook model. This model only takes
 = A + Bε 1 + C ln 1− (6)
ε̇0 Tm − Tr the advantage of the each model. The applicability of the modified

where ε̇0 = 0.001 s−1 (the reference strain rate). General metallic
materials demonstrate the exponential relationship of the yield 4340steel
1000 Initial yield stress
stress with respect to the logarithm of the strain rate. The modi-
fied Johnson–Cook model represents the yield stress change with The Johnson-Cook
The modified Johnson-Cook
respect to the strain rate more accurately than the Johnson–Cook
Yield stress [MPa]

model. Fig. 1 shows experimental results of 4340 steel and expres- 800
sion of the strain rate hardening sensitivity using the Johnson–Cook
and modified Johnson–Cook model. Symbols in the graph indicate
the change in the yield stress of 4340steel with respect to the
strain rate. The strain rate hardening is represented by the linear
600
and exponential relationship for the Johnson–Cook and modified
Johnson–Cook model, respectively. The modified Johnson–Cook
model can represents improved results for the strain rate harden- 400
ing. The modified Johnson–Cook model, however, still expresses
the flow stress change with respect to the strain rate by sim- 0
ply scaling the strain hardening curve at the reference strain rate 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
(0.001 s−1 ) like the Johnson–Cook model. The characteristics for the Strain rate [/s]
strain rate hardening is enhanced as actual characteristics of the
general metallic materials, but the change in the strain hardening Fig. 1. Representation of the strain rate hardening of 4340steel using the
with the change in the strain rate still cannot be controlled for the Johnson–Cook and modified Johnson–Cook model.
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1329

Khan–Huang model to the auto-body steel sheets was evaluated 1200

by Huh et al. (2012) using two kinds of mild steel sheets and one
advanced high strength steel sheet.
  n1   p   T − T m
1000

True stress [MPa]

ln ε̇ n0 ε̇ r
 = A+B 1− p ε 1 + C ln 1−
ln D0 ε̇0 T − Tm 800 3500/s
2000/s
= 109 s−1
p
where D0 (8)
600 100/s
10/s
1/s
2.6. Newly proposed model 400 0.001/s

The modified Khan–Huang model can represent realistic strain 0

rate hardening and the strain hardening which decreases with
increasing strain rate. This model expresses the change in the strain
hardening by a linearly decreasing function with increase of the
logarithmic strain rate. It still has some limitations for the represen-
tation of the strain hardening change due to the linear expression.
It cannot represent accurate strain hardening change for the mate-
rial whose strain hardening parameter B does not linearly decrease
with increase of the logarithmic strain rate.
A novel dynamic hardening model is newly proposed to accu-
rately express the change in the strain hardening with the change
in the strain rate. The main concept of the new model is to deter-
mine the strain hardening change with strain rate change based on
the experimental results and interpolation.
The basic form of the new model is developed on the basis of
the Cowper–Symonds model in Eq. (9).
  ε̇ 1/p
 = 0 1 +
C
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
True strain
Fig. 2. True stress–true strain curves of 4340steel.
strain rate sensitivity. In this paper,  r indicates the flow stress
at 0.001 s−1 . In Eq. (13), parameters q and m denote the strain rate
sensitivity at a designated strain condition and can be expressed as
functions of the strain.
Fig. 2 shows the true stress–true strain curves of 4340steel at
a wide range of strain rates ranging from 0.001 s−1 to 3500 s−1 . To
observe ratio of the flow stress at each strain rate to the flow stress
at the reference strain rate / r of this material, flow stress at each
strain rate is divided by the flow stress at the reference strain rate
0.001 s−1 , and it is shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3(a) shows the decreasing
tendency of the strain rate sensitivity with increase of the strain.
(9)

where  0 denotes the flow stress at the strain rate of 0 s−1 or the
quasi-static state and C and p denote the strain rate sensitivity at
the designated strain condition. Cowper and Symonds (1957) rep-
resented the flow stress at various strain rates by expressing the
strain rate sensitivity in various strain conditions using C and p, i.e.,
each strain condition has its own C and p values.
The Cowper–Symonds model expresses the flow stress at a des-
ignated strain rate by multiplying the flow stress at strain rate of
0 s−1 by the strain rate sensitivity, which is described by the sec-
ond bracket in Eq. (9). However, the flow stress at strain rate of
0 s−1 cannot be measured in an actual case. The new model uses
the flow stress at the reference strain rate rather than the flow
stress at strain rate of 0 s−1 as in the Cowper–Symonds model. The
Cowper–Symonds model can be expressed again by Eq. (10).
  1
 = 0 1 + qε̇m where q = C −1/p , m= (10)
p
Using Eq. (10), the reference flow stress  r at the reference strain
rate ε̇r can be expressed as follows:
 
r = 0 1 + qε̇m
r (11)

0 1
= (12)
r 1 + qε̇m
r

By using Eq. (12), Eq. (10) can be re-written as follows:

 = 0 [1 + qε̇m ]

0  
= r 1 + qε̇m (13)
r
1 + qε̇m
= r
1 + qε̇m
r

Eq. (13) expresses the flow stress at a designated strain rate Fig. 3. Ratio of the flow stress to the flow stress at 0.001 s−1 : (a) with the variation
by multiplying the flow stress at a reference strain rate by the of the strain; (b) with the variation of the strain rate.
1330 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

0.10 can be used for r (ε) in Eq. (18). In this paper, the Swift model is
(a) q at each strain used for the strain hardening function at the reference strain rate.
q fitted by power-law
0.08 1 + q (ε) ε̇m q1
 (ε, ε̇) = A(ε + ε0 )n × where q (ε) = (19)
1 + q (ε) ε̇m
r (ε + q2 )q3

0.06 3. Experiments
q( )

The dynamic hardening characteristics of three kinds of mate-

0.04 rials: 4340Steel (BCC); OFHC (FCC); and Ti6Al4V (HCP) have been
obtained from uniaxial tensile tests and SHPB tests. Uniaxial ten-
0.02 sile tests at quasi-static strain rates (0.001–0.01 s−1 ) have been
conducted using an INSTRON 5583 Universal Testing Machine.
0.000 A servo-hydraulic-type high speed material testing machine was
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 used for the dynamic material tests at intermediate strain rates
strain ranging from 0.1 s−1 to 100 s−1 . A split Hopkinson pressure bar was
(b) 0.30 used for the tests at strain rates greater than 1000 s−1 .
m at each strain
m fitted by power-law 3.1. Dynamic tensile tests at intermediate strain rates
0.25
A servo-hydraulic-type high speed material testing machine
developed by Huh et al. (2009) is utilized for the dynamic material
test at intermediate strain rates. The maximum velocity and load
m( )

0.20
of the apparatus are 7800 mm/s and 30 kN, respectively. The load
is acquired from a piezoelectric-type load cell, and the displace-
ment is obtained from an LDT (linear displacement transducer).
0.15
The machine is equipped with a gripper fixture that is specially
designed to obtain the constant tensile velocity during the test
0.000 and to reduce the noise in the data acquisition from the load
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 cell. The dimensions of a tensile specimen are determined by
strain Song and Huh (2006) using finite element analysis to ensure that
the gauge section is uniformly elongated at intermediate strain
Fig. 4. Change in the q and m with increasing strain. rates.
Tensile tests were conducted for the three materials for strain
rates ranging from 0.1 s−1 to 100 s−1 . Tensile tests at a quasi-static
This result means the decreasing strain hardening with increase
state from 0.001 s−1 to 0.01 s−1 were conducted using the INSTRON
of the strain rate. According to Eq. (13), / r can be represented
5583. The tests were repeated five times for each condition. Engi-
as (1 + qε̇m ) / (1 + qε̇m
r ). Parameters q and m denote the strain rate neering stress–engineering strain curves of the three materials
sensitivity, and those can be represented as functions of the strain.
were obtained at various strain rates as shown in Fig. 5. The test
By investigating the results in Fig. 3, parameters q and m are rep-
results show that the flow stress is influenced by the strain rate
resented as the power law as shown in Fig. 4. Lim (2005) showed
for the three materials, and the effects of the strain rate on the flow
that parameters q and m of 22 kinds of other materials also can be
stress are different for each material. This tendency can be regarded
represented as the power law.
as the inherent characteristics of each material.
q (ε) = q1 (ε + q2 )q3 (14)
3.2. Split Hopkinson pressure bar tests at high strain rates
m3
m (ε) = m1 (ε + m2 ) (15)
The dynamic responses of the three materials at high strain
To reduce the number of parameters, m can be assumed to be
rates were obtained using the split Hopkinson pressure bar test
constant value because the change of q can include the change of
with disc-type specimens whose diameters and thicknesses are
m.
10 mm and 5 mm, respectively (Huh et al., 2002). The split Hopkin-
q1 son pressure bar test is a popular experimental technique for the
q(ε) = (16)
(ε + q2 )q3 identification of the dynamic material characteristics at high strain
m = constant (17) rates. Stress–strain curves are acquired by measuring the stress
waves propagating through the incident and transmitted bars in
In the case of a material whose strain hardening decreases as this apparatus.
the strain rate increases, q3 in Eq. (14) takes on a negative value.
The form of Eq. (16) was introduced to avoid a negative value of q3 4. Discussion on model construction and comparison to
because the new model is originally proposed to be applied for the experiments
auto-body steel sheet, and the strain hardening of a typical auto-
body steel sheet decreases as the strain rate increases. The final Fig. 6 shows the true stress–true strain curves of the three mate-
form of the new model can be expressed as follows: rials for strain rates ranging from 0.001 s−1 to 4000 s−1 . Each data
1 + q (ε) ε̇m q1 set was obtained by fitting the experimental results using the data
 (ε, ε̇) = r (ε) where q (ε) = (18) up to the ultimate tensile strength. The six dynamic hardening
1 + q (ε) ε̇m
r (ε + q2 )q3
models introduced in the previous section have been constructed
Any form of the strain hardening function that is capable of using the true stress–true strain data in Fig. 6. To ensure the accu-
expressing the stress–strain relationship at the reference strain rate racy, the true strain rate and the thermal softening effects were
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1331

Fig. 6. True stress–true strain curves at various strain rates: (a) 4340Steel (BCC); (b)
OFHC (FCC); (c) Ti6Al4V (HCP).
Fig. 5. Engineering stress–engineering strain curves at various strain rates: (a)
4340Steel (BCC); (b) OFHC (FCC); (c) Ti6Al4V (HCP).
adiabatic assumption at the strain rate above 0.01 s−1 can be
expressed as Eq. (22).
V
ε̇ = (20)
introduced since both the strain rate and the temperature change L0
during the test. The strain rate can be expressed as Eq. (20), where V 
V is the tensile speed and L0 is the gauge length. During the test, ε̇true = exp (−ε) (21)
L0
the gauge length of a specimen changes continuously and so does
the strain rate. Gao and Wagoner (1987) suggested that the strain
 ε
0.9
rate reduces during the tensile test as an exponential function of T =  (ε) dε (22)
Eq. (21). The temperature of a specimen also changes during the
test. In this paper, it is assumed that 90% of the plastic deformation
energy is converted to the heat energy in the strain rate conditions
above 0.01 s−1 . The value of the strain rate at which the thermal
condition is transformed from isothermal to adiabatic is different
for each material since it is related to inherent characteristics of
a material. In this paper, the value is assumed to be 0.01 s−1 for
all three kinds of materials by lack of experimental results with
the variation of temperatures. Change in the temperature due to
C 0
The strain rate and temperature changes during the tests
were considered to retain more accurate model construction.
Temperature change calculated using Eq. (22) was used for the
determination of temperature dependent parameters of the mod-
els since tensile tests were conducted at the room temperature
only. For more accurate determination of temperature depend-
ent parameters, additional tensile tests should have been carried
out with the variation of temperature. Detailed procedure for
1332 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

Fig. 7. Representation of the yield stress change of 4340Steel(BCC) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

model construction process considering strain rate and tempera-
ture change is explained in Appendix A.
It is important to accurately represent the yield stress change
with respect to the strain rate since the yield stress indicates the
onset of plastic deformation. Figs. 7–9 show comparison of the
yield stresses from experiments with those of each model for the
three materials. The Johnson–Cook model does not accurately rep-
resent the yield stress change of 4340Steel and OFHC because of
its linear expression of the strain rate hardening term, but the
model still well represent the yield stress change of Ti6Al4V. The
Zerilli–Armstrong model for the FCC represents a constant yield
stress. The Preston–Tonks–Wallace model uses the error function
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1333

Fig. 8. Representation of the yield stress change of OFHC(FCC) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

and the Zerilli–Armstrong model for the BCC uses an exponential
function for the representation of the yield stress change. The mod-
ified Johnson–Cook model and the modified Khan–Huang model
use the exponential function of the logarithm of the strain rate, and
these models illustrate the best fit for the yield stress change with
respect to the strain rate. The new model also presents an accurate
fit since it accurately represents the strain rate sensitivity in each
strain condition including the yield point.
Figs. 10–12 present comparison of the hardening characteris-
tics from the experiments with those from each model for the three
1334 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

Fig. 9. Representation of the yield stress change of Ti6Al4V(HCP) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

materials. Both the Johnson–Cook model and the Zerilli–Armstrong
model for the FCC indicate notable deviations in their hardening
characteristics due to their improper expression of the yield stress.
The modified Johnson–Cook model also shows large deviation since
the flow stress change in the model is expressed by a simple scal-
ing of the flow stress at the reference strain rate of 0.001 s−1 as
explained previously. The Zerilli–Armstrong model for the BCC does
not represent the hardening change with respect to the strain rate.
The new model shows the best fit for 4340Steel (BCC) since it is the
best adopted model for a material in which the hardening decreases
with increase in the strain rate. The Preston–Tonks–Wallace model
shows the best fit for OFHC (FCC) since it can represent the
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1335

Fig. 10. Representation of the hardening change of 4340Steel(BCC) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

increasing hardening behavior of FCC metals with increase in the
strain rate. The Zerilli–Armstrong model for the FCC also expresses
an increasing hardening behavior with increase in the strain rate.
However, the fitted results of this model deviate largely from the
experimental results since the model does not express the change
in the yield stress with the change in the strain rate. Both the
modified Khan–Huang model and the new model show the best
fit for Ti6Al4V (HCP) since they are able to represent the accurate
yield stress and the hardening change with respect to the strain
rate.
Fig. 13 presents quantitative evaluation of each model for both
the yield stress and the hardening representation. For all types
1336 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

Fig. 11. Representation of the hardening change of OFHC(FCC) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

of materials, the Johnson–Cook model and the Zerilli–Armstrong
model for the FCC induce large deviation in the yield stress and
the hardening representation. Bars with the dashed outline in
Fig. 13 mean that the corresponding model shows the relatively
larger deviation compared to the other models. The modified
Johnson–Cook model is enhanced for the yield stress representa-
tion although the hardening representation still shows improper
results. The Zerilli–Armstrong model for the BCC is only able
to represent accurate hardening characteristics when the hard-
ening does not significantly change with respect to the strain
rate for Ti6Al4V. The Preston–Tonks–Wallace model, the modified
Khan–Huang model, and the new model are able to accurately rep-
resent the change in the hardening and the yield stress. Table 1
shows the material coefficients for each model constructed.
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1337

Fig. 12. Representation of the hardening change of Ti6Al4V(HCP) with respect to the strain rate: (a) J–C; (b) Z–A BCC; (c) Z–A FCC; (d) P–T–W; (e) Modified J–C; (f) Modified
K–H; (g) New model.

5. Summary of discussion on comparison of results
The main purpose of this paper is to suggest the methodology of
the model selection process for the application of the dynamic hard-
ening properties of the metallic material to the numerical analysis.
Appropriate model selection for a material is the first step of the
numerical analysis at high speed deformation. Since the dynamic
hardening properties of a material are the inherent characteristics
which are different from materials to materials, a different model
can be the best model for a different material. This is the reason
that there exists no unique model that could be applied to the
all kinds of materials. It is inevitably necessary to select the most
1338 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340
Fig. 13. Quantitative evaluation of all constructed results.
adequate model for a material in consideration prior to the numer-
ical analysis. For the appropriate model selection, it is required to
accurately understand the characteristics of several dynamic hard-
ening models. This paper reports review results for characteristics
of six kinds of dynamic hardening models: three well-known mod-
els; two models previously suggested by authors; and one model
newly proposed. A critical review of various dynamic hardening
models could be a helpful summary for the researchers who will
conduct the finite element analysis at high strain rates.
Experimental results of three kinds of materials with different
crystalline structures provide clear evidence that the strain rate
sensitivity on the stress–strain curve is different from materials
to materials. Three kinds of materials show different strain rate
sensitivity such as increasing tendency of the yield stress and the
changing tendency of the slope of the flow stress with the change
in the strain rate. The selection of the most adequate model for a
material can be carried out by fully understanding the characteris-
tics of various models for the expression of the yield stress and the
flow stress change with increasing strain rate.
In this paper, a new dynamic hardening model is also pro-
posed to provide wide variety of model selections. The model is
proposed to represent dynamic hardening properties of metallic
materials that cannot be described properly using previous mod-
els. Based on investigation on experimental results of more than
twenty kinds of auto-body steel sheets, it is noted that the strain
rate sensitivity of the material can be expressed as a function of
the strain using the power law (Lim, 2005). The strength of this
model is that the constants of the model can be determined with
regard to experimental results by changing the parameters in the
power law equation. The models previously suggested are suitable
for only corresponding materials whose strain rate sensitivity is
valid for the fixed form of the model. The constants of the proposed
model are determined based on a material whose strain harden-
ing decreases as the strain rate increases. According to results of
model construction in the previous section, the model proposed is
not valid for an OFHC material whose strain hardening increases as
the strain rate increases. The Preston–Tonks–Wallce model shows
a better fit for OFHC. Therefore, the Preston–Tonks–Wallace model
 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340 1339

Table 1
Material coefficients for each constructed model.

Johnson–Cook (ref. strain rate: 1s−1 , temperature 300K) Zerilli–Armstrong for BCC (ref. Strain rate: 1s−1 , temperature 300K)

A B n C m C0 C1 C3 C4 C5 n

4340Steel 539 1632 0.629 0.069 0.350 528 1280 0.016 0.001 1136 0.514
OFHC 334 147 0.583 0.019 0.565 309 986 0.012 4.93 × 10−4 193 0.638
Ti6Al4V 1172 298 0.398 0.019 1.500 737 1581 0.004 1.52 × 10−4 914 0.605

Zerilli–Armstrong for FCC (ref. Strain rate: 1s−1 , Preston–Tonks–Wallace (ref. Strain rate: 1s−1 , temperature 300 K)
temperature 300 K)

C0 C2 C3 C4 y0 y∞
p  s0 s∞

4340Steel 539 12,594 0.008 1.98 × 10−4 0.012 0.003 0.308 0.001 2 0.053 0.007 0.007
OFHC 334 9.32 × 10−6 0.038 5.74 × 10−4 0.010 0.004 0.335 0.001 12 0.009 0.048 0.004
Ti6Al4V 1172 37,296 0.014 4. × 10−4 0.020 0.005 0.114 0.001 15 0.066 0.032 0.019

Modified Johnson–Cook (ref. strain rate: 0.001s−1 , temperature 300 K) Modified Khan–Huang (ref. strain rate: 0.001s−1 , temperature 300 K)

A B n C p m A B n1 n0 C p m

4340Steel 504 1591 0.637 3.66 × 10−5 3.660 0.478 504 1946 0.911 0.651 3.66 × 10−5 3.660 6.025
OFHC 317 128 0.519 1.81 × 10−4 2.641 2.756 317 123 -0.132 0.543 1.81 × 10−4 2.641 6.500
Ti6Al4V 1051 613 0.536 0.007 1.366 0.744 1051 448 0.388 0.459 0.007 1.366 6.516

New model (ref. strain rate: 0.001s−1 , temperature 300 K)

A ε0 n q1 q2 q3 m

4340Steel 1382 0.011 0.222 0.013 0.012 0.420 0.275

OFHC 354 0.003 0.018 0.110 0.045 -0.250 0.200
Ti6Al4V 1412 0.010 0.065 0.140 0.023 0.236 0.066

should be used to apply the dynamic hardening properties of Acknowledgements

OFHC to the finite element analysis. This is clear evidence that
it is necessary to select an appropriate model based on the full This work was supported by the Defense Research Laboratory
understanding of the attribute of the various dynamic hardening Program of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and
models. the Agency for Defense Development in Republic of Korea.

Appendix A. Determination procedure of model

6. Conclusion coefficients

This paper is concerned with the characteristics of various As introduced in Section 4, strain rate and temperature change
dynamic hardening models from the perspective of the dynamic during the tests were considered for more accurate model con-
behavior of three kinds of metallic materials. The dynamic response struction. In accordance with a conventional method, strain rate
at intermediate strain rates is obtained from high speed tensile and temperature remain constant as the initial values during the
tests, and that at high strain rates is obtained from split Hop- tests. Table 2 shows the example of the strain, strain rate, temper-
kinson pressure bar tests. It is important to investigate the yield ature, and stress during the tensile test of 4340Steel at the strain
stress and the hardening characteristics of each dynamic hardening rate of 0.001 s−1 and 10 s−1 . The strain rate and the temperature
model to quantify the dynamic hardening characteristics of metallic remain constant as the initial values. During the test, however, the
materials. Three types of well-known dynamic hardening mod- gauge length of a specimen changes continuously and so does the
els were investigated and evaluated for their applicability. Three strain rate. The strain rate during the tensile test reduces as an
modified dynamic hardening models developed by the authors
were also investigated for their applicability. A newly proposed Table 2
model in this paper seems the best model for 4340Steel (BCC); Conventional conditions of strain, strain rate, temperature, and stress during the
tensile tests.
the Preston–Tonks–Wallace model seems the best model for OFHC
(FCC); and both the modified Khan–Huang model and the new Strain Strain rate [s−1 ] Temperature [K] Stress [MPa] Condition
model seem the best models for Ti6Al4V (HCP). The Johnson–Cook 0.000 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 504.5 Isothermal
model and the Zerilli–Armstrong model for the FCC have signif- 0.002 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 524.2 Isothermal
icant shortcomings in the representation of the yield stress and 0.004 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 541.5 Isothermal
the hardening characteristics. The modified Johnson–Cook model 0.006 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 557.2 Isothermal
0.008 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 571.4 Isothermal
also shows inaccurate results of the hardening characteristics. The
0.010 1.00 × 10−3 300.00 584.4 Isothermal
Zerilli–Armstrong model for the BCC is limited to materials whose .
.
hardening characteristics do not change with respect to the strain .
rate. The new model, the modified Khan–Huang model, and the 0.000 10.000 300.00 580.2 Adiabatic
Preston–Tonks–Wallace model provide good representations of the 0.002 10.000 300.00 599.1 Adiabatic
0.004 10.000 300.00 616.0 Adiabatic
yield stress and the hardening change with respect to the strain 0.006 10.000 300.00 631.5 Adiabatic
rate. Especially, the newly proposed model shows the outstanding 0.008 10.000 300.00 645.7 Adiabatic
fitted results for the BCC and the HCP metals whose strain harden- 0.010 10.000 300.00 658.8 Adiabatic
ing amount decreases or constant with the increase of the strain .
.
.
rate.
1340 H. Huh et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014) 1326–1340

Table 3 In the Zerilli–Armstrong for BCC model, the coefficients related

Strain, strain rate, temperature, and stress conditions considering strain rate and
to the yield stress are C0 , C1 , C3 and C4 . These coefficients are
temperature change during the tensile tests.
determined using the yield stress change with respect to the strain
Strain Strain rate [s−1 ] Temperature [K] Stress [MPa] Condition rate change as shown in Figs. 7(b), 8(b), and 9(b). C5 and n can
0.000 1.000 × 10−3 300.00 504.5 Isothermal be determined by the least square method using all the data
0.002 0.998 × 10−3 300.00 524.2 Isothermal points.
0.004 0.996 × 10−3 300.00 541.5 Isothermal In the Zerilli–Armstrong for FCC model, the coefficient related
0.006 0.994 × 10−3 300.00 557.2 Isothermal
to the yield stress is C0 only. In this paper, C0 is determined to the
0.008 0.992 × 10−3 300.00 571.4 Isothermal
0.010 0.990 × 10−3 300.00 584.4 Isothermal yield stress at the strain rate of 1 s−1 as shown in Figs. 7(c), 8(c), and
. 9(c). The remaining coefficients C2 , C3 and C4 can be determined by
.
. the least square method using all the data points.
0.000 10.000 300.00 580.2 Adiabatic
In the Preston–Tonks–Wallace model, the coefficients related
0.002 9.980 300.31 599.1 Adiabatic
0.004 9.960 300.62 616.0 Adiabatic
to the yield stress are y0 , y∞ , , and
. These coefficients are deter-
0.006 9.940 300.94 631.5 Adiabatic mined using the yield stress change with respect to the strain rate
0.008 9.921 301.27 645.7 Adiabatic change as shown in Figs. 7(d), 8(d), and 9(d). s0 , s∞ , p, and  can be
0.010 9.900 301.61 658.8 Adiabatic determined by the least square method using all the data points.
.
. In the modified Johnson–Cook model, the coefficients related to
.
the yield stress are A, C, and p. A, C and p are determined using the
yield stress change with respect to the strain rate change as shown
exponential function of Eq. (21). The temperature of the spec- in Figs. 7(e), 8(e), and 9(e). B, n and m can be determined by the
imen also changes during the test. In the strain rate condition least square method using all the data points.
above 0.01 s−1 , it is assumed that 90% of the plastic strain energy In the modified Khan–Huang model, the coefficients related to
is converted to the heat energy as a function of Eq. (22). In this the yield stress are A, C, and p. A, C and p are determined using the
manner, each data point has a condition of different strain rate and yield stress change with respect to the strain rate change as shown
temperature during the whole process of the tensile test. These con- in Figs. 7(f), 8(f), and 9(f). B, n1 , n2 , and m are determined by the
ditions are exemplified in Table 3. For each model, the coefficients least square method using all the data points.
related to the yield stress are determined first and the remaining
coefficients are determined later. References
In the Johnson–Cook model, for example, the coefficients related
Cowper, G.R., Symonds, P.S., 1957. Strain Hardening and Strain Rate Effects in the
to the yield stress are A and C. At the yield point (εp = 0), the Impact Loading of Cantilever Beams. Brown University Division of Applied Math-
Johnson–Cook model can be re-written as below: ematics Report, pp. 28.
 ε̇
 Follansbee, P.S., Kocks, U.F., 1988. A constitutive description of the deformation of
copper based on the use of the mechanical threshold stress as an internal state
 = A 1 + C ln (23) variable. Acta Metall. 36, 81–93.
ε̇0
Gao, Y., Wagoner, R.H., 1987. A simplified model of heat generation during the
In Eq. (23), the thermal softening term is also removed since uniaxial tensile test. Metall. Trans. A 18A, 1001–1009.
Huh, H., Kang, W.J., Han, S.S., 2002. A tension split Hopkinson bar for investigating
T = Tr at 0% plastic strain in the room temperature tensile test. In Eq.
the dynamic behavior of sheet metals. Exp. Mech. 42, 8–17.
(23), A denotes the yield stress at the reference strain rate (ε̇ = ε̇0 ) Huh, H., Lee, H.J., Song, J.H., 2012. Dynamic hardening equation of the auto-body
and C represent change in the yield stress with the change in the steel sheet with the variation of temperature. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 13, 43–
strain rate. A and C can be determined using the yield stress change 60.
Huh, H., Lim, J.H., Park, S.H., 2009. High speed tensile test of steel sheets for the
with respect to the strain rate change as shown in Figs. 7(a), 8(a), stress-strain curve at the intermediate strain rate. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 10,
and 9(a). In a conventional method (without considering strain rate 195–204.
and temperature change), strain hardening parameters B and n can Johnson, G.R., Cook, W.H., 1983. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected
to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the
be determined using the stress–strain curve at the reference strain Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherland, pp.
rate since the Johnson–Cook model can be represented at a strain 541–547.
rate as below: Kang, W.J., Cho, S.S., Huh, H., Chung, D.T., 1999. Modified Johnson–Cook model
  for vehicle body crashworthiness simulation. Int. J. Vehicle Des. 21, 424–
 = A + Bεn C when ε̇ = ε̇0 and T = Tr (24) 435.
Khan, A.S., Huang, S., 1992. Experimental and theoretical study of mechanical behav-
Eq. (24) is valid under a conventional condition only. When the ior of 1100 aluminum in the strain rate range 10−5 –104 s−1 . Int. J. Plast. 8,
397–424.
strain rate and temperature change are considered as shown in Liang, R., Khan, A.S., 1999. A critical review of experimental results and consti-
Table 3, B and n are not the strain hardening parameters at the ref- tutive models for BCC and FCC metals over a wide range of strain rates and
erence strain rate any more since ε̇ = ε̇0 and T = Tr only at ε = 0. For temperatures. Int. J. Plast. 15, 963–980.
Lim, J.H., 2005. Study on dynamic tensile tests of auto-body steel sheet at the inter-
this reason, remainder of A and C should be determined simulta- mediate strain rate for material constitutive equations. In: Ph.D. Dissertation.
neously using experimental data at all of the strain rate conditions. KAIST, Daejeon, Korea.
In all of the strain rate conditions, experimental data can be sum- Preston, D.J., Tonks, D.L., Wallace, D.C., 2003. Model of plastic deformation for
extreme loading conditions. J. Appl. Phys. 93, 211–220.
marized as Table 3. Using all of the calculated data, B, n, and m
Song, J.H., Huh, H., 2006. Dynamic material property of the sinter-forged Cu-Cr alloys
can be determined simultaneously using the least square method. with the variation of chrome content. Trans. KSME(A) 30, 670–677.
By determining A and C prior to determining B, n, and m, the con- Song, J.H., Huh, H., 2007. The effect of strain rate on the material characteris-
structed model can have the most accurate fit near the yield point. tics of Nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718. Key Eng. Mater. 340–341, 283–
288.
The yield stress is the most important since it indicates the onset Zerilli, F.J., Armstrong, R.W., 1987. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive rela-
stress of the plastic deformation at various strain rates. tions for material dynamics calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 61, 1816–1825.