Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

GRL-TR-2528 June 2001

.
An Analysis of Parametersfor the
Johnson-Cook Strength Model for
2-in-Thick Rolled HomogeneousArmor
Hubert W. Meyer, Jr. and David S. Kleponis
Weaponsand MaterialsResearchDirectorate,ARL

Approved for public release;distribution is unlimited.

Abstract
Yield strengthobtainedfrom quasi-staticstrengthdata for rolled homogeneousarmor
@HA) was combinedwith dynamic strengthdata for 2-in (5lmtn) RHA to generate
Johnson-Cookparametersfor 2-in RHA. One parameterwas fixed basedon the quasi-
static strengthdata, and a least-squaresmethod was used to fit the others individually.
The fit was tested with CTH by simulating the penetration of stacks of 2.5~in-thick
(63.5-mm) RHA plates(the closestavailableexperimentaldata). Parameteranalysisand
comparisonof the simulationsto experimentsubstantiatedthe approach.

ii
 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledgeShuh Rong Chen for providing the raw data (in
digital form) that was usedin this report.
This work was supportedin part by a grant of high-performancecomputingtime from the
Departmentof DefenseHigh PerformanceComputingCenterat AberdeenProving Ground, MD.

.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

iv
 Table of Contents

...
..~.....,..~...,~....~.....~,........~...~.....................~.~..111
Acknowledgments ..... ..*......*.~...*...*.*.**..

. List of Figures .......... .. .....*.*.*.......**............. ....*......*.......*.......*...............*................... vii

vii
...**~...*...~+~I~*.~..*~......,..~......*.......*.*..
List of Tables .......*.~I..............~**~~~~..~~~~~....**.........

2. Dynamic Data .......... .. ...~....~~...................~........*.......~.................................*...*.*.*~.*~*. 3

4
.......~.*.~.....**~*.~.*..*..*~**.~.*.~.....~.~~......~*~~-.--..~..
Quasi-Static Data .*.*.*.~....*~.*....*...****..*..
3.

4. Fitting the Parameters ............................................................................................. 5

4.1 ParameterA ......................................................................................................... 5

4.2 ParametersB andn .............................................................................................. 6
4.3 Parameterc .......................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Parameterm ......................................................................................................... 10

5. Numerical Simulations ............................................................................................ 13

5.1 Setup.................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Results.................................................................................................................. 14
5.3 Discussion............................................................................................................ 17

Distribution ....*.....*..
List .~.~..~.............,...~...~*.....**~****..***.*.*~*.*~********.~~*.*..*......~.*.~~~..~. 23

Report Documentation Page ......***.......................~~........*.**..*.~.~....................****...*** 25

v
vi
 List of Figures

Figure m

1. RHA HardnessVariations Specifiedby MIL-A- 1256OH*.*.**.*..e....*..*............*...*...... 1

2. 4
Dynamic Strengthof 2-in RHA ...~....****.*.......~.*....**...~~...~.......................*.....~....~....~.*

3. Quasi-StaticYield Strengthof RHA.. ........................................................................ 6

4. SimulationSetup........................................................................................................ 14

5. Nose andTail TracerHistories for the 1,616m/s, Set2 Case................................... 16

6. Set 2: 1,616-m/sPenetrationPlot ............................................................................. 18

List of Tables

Table Pap;e

1. Dynamic StrengthData for 2-in RHA ....................................................................... 4

2. Quasi-StaticYield Strengthof RHA .......................................................................... 5

3. Strain-RateDependenceof Room-TemperatureData ............................................... 9

4. QuadraticFit of the TemperatureData ...................................................................... 12

5. RHA ParameterSetsEvaluated................................................................................. 1s

6. KHA Penetrationsin Millimeters for the ParameterSetsEvaluated......................... 15

vii
 .. .
Vlll
 1. Introduction

Class1 rolled homogeneousarmor @HA), designedfor maximum penetrationresistance,is

availablein thicknessesfrom l/4 in (6.35 mm) up to 6 in (152.4 mm). Military specification
ME-A-12560H (U.S. Departmentof Defense1991)allows a wide variation in hardnessover the
rangeof availablethicktressesaswell as within eachthicknessgroup (Figure 1). Sincehardness
is an indicator of several material strength properties, a significant variation in material
propertiesexists over the rangeof thicknessesof availableFWA and to a lesserextent, within
eachthicknessgroup.

400
375

325

275

250

225
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nominal Thicknessof Plate,in

Figure 1. RHA Hardness Variations Specifiedby MIL-A-12560H.

To properly model the ballistic performanceof FWA, considerationmust be given to these

property variations. The wide variation in material propertiesacrossthe spectrumof available
thicknessessuggeststhat eachthicknessshouldbe separatelyevaluatedto obtain valid strength
parameters. Further complications exist (e.g., manufacturing lots and through-the-thickness
hardnessvariations). However, thesecomplexitiesare avoidedin the presentwork by assuming

1
that the variationsin propertiesfor a particularthichess, as allowedby the thicknessgroup, are
negligible. That is, for an RHA plate that conformsto MIL-A-12560H, specifyingits thickness
is sufficient in identifyingits properties.

The shock physicscode CTH (McGlaun et al. 1990) is used at the U.S. Army Research
Laboratory (ARL) to model ballistic impact and penetrationexperiments. The Johnson-Cook
strengthmodel (Johnsonand Cook 1983) is oneof severalstrengthmodels availablein CTH. It
is an empiricalmodelthat computesmaterial flow stressas a function of strain (work) hardening,
strain-ratehardening,andthermal softening. TheJohnson-Cookmodel takesthe following form:

Y=A I+;$ (l+Cln$*)(I-T*-),

( 1

where A, B, C, m, and n are constants,E is the equivalentplastic strain, ti* is the strain rate
nondimensionalizedby the reference strain rate of l/s, and T* is the nondimensional
temperature. ParameterA, the initial (E = 0) yield strengthof the material at a plastic strainrate
of k = l/s and room temperature(298 K), is modified by a strain-hardeningfactor (containing
parameters B and n), a strain-rate-hardeningfactor (containing parameter C), and a
thermal-softeningfactor (containingparameterm).

T’ is definedby

T-T,
-f =
T, -T, ’
(2)

where T, is room temperatureand T,,, is the melting temperatureof the material, 1,783K for
RHA. Equation(2) is the form usedin CTH andis valid for Tr I T I Tm,the regionof interestin
most ballistic applications,

2
 CTH originally contained a single set of parametersthat had been typically used in
simulationsfor any thicknessof FW.A. Theseparameterswere taken from one of two data fits
for RHA presentedin Gray et al. (1994). Both of these fits (which will be discussed)were
determinedusing 2-in-thick FW4 that conformed to ML-A-12560H. The fits resulted in
overprediction of the quasi-static yield strength (A in equation [Xl). Their approach to
optimization was to considerall parameterssimultaneously. This approachto fitting the data
resulted in a model for the RHA that under-predictedthe depth of penetration of several
experiments; this is discussedin more detail later. In the present work, Johnson-Cook
parametersare developedfor that particularbatch of 2-in-thick RHA. The approachtaken here
is to fix the valueof A basedon the quasi-statictest data. Au optimum fit to the datafor eachof
the remainingparametersis thenfound individually, as suggestedby JohnsonandCook (1983).

2. Dynamic Data

Gray et al. (1994) generatedcompressivestress-straindata for a variety of metals over a

range of temperaturesand strain ratesusing the split-Hopkinsonpressurebar. The digital data
consistedof the results of dynamictests of 2-in-thick RHA. At room temperature,tests were
conductedat four strain rates(0.001;0.1; 3,500; and7,000/s). At elevatedtemperatures(473 and
673 K) testswere conductedat a strainrate of 3,000/s. Strainswere recordedfrom nearzero up
to about0.20.

To expediteprocessingtime andutilize all of the availabledata, the digital datawas not used
directly to obtain the Johnson-Cookparameters,rather it was fit to analyticalfunctionsthat were
suitableto the software availablefor useduring this study. The fits of the six datasetsare shown
l

graphicallyin Figure 2 and algebraicallyin Table 1, The functions in Table 1 arefits to the RHA
strengthdatafrom Gray et al. (1994) and are usedto determinethe Johnson-Cookparametersin
.
the following analyses. For clarity, yield strength predicted by the Johnson-Cookmodel is
denotedby Y (in GPa),whereasy (in GPa)representsthe datafits.
 T=298K i=7,OCO/s
T=298 K, i=3,soo Is
T=298 K, 1=0.100 IS
T=298Y .k=O.OOl/s

T=473K i=3.OoO/s

T=673K, i=3,OOO/s
I

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
True Strain

Figure 2. Dynamic Strength of 2-in RHA.

Table 1. Dynamic Strength Data for 2-in RHA

IITemperature Strain Rate

K) Us)
Function EquationNo.
II
I n nnl
-
’ -. 1.4905E oMo7 1 (3a) II

I 298
298
298
1
3,5ocb
7,000
_I
,= 1.5206~ o.w23
v = 1.5935Eo.0529
y = 1.6048~o*0415
(W
(3c)
(34
473 3,000 y = 1.3410E o’0231 (W
673 3.000 i mm o.0357 (?fi

3. Quasi-Static Data

Benck (1976) determinedseveralpropertiesfor three thicknessesof RHA. He measuredthe

quasi-statictensile yield strengthin the three principal plate directions(in the rolling direction,
acrossthe rolling direction, and through the thickness)at a strain rate of 0.0003/s. For present
purposes, these values were averaged to obtain a representativeisotropic value. The

I
4
compressiveyield strength of the material is then assumedto be equal to the tensile yield
strength;this is only approximatelytrue for RHA. The dataare presentedin Table2 and include
unpublisheddatafor 3/16-in (4.76 mm) RHA (Bruchey1997).

The values from Table 2 and an analytical fit to these data are plotted in Figure 3. A
logarithmicform was chosen;the computedfit of the datais

y = (- 0.142X@ + 0.8772, (4)

wherey is the yield strengthin GPaandt is the plate thicknessin inches.

Table 2. Quasi-Static Yield Strength of RHA

PlateThickness Yield Strength

(inb4) @Pa>
0.1875 [4.76] 1.14
0.5 [ 12.71 0.94
1.5 [38.1] 0.82
4.0 [101.6] 0.69

4. Fitting the Parameters

4.1 Parameter k ParameterA is the yield strengthat room temperatureand a strain rate of
l/s. Equations(3a) through (3d) in Table 1 were interpolatedto generatea function describing
the behaviorof the 2-in RHA at a strainrate of l/s. Theresulting functionis

y = 1.5384so.0436. (5)

A comparisonof equations(5) and(3a) (Table 1) showsa differenceof lessthan 2% betweenthe

yield strengthat f; = l/s and i: = 0.001/sat a strain of 0.01. Furthermore,Benck and Robitaille
(1977) report a difference of about 1.1% for 38-mm RHA plate and about 0.6% for loo-mm

5
 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Thickness of RHA, inch

Figure 3. Quasi-Static Yield Strength of RHA.

RHA plate betweenthe quasi-staticyield strength at 0.0003/sand at 0.42/s. For the present
work, the valueof A is approximatedby the quasi-staticdata(Table2 andequation[4]). A value
of A = 0.78 GPafor 2-in-thick RHA is obtainedfrom equation(4).

4.2 Parameters B and n. The remainingparametersfrom equation(1) (B, C, m, and n) are

frt to the functions bf Table 1 by a least-squarestechnique. To fit the parametersB and n, write
the first two termsof equation(1) as

(6)

Equation (6) representsthe yield strengthat room temperatureand strain rate of l/s, conditions
that renderthe last two terms in equation(1) equalto unity. Equation(6) is rearrangedto

6
 Y -A=Bs”. (7)

Let

g=ln(Y-A) (8)

so that

q=nlns+b, (9

where b=lnB.

The dataat theseconditionsare givenby equation(5), which is of the form

y=pEa. (10)

The data must be in the sameform as equation(8), so A is subtractedfrom both sidesof

equation(lo), leadingto the following representationof the data:

Y=ln(y-A), (11)

and

‘3 =ln@~” -A). (12)

The error incurredby approximatingthe data (equation[ 111)with the model (equation[83) at a
strain &i is ‘pi - Yi. Subscript i representsan arbitrary discretizationof the data into seven
strainscoveringthe rangeof the data(E = 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12,0.16, and 0.20). This was
doneto simplify the fitting procedure. In the least-squares
method,the error is squared(to avoid
having positive and negative errors combining arithmetically to reduce the total error) and
summedover the rangeof the data;the sumof the squarederrorsis to be minimized:

7
I 7
C( Cj3pi
-Yi)2 =minimum (13)
i=l

The sum canbe minimized with respectto parametersI3 andn if the derivativesare set equalto
zero. That is,

$~( Ipi-Yi)2 =O, (14)

1-I

and

(15)

Equation(9) is substituted,and the differentiation is carriedout, resulting in the following two

equations:

(16)
(cln&i)z -7C(lnEi)2 ’

and

n=CYi-7b
(17)
ChE, ’

where Yi = Yi (ei) is known (equation[ 12]), andthe summationindexeshavebeenomitted for

clarity. The results areI3 = 0.78 GPaand n = 0,106. Theseresultsminimize the error; this was
verified by determiningthat the derivativesof equations(14) and(15) were positive.

4.3 Parameter C. The first two factors in equation(1) are

8
 Y(s,,L* -1, T’=O)=A =Si, (18)

where, for simplicity, this contributionto the strengthis termed Si, Thus, for room temperature,
equation(1) becomes

Yi =si(l+chI~*)(l-o)=si +sichG*. (19)

To obtain a correspondingexpressionfor the data,equations(3a) through (3d) (Table 1) are

usedto generatecurvesof stressvs. h~i’ for variousconstantstrains. To generatethe curves,the
first of the seven discrete strains was substituted into each of equations(3a) through (3d)
(Table 1) to generatestressesfor eachof the four strain rates. The resulting stresswas plotted
against hri?’, and the processrepeatedfor each of the remainingsix strains,resulting in seven
awes. Analytical expressionswere fit to the curves;the resultsare detailedin Table3.

Table 3. Strain-Rate Dependenceof Room-Temperature Data

i so y=ui+Vi~~* EquationNo.
Ui Vi
1 0.01 1.2587 0.0035 (2Oa)

I 2
3
4
0.02
0.04
0.08
1.3370
1.2972
1.3780
0.0044
0.0039
0.0050
CW
(2Oc)
(20d)
I (20)

5 0.12 1.4026 0.0053 (20e)

6 0.16 1.4203 0.0055 (2Of)
7 0.20 1.4342 0.0057 (2On)

Thesedatacanbe representedby the form

yi =Si +Siki~*, (21)