Professional Documents
Culture Documents
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 13 December 2014
Received in revised form
15 May 2015
Accepted 23 May 2015
Available online 27 May 2015
The behaviour of typical armour steel material under large strains, high strain rates and elevated temperatures needs to be investigated to analyse and reliably predict its response to various types of dynamic loading like impact. An empirical constitutive relation developed by Johnson and Cook (JC) is
widely used to capture strain rate sensitivity of the metals. A failure model proposed by Johnson and
Cook is used to model the damage evolution and predict failure in many engineering materials. In this
work, model constants of JC constitutive relation and damage parameters of JC failure model for a
typical armour steel material have been determined experimentally from four types of uniaxial tensile
test. Some modications in the JC damage model have been suggested and Finite Element simulation of
three different tensile tests on armour steel specimens under dynamic strain rate (10 1 s 1), high
triaxiality and elevated temperature respectively has been done in ABAQUS platform using the modied
JC failure model as user material sub-routine. The simulation results are validated by the experimental
data. Thereafter, a moderately high strain rate event viz. Charpy impact test on armour steel specimen
has been simulated using JC material and failure models with the same material parameters. Reasonable
agreement between the simulation and experimental results has been achieved.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
JohnsonCook material and failure models
Charpy test
Armour steel
Finite Element analysis
Numerical simulation
1. Introduction
Dynamic loads are encountered in a wide spectrum of phenomena viz. automotive applications, high speed machinery and
defence applications like high speed projectile impact on armour.
The behaviour of materials under dynamic loading conditions
differs signicantly from quasi static loading due to the effects of
inertia, stress reection and rate sensitivity of material [1]. Finite
Element (FE) formulation based on dynamic equilibrium equation
is used in explicit model to take care of inertia. In order to capture
the effect of rate sensitivity, appropriate modelling of the behaviour of the material under high strain rates is an essential prerequisite. However, due to the complexity of the problem, various
material models have been proposed by several researchers on a
case to case basis rather than development of a universal model
catering for a large variety of materials under different loading
conditions.
JohnsonCook material model [2] is a popular constitutive relation for metals, widely used in simulation of impact and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abanerjeepxe@gmail.com (A. Banerjee).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.05.073
0921-5093/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
armour steel material to the high loads occurring over small intervals of time needs to be understood to analyse the ballistic
impact phenomena and make reliable predictions.
Xu et al. [12] have experimentally investigated the plastic behaviour of 603 armour steel at strain rates ranging from 10 3 s 1
to 4500 s 1 and temperatures from 288 K to 873 K. Compression
tests were conducted on an MTS hydraulic testing machine for
3
Sij Sij c = 0
2
(1)
Here, Sij stands for deviatoric stress tensor and sc is the current
yield stress.
The ow rule is the normality rule suitable for von Mises yield
function. Therefore,
d p pq
1
= (dSijnij )npq
h
Table 1
Chemical composition (weight %) of armour steel.
C
Si
Mn
Cr
Mo
Ni
Al
Fe
0.31
0.14
0.43
0.011
0.005
1.41
0.42
1.57
0.08
0.04
Rest
nij =
ij
ij
(3)
(2)
(4)
d =
dij +
dc = 0
ij
c
(5)
h dc
dp
is obtained.
D=
pl
p,f
(6)
D = Dc 1
201
(7)
0, when, pl < p, d
D = Dc
pl , when, pl p, d
f
p
,
d
(8)
202
Fig. 1. Geometry of specimens for tensile tests at (a) quasi static and low strain rates upto 10 1 s 1, (b) various levels of triaxialities generated by different thickness and
notch radii, (c) dynamic strain rates, and (d) elevated temperatures. All dimensions are in mm.
D=
Dc1
p
p0
(9)
203
Fig. 2. Stress vs. strain curves at (a) varying strain rates, and (b) elevated temperatures.
Fig. 3. Variation of stress with (a) strain rate and (b) temperature.
Here, p0 is the plastic strain and Dc1 is the damage at the ultimate point (initiation of necking). Dc1 is assumed to take a low
value of 2%.
After the ultimate point, during necking process, the damage
growth is accelerated due to void growth and coalescence. The
damage growth at this stage is increasing non-linearly and given
as
D=
Dc 2 Dc1
Dc 2 D
p, f p0
(10)
Here, Dc2 is the critical damage at fracture and taken as 0.8, p,f
is the strain at failure expressed as Eq. (11) by Johnson and Cook
[3].
The model by Johnson and Cook [3] proposes that f depends
on stress triaxiality, strain rate and temperature and can be expressed as
f = D1 + D2exp(D3 *) 1 + D4 1n p* [1 + D5T *]
( )
(11)
D = (1 D)eq
(12)
204
Fig. 4. Variation of fracture strain with (a) stress triaxiality, (b) strain rate, and (c) temperature.
Table 2
Experimentally determined JohnsonCook material and failure model constants for
armour steel.
Yield stress, A (MPa)
Strain hardening parameter, B (MPa)
Strain hardening exponent, n
Strain rate sensitivity parameter, c
Temperature exponent, m
980
2000
0.83
0.0026
1.4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
0.05
0.8
0.44
0.046
0
Table 3
Details of specimens and tensile tests.
Specimen
nomenclature
Specimen
type
Strain rate
during tensile test
(s 1)
Temp (C)
S-1
N-4-1
3
4
10 1
10 1
27
C-S-500
3.52 mm
Smooth, at
Notched,
4 mm radius
Smooth,
cylindrical
10 3
500
Specimens for all the tensile tests and Charpy Impact test are
fabricated from the same heat treated plate only in the rolling
direction to ensure consistent microstructure and properties in all
the specimens.
3.2. Tensile tests for determination of JohnsonCook material and
failure model constants
Four types of tensile tests have been done to determine the
JohnsonCook material and failure model constants for the armour steel material. Tensile tests of specimens as shown in Fig. 1a
were conducted at low strain rates, between 10 4 s 1 (quasi-static) and 10 1 s 1 and room temperature in an INSTRON make
Universal Testing Machine (Model 8801) to determine the elastic
constants, the initial yield stress, A and the hardening parameters,
B and n of the JohnsonCook constitutive relation. In the same
machine, tensile tests on notched specimens having different
thickness and notch radii (Fig. 1b) were done to determine the
fracture strain at different triaxiality ratios and evaluate therefrom
the damage model parameters, D1, D2 and D3.
Tensile tests at strain rates between 10 and 1.5 102 s 1 were
conducted on typically long, at and thin specimens (Fig. 1c) in a
servo hydraulic High Strain Rate Testing Machine, (Make: INSTRON, model no. VHS 65/80-20). From the data obtained through
tensile tests conducted at strain rates between 10 4 s 1 and
1.5 102 s 1, the strain-rate dependent material model constant, c
205
Fig. 5. (a) FE mesh for a notched tensile specimen, (b) deformed mesh for notched specimen, and (c) deformed mesh for cylindrical specimen tested at 500 C.
With all the model constants known except m, the JC constitutive relation (4) can be written as,
eq = K [1 T *m ]
(13)
where K = [A + B pn ][1 + c ln *]
The right hand side of Eq. (14) is calculated with the constants
determined previously. Rearranging the Eq. (13) and taking logarithm of both sides, we get,
against log ( *) in Fig. 3a. The slope of the tted line gives the
strain rate parameter, c of the Johnson Cook material model.
(14)
(15)
206
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and simulated load (N) vs. displacement (mm) curves for tensile test of (a) at, smooth specimen (S-1) at 10 1 s 1, (b) notched specimen
(N-4-1) at 10 1 s 1 and (c) cylindrical specimen (C-S-500) at 10 3 s 1 and 500 C.
during failure were evaluated and hence, the stress triaxiality ratio
was determined. This exercise was done for the different types of
notched specimens tested and thus, a set of failure strain versus
triaxiality ratio data have been obtained. Using the failure model
of JohnsonCook (11) and analysing the variation of failure strain
with triaxiality, D2 and D3 have been determined. D1 has been
assigned a value 0.05, the strain at initiation of necking (ultimate
The JohnsonCook material and failure model constants determined from the various uniaxial tensile tests described in this
section are presented in Table 2.
3.4. FE modelling of tensile tests
To verify the constitutive model calibration and its implementation, three different tensile tests on the armour material
specimens were simulated using the commercial FE code ABAQUS
and the simulated forceelongation curves were compared with
the experimental data. Considering the low strain rates involved in
207
the tests, the inertia effects have been neglected. ABAQUS Standard was used and the JC constitutive relation and modied JC
failure models were implemented as user dened material model
(UMAT sub-routine). The values of the parameters of JC material
and failure models as determined through tensile tests described
in Section 3.3 and presented in Table 2 were used. As already
explained, a two-stage damage evolution rule has also been implemented via UMAT subroutine. The tensile tests that have been
simulated are presented in Table 3.
The representative FE mesh for a notched specimen and the
deformed meshes of the notched and cylindrical specimens are
shown in Fig. 5. Considering symmetry of the specimens and loads
and to reduce computational time, one fourth model has been
prepared for the at specimens, S-1 & N-4-1 and a half-model for
the cylindrical specimen, C-S-500. The specimens were modelled
using 8-node hexahedral element (C3D8) with one integration
point. The element size at the critical gauge region in the smooth
specimen was optimally chosen as 0.25 0.25 mm after mesh
convergence study. A total number of 2160 elements were used for
modelling the 3 mm thick smooth at specimens with 6 elements
across the specimen thickness. Similarly, 3316 elements were used
to model the 4 mm thick at specimens having notch radius 4 mm
with 8 elements along the thickness direction. Displacement at the
free end was given as input and reactions were measured from the
support end to determine the load.
The FE simulated forceelongation curves for the three tensile
test cases are compared with the experimental observations in
Fig. 6. Reasonably good agreement is observed with respect to the
maximum load as well as the elongation to fracture.
Fig. 10. Comparison of simulated and experimental plots of (a) force vs. time, (b) force vs. displacement and (c) internal energy of Charpy specimen vs. time.
208
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Shri R Appavuraj, Director, Proof &
Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, DRDO for support, encouragement and permission for publishing the work.
References
[1] A. Molinari, S. Mercier, N. Jacques, Procedia IUTAM 10 (2014) 201220.
[2] G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook., Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1983.
[3] G.R. Johnson, W. Cook, Eng. Fract. Mech. 21 (1) (1985) 3148.
[4] D.A.S. Macdougall, J.A. Harding, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47 (1999) 11571185.
[5] H.W. Meyer Jr., D.S. Kleponis, Int. J. Impact Eng. 26 (2001) 509521.
[6] C.Y. Tham, V.B.C. Tan, H.P. Lee, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (2008) 304318.
[7] J. Peirs, P. Verleysen, W. Van Paepegem, J. Degrieck, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 (2011)
406415.
[8] V. Nastasescu, N. Iliescu, Appl. Math. Mech. 53 (2010) 173178.
[9] Metals Handbook, in: J.R. Davis, et al., (Eds.), ASM International, 1998,
209
pp. 13221323.
[10] Handbook of Materials Measurement Methods, in: Czichos, et al., (Eds.),
Springer, 2006, pp. 343344.
[11] F.A. Ghaith, F.A. Khan, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 4 (4) (2013) 377386.
[12] Huang Fenglei Xu Zejian, Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 25 (6) (2012) 598608.
[13] W.R. Whittington, A.L. Oppedal, S. Turnage, Y. Hammi, H. Rhee, P.G. Allison, C.
K. Crane, M.F. Horstemeyer, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 594 (2014) 8288.
[14] J.W. Hancock, A.C. Mackenzie, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 24 (1976) 147169.
[15] ABAQUS/Explicit Theory Manual Version 6.3, vol. 12 2002.
[16] N.K. Gupta, M.A. Iqbal, G.S. Sekhon, Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 (2006) 19211944.
[17] T. Borvik, M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, K.A. Malo, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22 (1999)
855886.