0
Technical Brief

Determination of Johnson–Cook Parameters for Cast Aluminum Alloys

[+] Author and Article Information
Sachin Gupta

Dynamic Photo Mechanics Laboratory,
Mechanical, Industrial & Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: gupsac@my.uri.edu

Sandeep Abotula

Dynamic Photo Mechanics Laboratory,
Mechanical, Industrial & Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: abotula.sandeep@gmail.com

Arun Shukla

ASME Fellow Member
Dynamic Photo Mechanics Laboratory,
Mechanical, Industrial & Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: shuklaa@egr.uri.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 9, 2013; final manuscript received May 27, 2014; published online June 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Ashraf Bastawros.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 136(3), 034502 (Jun 12, 2014) (4 pages) Paper No: MATS-13-1232; doi: 10.1115/1.4027793 History: Received December 09, 2013; Revised May 27, 2014

A series of experiments were conducted to determine the Johnson–Cook parameters for three different cast aluminum alloys, namely, A356, A357, and F357. Room temperature compression experiments were performed under varying rates of loading ranging from 10−3 s−1 to 5000 s−1. High temperature compression (235 °C and 435 °C) experiments were performed at an average strain rate of 5000 s−1. A split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus was utilized in conjunction with an induction coil heating system for applying dynamic loading at elevated temperatures. In addition, experiments were performed under high strain rate tensile loading using tensile SHPB apparatus, and the fractured specimens were examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) to understand the failure modes in these alloys. High-speed photography was used to capture the chronological progression of the deformation under dynamic tensile loading. The results indicated that all the three cast aluminum alloys were sensitive to strain rate and temperature. A356 exhibited the least value of flow stress under both static and dynamic loading conditions, and the highest elongation before break under dynamic tensile loading. The SEM images of the fractured specimens under dynamic tensile loading showed characteristics of transcrystalline ductile fracture in these cast aluminum alloys.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Möller, H., Govender, G., Stumpf, W. E., and Pistorius, P. C., 2008, “Comparison of Heat Treatment Response of Semisolid Metal Processed Alloys A356 and F357,” Int. J. Cast Met. Res., 23(10), pp. 37–43. [CrossRef]
Möller, H., Stumpf, W. E., and Pistorius, P. C., 2010, “Influence of Elevated Fe, Ni and Cr Levels on Tensile Properties of SSM-HPDC Al-Si-Mg Alloy F357,” Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 3(Suppl), pp. 842–846. [CrossRef]
Pantelakis, Sp. G., Alexopoulos, N. D., and Chamos, A. N., 2007, “Mechanical Performance Evaluation of Cast Magnesium Alloys for Automotive and Aeronautical Applications,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 129(3), pp. 422–430. [CrossRef]
Tucker, M. T., Horstemeyer, M. F., Whittington, W. R., Solanki, K. N., and Gullett, P. M., 2010, “The Effect of Varying Strain Rates and Stress States on the Plasticity, Damage, and Fracture of Aluminum Alloys,” Mech. Mater., 42(10), pp. 895–907. [CrossRef]
Kolsky, H., 1949, “An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at Very High Rates of Loading,” Proc. Phys. Soc. Sec. B, 62(11), pp. 676–700. [CrossRef]
Abotula, S., Shukla, A., and Chona, R., 2011, “Dynamic Constitutive Behavior of Hastelloy X Under Thermo-Mechanical Loading,” J. Mater. Sci.46(14), pp. 4971–4979. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of tensile SHPB specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

True compressive stress–strain curves for three grades of cast aluminum alloys for different strain rates and temperatures: (a) A356, (b) A357, and (c) F357

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of experimental data and Johnson–Cook model for cast aluminum alloys: (a) A356, (b) A357, and (c) F357

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

True tensile stress–strain curves for three grades of cast aluminum alloys under dynamic loading at an average strain rate of 700 s−1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Real-time deformations of cast aluminum alloy under dynamic tensile loading at an average strain rate of 700 s−1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

SEM images for A357 under dynamic tensile loading at an average strain rate of 700 s−1: (a) low magnification (100×) and (b) high magnification (500×)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In