0
Research Papers

The Precise Determination of the Johnson–Cook Material and Damage Model Parameters and Mechanical Properties of an Aluminum 7068-T651 Alloy

[+] Author and Article Information
B. Bal

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Abdullah Gül University,
38080 Kayseri, Turkey
e-mail: burak.bal@agu.edu.tr

K. K. Karaveli

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Abdullah Gül University,
38080 Kayseri, Turkey
e-mail: kaan.karaveli@agu.edu.tr

B. Cetin

FNSS Defense Systems Co., Inc.,
Golbasi, 06830 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: cetin.baris@fnss.com.tr

B. Gumus

ASELSAN A.Ş.,
06370 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: berkaygumus@aselsan.com.tr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology. Manuscript received December 26, 2018; final manuscript received February 6, 2019; published online March 12, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Vikas Tomar.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(4), 041001 (Mar 12, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: MATS-18-1340; doi: 10.1115/1.4042870 History: Received December 26, 2018; Accepted February 11, 2019

Al 7068-T651 alloy is one of the recently developed materials used mostly in the defense industry due to its high strength, toughness, and low weight compared to steels. The aim of this study is to identify the Johnson–Cook (J–C) material model parameters, the accurate Johnson–Cook (J–C) damage parameters, D1, D2, and D3 of the Al 7068-T651 alloy for finite element analysis-based simulation techniques, together with other damage parameters, D4 and D5. In order to determine D1, D2, and D3, tensile tests were conducted on notched and smooth specimens at medium strain rate, 100 s−1, and tests were repeated seven times to ensure the consistency of the results both in the rolling direction and perpendicular to the rolling direction. To determine D4 and D5 further, tensile tests were conducted on specimens at high strain rate (102 s−1) and temperature (300 °C) by means of the Gleeble thermal–mechanical physical simulation system. The final areas of fractured specimens were calculated through optical microscopy. The effects of stress triaxiality factor, rolling direction, strain rate, and temperature on the mechanical properties of the Al 7068-T651 alloy were also investigated. Damage parameters were calculated via the Levenberg–Marquardt optimization method. From all the aforementioned experimental work, J–C material model parameters were determined. In this article, J–C damage model constants, based on maximum and minimum equivalent strain values, were also reported which can be utilized for the simulation of different applications.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Cole, G. S., and Sherman, A. M., 1995, “Light Weight Materials for Automotive Applications,” Mater. Charact., 35(1), pp. 3–9. [CrossRef]
Cobden, R., and Banbury, A., 1994, “Aluminium: Physical Properties, Characteristics and Alloys,” Talat Lecture, 1501, pp. 19–26.
Davis, J. R., 2001, “Light Metals and Alloys: Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” Alloying: Understanding the Basics, ASM International, Cleveland, OH, pp. 351–416.
Davis, J. R., 1993, ASM Specialty Handbook: Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys, ASM International, Cleveland, OH.
Dursun, T., and Soutis, C., 2014, “Recent Developments in Advanced Aircraft Aluminium Alloys,” Mater. Des, 56, pp. 862–871. [CrossRef]
Smiths Metal Centers, 2017, 7068 Aluminum Alloy Technical Datasheet, Smiths Metal Centers, London.
Minnicino, M., Gray, D., and Moy, P., 2009, Aluminum Alloy 7068 Mechanical Characterization, ASM International, Cleveland, OH.
Zhang, Y., Outeiro, J. C., and Mabrouki, T., 2015, “On the Selection of Johnson–Cook Constitutive Model Parameters for Ti-6Al-4V Using Three Types of Numerical Models of Orthogonal Cutting,” Proc. CIRP, 31, pp. 112–117. [CrossRef]
Thepsonthi, T., and Özel, T., 2015, “3-D Finite Element Process Simulation of Micro-End Milling Ti-6Al-4V Titanium Alloy: Experimental Validations on Chip Flow and Tool Wear,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 221, pp. 128–145. [CrossRef]
Onal, O., Bal, B., Canadinc, D., and Akdari, E., 2015, “Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Thickness Reduction in Steel Plate Heat Exchangers,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 137(4), p. 041001. [CrossRef]
Onal, O., Bal, B., Toker, S. M., Mirzajanzadeh, M., Canadinc, D., and Maier, H. J., 2014, “Microstructure-Based Modeling of the Impact Response of a Biomedical Niobium–Zirconium Alloy,” J. Mater. Res., 29(10), pp. 1123–1134. [CrossRef]
Valoppi, B., Bruschi, S., Ghiotti, A., and Shivpuri, R., 2017, “Johnson–Cook Based Criterion Incorporating Stress Triaxiality and Deviatoric Effect for Predicting Elevated Temperature Ductility of Titanium Alloy Sheets,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 123, pp. 94–105. [CrossRef]
Liu, R., Melkote, S., Pucha, R., Morehouse, J., Man, X., and Marusich, T., 2013, “An Enhanced Constitutive Material Model for Machining of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 213(12), pp. 2238–2246. [CrossRef]
Chen, G., Ren, C., Qin, X., and Li, J., 2015, “Temperature Dependent Work Hardening in Ti–6Al–4V Alloy Over Large Temperature and Strain Rate Ranges: Experiments and Constitutive Modeling,” Mater. Des., 83, pp. 598–610. [CrossRef]
Brar, N. S., and Joshi, V. S., 2012, “Anisotropic Effects on Constitutive Model Parameters of Aluminum Alloys,” AIP Conf. Proc., 1426(1), pp. 72–75.
Tan, J. Q., Zhan, M., Liu, S., Huang, T., Guo, J., and Yang, H., 2015, “A Modified Johnson–Cook Model for Tensile Flow Behaviors of 7050-T7451 Aluminum Alloy at High Strain Rates,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 631, pp. 214–219. [CrossRef]
Zhang, D. N., Shangguan, Q. Q., Xie, C. J., and Liu, F., 2015, “A Modified Johnson–Cook Model of Dynamic Tensile Behaviors for 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy,” J. Alloys Compd., 619, pp. 186–194. [CrossRef]
Brar, N. S., Joshi, V. S., and Harris, B. W., 2009, “Constitutive Model Constants for Al7075-T651 and Al7075-T6,” AIP Conf. Proc., 1195(1), pp. 945–948.
Moré, J. J., 1978, The Levenberg-Marquardt Algorithm: Implementation and Theory, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
Gaidhane, V. H., Hote, Y. V., and Singh, V., 2012, “Nonrigid Image Registration Using Efficient Similarity Measure and Levenberg-Marquardt Optimization,” Biomed. Eng. Lett., 2(2), pp. 118–123. [CrossRef]
Vening Meinesz, F. A., 1956, “Elasticity and Plasticity,” Appl. Sci. Res. Sect. A, 6(2–3), pp. 205–225. [CrossRef]
Bobbili, R., Paman, A., and Madhu, V., 2016, “High Strain Rate Tensile Behavior of Al–4.8Cu–1.2Mg Alloy,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 651, pp. 753–762. [CrossRef]
Algarni, M., Bai, Y., and Choi, Y., 2015, “A Study of Inconel 718 Dependency on Stress Triaxiality and Lode Angle in Plastic Deformation and Ductile Fracture,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 147, pp. 140–157. [CrossRef]
Keshavarz, A., Ghajar, R., and Mirone, G., 2014, “A New Experimental Failure Model Based on Triaxiality Factor and Lode Angle for X-100 Pipeline Steel,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 80, pp. 175–182. [CrossRef]
Bridgman, P. W., 1952, Studies in Large Flow and Fracture, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bao, Y., 2003, “Prediction of Ductile Crack Formation in Uncracked Bodies,” Ph.d thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, pp. 252.
Bao, Y., and Wierzbicki, T., 2004, “On Fracture Locus in the Equivalent Strain and Stress Triaxiality Space,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 46(1), pp. 81–98. [CrossRef]
Bai, Y., Teng, X., and Wierzbicki, T., 2009, “On the Application of Stress Triaxiality Formula for Plane Strain Fracture Testing,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 131(2), p. 021002. [CrossRef]
Neimitz, A., Galkiewicz, J., Lipiec, S., and Dzioba, I., 2018, “Estimation of the Onset of Crack Growth in Ductile Materials,” Materials, 11(10), 2026. [CrossRef]
Senthil, K., Iqbal, M. A., Chandel, P. S., and Gupta, N., 2017, “Study of the Constitutive Behavior of 7075-T651 Aluminum Alloy,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 108, pp. 171–190. [CrossRef]
Mirzajanzadeh, M., and Canadinc, D., 2016, “A Microstructure-Sensitive Model for Simulating the Impact Response of an High-Manganese Austenitic Steel,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 138(4), p. 041004. [CrossRef]
Majzoobi, G. H., and Dehgolan, F. R., 2011, “Determination of the Constants of Damage Models,” Procedia Eng., 10, pp. 764–773. [CrossRef]
Hörnqvista, M., and Karlssonb, B., 2006, “Temperature and Strain Rate Effects on the Dynamic Strain Ageing of Aluminium Alloy AA7030,” Mater. Sci. Forum., 519–521, pp. 883–888. [CrossRef]
Li, D., and Ghosh, A., 2003, “Tensile Deformation Behavior of Aluminum Alloys at Warm Forming Temperatures,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 352(1–2), pp. 279–286. [CrossRef]
Lee, W. S., Sue, W. C., Lin, C. F., and Wu, C. J., 2000, “Strain Rate and Temperature Dependence of the Dynamic Impact Properties of 7075 Aluminum Alloy,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 100(1), pp. 116–122. [CrossRef]
Onal, O., Ozmenci, C., and Canadinc, D., 2014, “Multi-Scale Modeling of the Impact Response of a Strain-Rate Sensitive High-Manganese Austenitic Steel,” Front. Mater., 1, pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Bal, B., Gumus, B., and Canadinc, D., 2016, “Incorporation of Dynamic Strain Aging Into a Viscoplastic Self-Consistent Model for Predicting the Negative Strain Rate Sensitivity of Hadfield Steel,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 138(3), p. 031012. [CrossRef]
Canadinc, D., Efstathiou, C., and Sehitoglu, H., 2008, “On the Negative Strain Rate Sensitivity of Hadfield Steel,” Scr. Mater., 59(10), pp. 1103–1106. [CrossRef]
Chmelík, F., Klose, F. B., Dierke, H., Šachl, J., Neuhäuser, H., and Lukáč, P., 2007, “Investigating the Portevin-Le ChâTelier Effect in Strain Rate and Stress Rate Controlled Tests by the Acoustic Emission and Laser Extensometry Techniques,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 462, pp. 53–60. [CrossRef]
Chen, L., Kim, H.-S., Kim, S.-K., and De Cooman, B. C., 2007, “Localized Deformation Due to Portevin–LeChatelier Effect in 18Mn–0.6C TWIP Austenitic Steel,” ISIJ Int., 47(12), pp. 1804–1812. [CrossRef]
Collinson, M.,2014, “On the Characterisation of Shock-Induced Sliding Along Multi-Material Interfaces,” Ph.D thesis, Imperial College London, London.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the custom-made split-Hopkinson pressure bar setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Specimen geometries of the smooth specimen and the notched specimen for tensile tests, (b) specimen geometry for Gleeble tests, and (c) specimen geometry for SHPB tests (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Force versus displacement graphs of the Al 7068-T651 alloy (a) along the rolling direction and (b) perpendicular to the rolling direction. True stress–true strain behavior of the Al 7068-T651 alloy (c) along the rolling direction and (d) perpendicular to the rolling direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the tensile behavior between the rolling direction and perpendicular to the rolling direction: (a) smooth specimens, (b) R0.4, (c) R0.8, and (d) R2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Equivalent plastic strain to fracture versus STF for the specimen in the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Equivalent plastic strain to fracture versus STF for the specimen perpendicular to the rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

True stress versus true strain response of Al 7068-T651 from Gleeble tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

True stress versus true strain response of Al 7068-T651 under SHPB loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Determination of A, B, and n parameters of the J–C material model for Al 7068-T651

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

A representative shockwave generated by the SHPB test system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Determination of the offset stress at the 1800 s−1 case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

True stress versus true strain data of quasistatic tests

Tables

Errata

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