See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252375742

Johnson - Cook Strength Models for Mild and DP 590 Steels

Article · July 2006

DOI: 10.1063/1.2263437

CITATIONS READS
70 15,522

4 authors, including:

Devendra Bajaj Noreeen Brar

SABIC Innovative Plastics University of California, Davis
30 PUBLICATIONS 1,189 CITATIONS 70 PUBLICATIONS 1,529 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Devendra Bajaj on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 258–261, 274–277, 307–310, 311–314, 351–354, 359–362, 40
519–522, 607–610, 858–861, 862–865, 866–869, 909–912, 948
1045–1048, 1069–1072, 1073–1076, 1081–1084, 1097–1100, 1
1131–1134, 1187–1190, 1195–1198, 1199–1202, 1215–1218, 1
1261–1264, 1357–1360,1387–1390,1503–1506, 1527–1530,15
1539–1542

CP845, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter - 2005,

edited by M. D. Furnish, M. Elert, T. P. Russell, and C. T. White
© 2006 American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0341-4/06/$23.00

FOR ONLY
JOHNSON - COOK STRENGTH MODELS FORTHE ARTICLES
MILD AND ONDPPP.590
165–168, 169–174, 183–1
274–277, 307–310, 311–314, 351–354, 359–362, 409–412, 49
STEELS 607–610, 858–861, 862–865, 866–869, 909–912, 948–951, 101
1069–1072, 1073–1076, 1081–1084, 1097–1100, 1105–1108, 1
K.Vedantam1, D.Bajaj2, N. 1187–1190, 1195–1198,
S. Brar1, S.Hill 3 1199–1202, 1215–1218, 1233-1236, 1
1357–1360,1387–1390,1503–1506, 1527–1530,1535–1538, an
1
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Research Institute,University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-0182
2
University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
USEBaltimore, MD 21250
THIS CREDIT LINE BELOW HERE:
3
University of Dayton Research Institute, University of Dayton, OH 45460-0135
Abstract. Automotive steels, Mild and Dual Phase590 (DP590) areCompression
CP845, Shock characterized in tension
of Condensed Matterat room
- 2005,
temperature, using the quasi-static and split Hopkinson bar techniques at various strain rates ranging
edited by M. D. Furnish, M. Elert, T. P. Russell, and C. T. White
from ~10-3/s to ~1800/s. Tension stress-strain data for both the steels are analyzed to determine the
2006 American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0341-4/06/$23.00
Johnson-Cook Strength model constants, J-C strength model constants for mild steel are A=217 MPa,
B = 234 MPa, n = 0.643 and C = 0.076 and for DP590 steel are A = 430 MPa, B = 824 MPa, n = 0.510
and C = 0.017. Higher value of strain rate sensitivity constant C for mild steel (0.076) compared to DP
590 (0.017) is also reflected in the stress- strain data at various strain rates.
Keywords: DP 590 and mild steels, tension characterization, strain sensitivity, stress wave
propagation, Johnson-Cook, constitutive.
PACS: 62.20 .Dc, 62.20.Fe, S 62.50. +p, 83.60.La

INTRODUCTION obtained from a representative of the International

Institute of Steel and Iron (IISI).We participated in
Sheet steels are the principal materials used in
the round robin testing of the two steels arranged
fabrication of automotive structure and chassis.
by the IISI, at a number of research laboratories in
Over the last few years, automotive companies
various countries. Tension specimens with the gage
have conducted number of studies to determine the
length measuring 0.375”, 0.125” width, and 0.054”
crashworthiness of the materials being used for that
thickness were fabricated in the dog bone
purpose. The studies involve numerical simulations
configuration (ASTM D1822 Type L) using an
of the automotive structure to adequately protect
abrasive water jet cutting technique.
the occupants from injury in the event of a crash
against any rigid/moving structure. These Quasi-Static (~1/s) Strain Rate Test Technique:
simulations require high strain rate constitutive
Quasi-static tests were performed at room
material models (e.g., Johnson Cook strength
temperature ambient conditions on a MTS Servo
model) for the sheet steels. J-C model constants of
hydraulic machine equipped with an 11 kip
a material are determined from stress-strain data at
actuator. The specimens were loaded on the
various strain rates [1]. The objective of present
shoulders using a UDRI-designed lightweight grip.
research is to determine the J-C strength model
A slack adapter allowed the actuator to attain test
constants A, B, n and C for mild and DP 590 steels.
speed before applying load to the specimen. A
Stress-strain data at various strain rates were
single axial strain gage bonded on the opposite face
obtained using both quasi static and high strain rate
of the specimen was used to capture the pre-yield
(split Hopkinson bar) techniques.
strain. Post-yield strain was measured using a
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD lightweight mechanical extensometer. Data from
the extensometer and strain gage were averaged to
Materials and Specimen Specifications:
compensate for bending.
Sheets of two automotive steels (Mild steel and
DP-590) measuring (12” x 12” x 0.054”) were

775
Direct Tension split Hopkinson Bar Technique: strain values for the two steel at high strain rates
have large fluctuations, especially for strains below
The Split Hopkinson Bar (SHB) is routinely
0.05. Stress equilibrium between the specimen/bar
used to characterize different materials (alloys,
interfaces in a tension test happens over a relatively
polymers, and ceramics) at high strain rates in the
long time giving rise to stress fluctuations at strains
range of 300 - 2,000 s-1 and at low/high
below 0.05. Once the stress equilibrium is attained,
temperatures. The schematic of the Direct Tension
oscillation amplitude decreases.
Split Hopkinson Bar (DTSHB) at the University of
Dayton Research Institute is shown in Figure 1.
Incident and transmitter pressure bars of the 700 .
DTSHB are made of 7075 Aluminum each of 25.4-
mm diameter. Two strain gages (1000Ω) are 600

bonded on each bar 48-inches away from the 500

specimen to monitor strains in the pressure bars.

True Stress (MPa)

The tension specimens are held rigidly in specially 400

designed grips, which are fastened into the 300

threaded incident and transmitter aluminum bars MS - ~10-3/s
[Figure 1] [2-3]. A 0.76-m long aluminum (striker) 200 MS - ~1/s
MS - ~267/s
tube is launched around the incident bar and the 100 MS - ~800/s -SHB
impact of this striker tube against the aluminum MS - ~1800/s -SHB

anvil (rigidly attached to the end of the incident 0

0 0.1 0.2
True Strain0.3 0.4
bar) generates a tensile stress pulse. This tensile
stress pulse subjects the specimen to tensile FIGURE 2. Stress - Strain curves for Mild Steel
loading. A part of incident (tensile) pulse, εi, is at various strain rates
transmitted through the specimen εt and the rest is
reflected back through the incident bar εr. The 1200

amplitude of incident, reflected, and transmitted 1000

pulses are recorded through each of the strain
True Stress (MPa)

gages bonded on incident and the transmitter 800

pressure bars.
600

Strike r T ub e Spe cim en ~10-3/s

In ciden t Bar T ra nsm itte r Ba r 400
~1/s
~700/s -SHB
Strain G au ge
G rip
200 ~800/s- SHB
~1600/s- SHB

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
F lat D o g Bon e S pec im e n
True Strain
FIGURE 3. Stress – Strain Curves for DP590 at various
strain rates
FIGURE 1. Schematic of the Direct Tension
Hopkinson Bar. Qualitative analysis of the stress-strain data on
Mild and DP 590 steels suggest that the strain rate
The Incident, reflected and transmitted strains are sensitivity of Mild steel is higher than that of DP
analyzed following the procedure described in 590 steel.
Reference [2-3].
JOHNSON-COOK STRENGTH MODEL
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Dynamic events often involve high strain rate. To
Tension stress-strain data for the two steels at accurately predict the response of a material, high
various strains are shown in Figures 2-3. Stress- strain rate effects on the flow stress must be

776
 included in the constitutive models. The J-C model
is simple and primarily intended for use in
computer codes. According to Johnson-Cook
model, the equivalent Von Mises flow stress σ is
given by,
σ = ⎡A + Bε n ⎤⎡1+ C.lnε*⎤
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦⎣⎢
constant C for mild steel is determined as the slope
of the linear fit of Log (Strain Rate) Vs (dynamic
stress/static stress) using the high strain rate data
corresponding to a strain of 10% as shown in
Figure 4(c). The value of constant C is 0.076.
⎥⎦

Where ε is the equivalent plastic strain, ε* = ε / εo

1.6
y = 2.3687 + 0.64281x R= 0.96567

is the dimensionless plastic strain for ε = 1 s-1. A, D

1.55

B, C, and exponent n are four material constants.

Constant A is the yield stress corresponding to a 1.5

0.2% offset strain; constant B and exponent n

represent the strain hardening effects of material. 1.45

The expression in the second set of brackets

represents the strain rate effect through constant C. 1.4

Constant A, the flow stress corresponding to the

0.2% offset strain is determined from the true 1.35
-1.55 -1.5 -1.45 -1.4 -1.35 -1.3 -1.25
stress–true strain data at a strain rate of ~1/s.
Log (Plastic Strain)
Constants B and n are 10(Y-intercept) and the slope of
the log (Plastic Stress) Vs log (Plastic Strain) plot FIGURE 4(b). Constants B and n for Mild Steel
for the plastic region of the quasi static data (~1/s) 1.8
Mild Steel

respectively. Dynamic Stress / Static Stress

y = 0.99751 + 0.07563x R= 0.99629
1.7

J-C Strength Model for Mild Steel 1.6

An offset of 0.2% strain is plotted on the true 1.5

stress-strain plot at a strain rate of ~1/s to 1.4

determine constant A, as shown in Figure 4 (a).
1.3
The value of constant A is 217MPa. Constants B
and n of mild steel are determined from the plastic 1.2

stress-strain data shown in Figure 4(b). 1.1

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

350
Ln (Strain Rate)

300

250
FIGURE 4(c). Constant C for Mild Steel
True Stress (MPa)

200

150
J-C Strength Model for DP 590
100 Tension stress-strain data at various strain rates for
DP590 steel are analyzed to determine J-C model
Test-22
Test-49
50 Test-55
0.2% Offset constants A, B, n and C following the same
0
0 0.01 0.0 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
procedure as for mild steel. The data analyzed are
2
True Strain shown in Figures 5(a)-5(b)-5(c).
FIGURE 4(a). Constant A for Mild Steel
The slope of the linear fit, n equals 0.643 and
constant B equals 234 MPa. Strain rate sensitivity

777
 mild steel in Table.1
700
Table.1 J-C Strength Model Constants
600 Material A B n C
(MPa) (MPa)
True Stress (MPa)

500
Mild 217 233.7 0.6428 0.0756
400 Steel
DP590 430 823.6 0.5071 0.0171
300

200 DP 590 -04

CONCLUSIONS
The J-C strength Models for the two steels
DP 590 -10
100 DP 590 -51
0.2 % OFFSET

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
For Mild Steel,
True Strain σ ( MPa ) = ⎡⎢ 217 + ( 234 )ε ( 0 .643 ) ⎤⎥ ⎡⎢1 + (0.076)ln ε* ⎤⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
FIGURE 5(a). Constant A for DP 590 For DP 590,
2.3 σ ( MPa ) = ⎡⎢ 430 + (824 )ε (0 .510 ) ⎤⎥ ⎡⎢1 + (0.017)ln ε* ⎤⎥
y = 2.9157 + 0.50708x R= 0.9918
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
2.25 The value of constant A for DP590 is about twice
Log (Plastic Stress)

2.2
that of mild steel indicating higher yield strength of
DP 590. The strain rate sensitivity constant C for
2.15 the Mild steel is higher than that of DP 590.
2.1
Disclaimer: The analysis and conclusions drawn in
2.05 this paper are those of the authors and no claim is
made as to the views and interpretations of the IISI.
2

1.95
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
-1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2
The research reported in this paper was performed
Log (Plastic Strain) for the IISI. Dr. Benda Yan of Mittal Steel
coordinated the effort. K.Vedantam acknowledges
FIGURE 5(b). Constants B and n for DP 590 IISI/AutoCo High Strain Rate Expert Team and
DP 590
1.25 University of Dayton for its financial assistance in
y = 0.99806 + 0.016543x R= 0.77667 the form of a Summer Graduate fellowship.
Dynamic Stress / Static stress

1.2
REFERENCES

1.15
1. Yan, B. and Xu, K., "High Strain Rate Behavior of
Advanced High Strength for Automotive
Applications", Proceedings, The 44th Metal Working
1.1 and Steel Processing Conferences, Vol. XL, pp.
493- 507, 2002.
1.05 2. Syed, I.H and Brar, N.S., “High Strain Rate
Compression and Tension Characterization Of High
Strength (Automotive ) Sheet Steels” in Shock
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Compression of Condensed Matter -2003 , edited by
Ln (Strain Rate) M.D.Furnish. Y.M.Gupta and J.W.Forbes., AIP
Conference Proceedings 706, Meiville,New York,
2004 pp. 613-616.
FIGURE 5(c). Constant C for DP 590 3. Nicholas, T. Impact Dynamics. Eds. J.A. Zukas, T.
J-C strength model constants A, B, n and C for Nicholas, H.L. Swift, L.B. Greszczuk, & D.R. Curran
(Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL),
DP590 steel are summarized along with those of pp. 277-332, 1992.

778
View publication stats