Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Determination of Johnson cook material and failure model constants

and numerical modelling of Charpy impact test of armour steel
A. Banerjee a,c,n, S. Dhar a, S. Acharyya a, D. Datta b, N. Nayak c
a
Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
b
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, India
c
PXE, Chandipur, DRDO, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The behaviour of typical armour steel material under large strains, high strain rates and elevated tem-
Received 13 December 2014 peratures needs to be investigated to analyse and reliably predict its response to various types of dy-
Received in revised form namic loading like impact. An empirical constitutive relation developed by Johnson and Cook (J–C) is
15 May 2015
widely used to capture strain rate sensitivity of the metals. A failure model proposed by Johnson and
Accepted 23 May 2015
Cook is used to model the damage evolution and predict failure in many engineering materials. In this
Available online 27 May 2015
work, model constants of J–C constitutive relation and damage parameters of J–C failure model for a
Keywords: typical armour steel material have been determined experimentally from four types of uniaxial tensile
Johnson–Cook material and failure models test. Some modifications in the J–C damage model have been suggested and Finite Element simulation of
Charpy test
three different tensile tests on armour steel specimens under dynamic strain rate (10
1 s
1), high
Armour steel
triaxiality and elevated temperature respectively has been done in ABAQUS platform using the modified
Finite Element analysis
Numerical simulation J–C 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 J–C 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.

1. Introduction penetration related problems [3–7]. The popularity is more due to

Dynamic loads are encountered in a wide spectrum of phe-
nomena 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 significantly from quasi static loading due to the effects of
inertia, stress reflection 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 beha-
viour of the material under high strain rates is an essential pre-
requisite. 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.
Johnson–Cook material model [2] is a popular constitutive re-
lation for metals, widely used in simulation of impact and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abanerjeepxe@gmail.com (A. Banerjee).
the simple form of the equation and the relative ease of de-
termination of the model constants. A few tensile tests under
various loading conditions are generally sufficient to determine
the five constants.
Impact testing techniques were established in order to ascer-
tain the fracture characteristics of materials and thereby prevent
sudden or brittle failure of engineering materials when subjected
to dynamic loads. One of the most prominent impact tests is the
Charpy impact test that gives information regarding the behaviour
of material under impact load [8–10]. Charpy test is a low-cost and
reliable technique that measures the energy consumed in breaking
a notched specimen simply supported at both ends when ham-
mered by a swinging pendulum. The presence of notch simulates
the pre-existing cracks found in large structures that increase the
probability of brittle fracture [11].
Armour steel is a low-alloy medium carbon steel suitably heat
treated to produce a tempered martensite microstructure that
gives an excellent combination of strength and ductility. Steel ar-
mour is used as the protective cover of Battle Tanks and armoured
vehicles that are subjected to ballistic impact by fast moving
military projectiles. A high degree of hardness and toughness is an
essential requirement for armour material. The response of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.05.073
0921-5093/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209 201

armour steel material to the high loads occurring over small in- Table 1
tervals of time needs to be understood to analyse the ballistic Chemical composition (weight %) of armour steel.
impact phenomena and make reliable predictions.
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni V Al Fe
Xu et al. [12] have experimentally investigated the plastic be-
haviour of 603 armour steel at strain rates ranging from 10
3 s
1 0.31 0.14 0.43 0.011 0.005 1.41 0.42 1.57 0.08 0.04 Rest
to 4500 s
1 and temperatures from 288 K to 873 K. Compression
tests were conducted on an MTS hydraulic testing machine for
•
10
3 s
1 r ε r 1 s
1 and on SHPB for the higher strain rates. The unit normal, nij is given below as
Elevated temperatures were attained with electro – thermal cells. ∂ϕ
∂σij
Thermal softening was found to play a leading role in its compe- nij =
tition with the effects of strain rate and work hardening. The five ∂ϕ

material constants of Johnson–Cook and six of KHL material

models determined from the experimental results have been used
to model a dynamic phenomenon viz. strain rate jump test. The
predicted data were found to be satisfactorily close to the ex-
perimental results, with the KHL model exhibiting superior ap-
plicability for the material.
Whittington et al. [13] investigated the mechanical response
and damage evolution of Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) steel,
processed to Mil-A-12560H specification, through low and high
strain rate tension, compression and torsion tests at 20 °C and
300 °C. Fractography was performed to quantify the number
∂σij (3)
and h stands for plastic modulus.
The constitutive relation or the hardening rule is taken as John-
son–Cook type that expresses the equivalent stress, seq as a function
of plastic strain, strain rate and temperature given by the relation,
•
σeq = [A + Bεp n][1 + cln (ε *)][1 − T *m ] (4)
where A, B, n, c and m are the model constants, εp is the accu-
• • • •
mulated plastic strain, ε * ¼(ε p / ε 0) is a dimensionless strain rate, ε
0 is the reference strain rate and T* ¼ (T
T0)/(Tm
T0); T, T0 and Tm

density of nucleated voids and size distribution of voids. An In- being the working temperature, room temperature and melting
ternal State Variable (ISV) plasticity/damage model was used to temperature respectively.
capture the varying effects of temperature, strain rate and stress From the consistency relation,
state for the RHA steel. Reasonable accuracy of the model has been ∂ϕ ∂ϕ
dФ = dσij + dσc = 0
demonstrated. ∂σij ∂σc (5)
However, a detailed experimental work for the determination
of J–C material and J–C failure model constants for armour steel Using Eqs. (1)–(5), the plastic modulus, h¼ dσc is obtained.
dεp
material, in general, is not readily available in the open literature.
In this work, the behaviour of a low alloy, medium carbon steel 2.2. Johnson–Cook failure model
material typically used in fabrication of armoured vehicles has
been studied through extensive experimentation under various The fracture criterion proposed by Hancock and Mackenzie [14] has
loading conditions. Material constants for J–C material and failure been extended by Johnson and Cook [3] to make the failure strain
models have been determined from an analysis of the experi- sensitive to stress triaxiality, temperature, strain rate and the strain
mental data. A modified damage growth law has also been path. The model assumes that damage accumulates in the material
proposed. The model constants have been validated through nu- element during plastic straining which accelerates immediately when
merical modelling of tensile tests on armour steel specimens the damage reaches a critical value. D is defined as a damage variable
conducted under a relatively high strain rate (10
1 s
1), high which varies between 0 (material not damaged) and 1 (fully failed
triaxiality level and elevated temperature (500 °C) followed by material). The failure criterion is based on the value of equivalent
comparison of the simulation results with experimental data. plastic strain at element integration points. Failure is assumed to occur
Thereafter, an attempt has been made to simulate a moderately when D reaches or exceeds the value of unity [15]. D is defined as
high strain rate phenomenon like Charpy impact test on the same Δε pl
material using J–C material and failure models and the experi- D=Σ
εp,f (6)
mentally determined material constants in a commercial FE code,
ABAQUS-Explicit. The predicted behaviour has then been com- where, Δεpl is an increment of the equivalent plastic strain, εp,f is
pared with experimental data. the equivalent plastic strain at failure and the summation is per-
formed over all increments of deformation [16].
However, the critical value of damage variable, i.e. the value at
2. Material and failure models which a macro-crack occurs is less than one. Hence, the failure
criterion becomes
2.1. Johnson–Cook constitutive relation
D = Dc ≤ 1 (7)
In the framework of von Mises incompressible plasticity, the Furthermore, experiments indicate that damage remains equal
yield function is given as to zero during the buildup of dislocations generating microcracks.
⎛ 3⎞ There may exist a threshold of the accumulated plastic strain at
Φ= ⎜ ⎟Sij Sij − σc = 0 which damage starts to evolve. Based on these observations, a
⎝2⎠ (1)
damage rule can be proposed as
Here, Sij stands for deviatoric stress tensor and sc is the current ⎧ 0, when, εpl < εp, d
yield stress. • ⎪
The flow rule is the normality rule suitable for von Mises yield D = ⎨ Dc •
⎪ εpl , when, εpl ≥ εp, d
function. Therefore, ⎩ ε f − εp , d (8)

dε p pq
1
= (dSijnij )npq where Dc is the critical damage, εp,d the damage threshold and εf
h (2) the fracture strain [17].
202 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209

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.

In this work, the damage growth law as mentioned above is plastic strain, given as
modified. The damage is considered to occur in two stages. In the
• Dc1 •
first stage, the damage growth rate is very slow. This is due to the D= εp
fact that at the initial stage, the damage is due to void nucleation εp0 (9)
only. The damage growth law is a linear function of equivalent
 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209 203

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, εp0 is the plastic strain and Dc1 is the damage at the ul- σD = (1 − D)σeq (12)
timate point (initiation of necking). Dc1 is assumed to take a low
value of 2%. where, sD is the stress at damaged state and seq is obtained from
After the ultimate point, during necking process, the damage Johnson–Cook constitutive relation for the original (undamaged)
material as given in (4).
growth is accelerated due to void growth and coalescence. The
The constitutive model and failure model defined in Eqs. (1)–
damage growth at this stage is increasing non-linearly and given
(12) are implemented in the ABAQUS Explicit code through VUMAT
as
sub-routine. When the failure criterion is met, the stress compo-
Dc 2 − Dc1 nents are set to zero and they remain zero during the remaining
• •
Dc 2 − D part of the analysis. An element-kill algorithm implemented in the
D= εp
εp, f − εp0 (10) FE code removes the failed elements from the mesh.

Here, Dc2 is the critical damage at fracture and taken as 0.8, εp,f
is the strain at failure expressed as Eq. (11) by Johnson and Cook
[3].
The model by Johnson and Cook [3] proposes that εf depends
on stress triaxiality, strain rate and temperature and can be ex-
pressed as
⎡ ⎤
εf = ⎡⎣D1 + D2exp(D3σ *)⎤⎦ ⎣1 + D4 1n εp* ⎦ [1 + D5T *]
•
( )
where D1 to D5 are material constants, s* ¼sm/seq is the stress
triaxiality ratio and sm is the mean stress or hydrostatic stress.
Also, since damage degrades the material strength during de-
formation, the constitutive equation for the damaged material can
be written as
3. Uniaxial tensile testing and numerical modelling
3.1. Armour steel material
The armour material studied in this work is a medium carbon,
low alloy steel with chemical composition as given in Table 1. The
(11) material is obtained from a 50 mm thick armour plate. The plate is
hot rolled and made to undergo heat treatment schedule as given
below to attain a tempered martensite structure to ensure ex-
cellent combination of high strength as well as ductility.
i) Soft annealing by heating to 700 °C @ 20–25 °C per hour,
soaking for 12–14 h followed by furnace cooling down to 100 °C
and thereafter air cooling.
204 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209

Fig. 4. Variation of fracture strain with (a) stress triaxiality, (b) strain rate, and (c) temperature.

Table 2 Specimens for all the tensile tests and Charpy Impact test are
Experimentally determined Johnson–Cook material and failure model constants for fabricated from the same heat treated plate only in the rolling
armour steel.
direction to ensure consistent microstructure and properties in all
Yield stress, A (MPa) 980 D1 0.05 the specimens.
Strain hardening parameter, B (MPa) 2000 D2 0.8
Strain hardening exponent, n 0.83 D3
0.44
3.2. Tensile tests for determination of Johnson–Cook material and
Strain rate sensitivity parameter, c 0.0026 D4
0.046
Temperature exponent, m 1.4 D5 0 failure model constants

Four types of tensile tests have been done to determine the

Table 3 Johnson–Cook material and failure model constants for the ar-
Details of specimens and tensile tests.
mour steel material. Tensile tests of specimens as shown in Fig. 1a
Specimen Thickness or dia- Specimen Strain rate Temp (°C) were conducted at low strain rates, between 10
4 s
1 (quasi-sta-
nomenclature meter of speci- type during ten- tic) and 10
1 s
1 and room temperature in an INSTRON make
men (mm) sile test Universal Testing Machine (Model 8801) to determine the elastic
(s
1)
constants, the initial yield stress, A and the hardening parameters,
S-1 3 Smooth, flat 10
1 27 B and n of the Johnson–Cook constitutive relation. In the same
N-4-1 4 Notched, 10
1 machine, tensile tests on notched specimens having different
4 mm radius thickness and notch radii (Fig. 1b) were done to determine the
C-S-500 Ф¼ 3.52 mm Smooth, 10
3 500
fracture strain at different triaxiality ratios and evaluate therefrom
cylindrical
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, flat and thin specimens (Fig. 1c) in a
ii) Hardening by heating and soaking at 910 °C for 100 min servo hydraulic High Strain Rate Testing Machine, (Make: IN-
followed by oil quenching. STRON, model no. VHS 65/80-20). From the data obtained through
iii) Tempering at a temperature of 600 °C for 200 min followed tensile tests conducted at strain rates between 10
4 s
1 and
by air cooling. 1.5  102 s
1, the strain-rate dependent material model constant, c
 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209
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.
and failure model constant, D4 were calculated.
Finally, tensile tests of cylindrical specimens (Fig. 1d) at a
constant strain rate (10
3 s
1) and elevated temperatures be-
tween 200 °C and 500 °C were performed on INSTRON make
universal testing machine (Model 5582) for determination of the
thermal softening constant, m and the temperature dependent
failure model constant, D5.
3.3. Results of tensile tests and extraction of J–C material and failure
model constants
The true stress vs. true strain data generated from tensile test at
quasi-static strain rate (10
4 s
1) shows a distinct and high yield
point and moderate strain hardening for the armour steel material.
The test results are used to determine the elastic constants as well
as initial yield stress, A. Strain hardening coefficient and exponent,
B and n respectively are determined using a power law fit for the
true stress and plastic strain data taken after yield point.
The stress vs. strain curves obtained at various strain rates
between 10
3 s
1 and 1.5  102 s
1 shown in Fig. 2a, indicate a
moderate strain rate sensitivity of the material. Both the initial
yield stress and flow stress in the post-yield region are seen to
increase with increasing strain rate. Beyond a strain rate of
102 s
1, excessive stress fluctuations are found to occur.
The stress vs. strain curves for specimens tested in tension at a
constant strain rate of 10
3 s
1 and at four different temperatures
between 200 °C and 500 °C are shown in Fig. 2b. A distinct de-
crease in both the initial yield and flow stresses in the post-yield
region is observed.
The values of true stress at 5% plastic strain for different strain
•
rates (ε ) varying from 10
3 s
1 to 1.5  102 s
1 have been plotted
•
against log (ε *) in Fig. 3a. The slope of the fitted line gives the
strain rate parameter, c of the Johnson Cook material model.
205
With all the model constants known except m, the J–C con-
stitutive relation (4) can be written as,
σeq = K [1 − T *m ] (13)
•
where K = [A + Bε pn ][1 + c ln ε *] (14)
The right hand side of Eq. (14) is calculated with the constants
determined previously. Rearranging the Eq. (13) and taking loga-
rithm of both sides, we get,
log (K –σeq ) = m log (T *) + + log K (15)
which represents a linear equation between the variables, log
(T*) and log(K–seq). The data obtained from the tensile tests con-
ducted at different temperatures between 27 °C and 500 °C and for
εp ¼ 1.25% and ε ¼10
3 s
1, have been fitted to Eq. (15) as shown
•
in Fig. 3b. The slope of the linear curve gives the value of the
temperature dependent material model parameter, m.
Thus, all the five model constants of Johnson–Cook constitutive
relation were determined.
It may be noted that the strain values in Fig. 2a and b are
longitudinal strain values. At failure, they have a relatively low
magnitude. However, for calculations, the actual failure strain has
been measured from an area reduction in the “neck” region of the
specimen whose value is considerably higher as seen in Fig. 4a–c.
In order to determine the Johnson–Cook failure model con-
stants, D2 and D3, the failure strain, εf is calculated as the area
strain at fracture i.e., εf ¼ ln(A0/Af), where A0 is the initial area and
Af, the final area at fracture. To evaluate the triaxiality ratio, s* at
failure, an elasto-plastic FE analysis has been carried out for the
tensile test (at quasi-static strain rate and room temperature) of
specimens having different thickness and notch radii. From the FE
analysis, the mean stress and von Mises stress at the notch region
206 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and simulated load (N) vs. displacement (mm) curves for tensile test of (a) flat, 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.

Fig. 8. FE model of charpy impact specimen.

Fig. 7. Damage vs. equivalent plastic strain as per damage growth rule im-
plemented in the UMAT programme.
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 Johnson–Cook (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
point) in cylindrical specimens tested in tensile mode at quasi
static strain rate and room temperature.
The strain rate dependent failure model parameter, D4 is ob-
tained by analysing the variation of the strain at failure with the
strain rate. The effect of temperature on failure strain was found
insignificant within the range of temperatures examined and
hence D5 was taken as 0. The effects of triaxiality ratio, strain rate
and temperature on the fracture strain are shown in Fig. 4.
 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209
Fig. 9. Crack initiation at notch tip.
The Johnson–Cook material and failure model constants de-
termined 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 im-
plementation, three different tensile tests on the armour material
specimens were simulated using the commercial FE code ABAQUS
and the simulated force–elongation curves were compared with
the experimental data. Considering the low strain rates involved in
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.
207
the tests, the inertia effects have been neglected. ABAQUS Stan-
dard was used and the J–C constitutive relation and modified J–C
failure models were implemented as user defined material model
(UMAT sub-routine). The values of the parameters of J–C 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 im-
plemented 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 flat 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 flat specimens with 6 elements
across the specimen thickness. Similarly, 3316 elements were used
to model the 4 mm thick flat 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 force–elongation 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.
208 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209
Also, the damage law implemented in the programme is shown
in Fig. 7 as a plot of damage versus equivalent plastic strain in the
specimens tested.
4. Charpy impact test
Once the experimentally determined Johnson–Cook material
and failure model constants were found to appreciably represent
the armour steel material behaviour at strain rates upto 10
1 s
1,
high levels of stress triaxiality and elevated temperatures upto
500 °C, their capability to model a moderately high strain rate
phenomenon like Charpy impact test was investigated. An in-
strumented Charpy test was conducted on specimen made from
the same material and the results were compared with the FE si-
mulated results of the same test.
4.1. Experimental Charpy impact test
The Charpy impact test was performed in a Zwick–Roell make
test set-up. The experimental set-up consists of the anvils where
the standard (ASTM designation, E23) notched specimen is freely
supported and a pendulum with a mass, 30 kg attached to a ro-
tating arm pinned at the machine body. The characteristic speci-
men length, height and thickness were 55 mm, 10 mm and 10 mm
respectively. The depth of the notch was 2 mm. The span length
between the anvils was kept 40 mm.
The released pendulum follows a circular trajectory and hits
the test specimen at the middle span transferring kinetic energy to
it. In this experiment, the pendulum hammer had a speed of
5.23 m/s while striking. Energy losses due to bearing friction and
air resistance have been ignored to calculate the energy absorbed
by the specimen.
The output of the test was obtained in the form of load versus
time and displacement as well as the maximum energy absorbed
by the specimen. After the impact, the load quickly rose to a peak
value of around 30 kN within a time interval of around 0.355 ms
and thereafter died down to zero value in about 2 ms. The energy
absorbed by the specimen rose to a maximum value of around 95 J
at a time of 1.5 ms after the impact and remained constant after
that. Thus, the armour steel material can be said to have a Charpy
impact value of 95 J at room temperature. From a simple energy
balance, the post-impact velocity of the striker can be calculated as
4.62 m/s. Therefore, the average strain rate during deformation is
observed to be in the order of 500 s
1.
4.2. Finite element modelling of the Charpy impact test
FE models of the Charpy impact test specimens were developed
in the ABAQUS Explicit software with the damage model specified
through a VUMAT.
A half model of the Charpy test specimen and the impactor
(hammer) with the z-plane as the plane of symmetry and the z-
axis defining the thickness direction was prepared as shown in
Fig. 8 for reducing the computational time. The span length (dis-
tance between the anvils) is maintained 40 mm as per standard of
Charpy test. The impactor was modelled as elastic body and the
specimen as elasto-plastic material. Variable meshing was em-
ployed with fine mesh quality around the notch region of the
Charpy test specimen. The mesh size was optimally determined
after a number of runs. The final FE model of the specimen con-
sisted of 40,520 nos. 8-noded linear brick, reduced integration,
hourglass controlled (C3D8R) elements.
The contact between the anvils and the specimen is assumed as
line contact. The nodes on these lines are constrained in vertical
(y) direction throughout the thickness. All the nodes in the z
symmetric plane are constrained in z direction. The nodes on the
impactor were constrained to move only in the vertical direction
(y) with impactor velocity given as input. The Johnson–Cook ma-
terial model was assigned to the Charpy impact test specimen
whereas Johnson–Cook failure model was assigned to a narrow
region over the notch along the height of the specimen (y – di-
rection) throughout the thickness in order to simulate the crack
propagation after impact. The Johnson–Cook failure model was
used as the criterion for deletion of the elements when the da-
mage parameter, D reached the pre-assigned critical value. The
model constants of constitutive relation and failure model as de-
termined from the tensile tests described in Section 3 and pre-
sented in Table 2 were used. This simulation utilised explicit time
integration and was run for a total time of 2 ms. The crack initia-
tion and propagation in the specimen are shown in Fig. 9.
4.3. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results
The experimental and numerical results of the Charpy impact
test are compared in Fig. 10 in the form of variation of the force
exerted on the specimen by the striker with respect to (a) time and
(b) displacement of the striker. The variation of internal energy of
the specimen with time has also been compared (Fig. 10c).
It is evident that the pattern of the experimental and simulated
curves is similar and the time to reach the peak force value also
matches. The drop in the force in both simulated and experimental
plots occurs at the same time and displacement. The nature of the
drop also has been accurately modelled. The successful prediction
of the maximum load and the nature of its drop with time vali-
dates the damage distribution as well as the damage growth
model used in the FE simulation. The simulated value of the en-
ergy absorbed by the specimen is also found to appreciably match
the experimental value. Thus, the J–C material and modified J–C
failure models as well as the model constants determined are
found to satisfactorily represent the behaviour of the armour steel
material in a moderately high strain rate event like the Charpy
impact test.
5. Conclusions
 The Johnson–Cook material and failure model constants for
armour steel material have been determined through uniaxial
tensile tests conducted over a range of strain rates
(10
4–1.5  102s
1) and temperatures (room temperature to
500 °C).
 Johnson–Cook failure model has been implemented with
modification in damage growth law suitable for armour steel
material.
 FE simulation of tensile tests at different strain rates and
temperatures has produced results closely matching the ex-
perimental data, thus validating the model constants and the
damage growth law.
 Finally, the model constants and the damage growth law have
been used successfully to simulate Charpy impact test for the
armour steel material.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Shri R Appavuraj, Director, Proof &
Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, DRDO for support, en-
couragement and permission for publishing the work.
 A. Banerjee et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 640 (2015) 200–209
References
[1] A. Molinari, S. Mercier, N. Jacques, Procedia IUTAM 10 (2014) 201–220.
[2] G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook., Proceedings of the Seventh International Sympo-
sium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1983.
[3] G.R. Johnson, W. Cook, Eng. Fract. Mech. 21 (1) (1985) 31–48.
[4] D.A.S. Macdougall, J.A. Harding, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47 (1999) 1157–1185.
[5] H.W. Meyer Jr., D.S. Kleponis, Int. J. Impact Eng. 26 (2001) 509–521.
[6] C.Y. Tham, V.B.C. Tan, H.P. Lee, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (2008) 304–318.
[7] J. Peirs, P. Verleysen, W. Van Paepegem, J. Degrieck, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 (2011)
406–415.
[8] V. Nastasescu, N. Iliescu, Appl. Math. Mech. 53 (2010) 173–178.
[9] Metals Handbook, in: J.R. Davis, et al., (Eds.), ASM International, 1998,
209
pp. 1322–1323.
[10] Handbook of Materials Measurement Methods, in: Czichos, et al., (Eds.),
Springer, 2006, pp. 343–344.
[11] F.A. Ghaith, F.A. Khan, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 4 (4) (2013) 377–386.
[12] Huang Fenglei Xu Zejian, Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 25 (6) (2012) 598–608.
[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) 82–88.
[14] J.W. Hancock, A.C. Mackenzie, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 24 (1976) 147–169.
[15] ABAQUS/Explicit Theory Manual Version 6.3, vol. 1–2 2002.
[16] N.K. Gupta, M.A. Iqbal, G.S. Sekhon, Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 (2006) 1921–1944.
[17] T. Borvik, M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, K.A. Malo, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22 (1999)
855–886.