crystals
Article
A New, Precise Constitutive Model and Thermal Processing
Map Based on the Hot Deformation Behavior of 2219
Aluminum Alloy
Jing Wang 1, *, Guiqian Xiao 2 and Jiansheng Zhang 2
Citation: Wang, J.; Xiao, G.; Zhang, J.
A New, Precise Constitutive Model
and Thermal Processing Map Based
on the Hot Deformation Behavior of
2219 Aluminum Alloy. Crystals 2023,
13, 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/
cryst13050732
Academic Editor: Shouxun Ji
Received: 6 April 2023
Revised: 20 April 2023
Accepted: 25 April 2023
Published: 26 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Crystals 2023, 13, 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst13050732
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing 400067, China
2 Chongqing Key Laboratory of Advanced Mold Intelligent Manufacturing, College of Materials Science and
Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China; xgq3790@163.com (G.X.);
zhangjiansheng@cqu.edu.cn (J.Z.)
* Correspondence: wangjing@ctbu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-185-8087-8106
Abstract: To study the hot deformation behavior of and obtain the optimal hot processing parameters
for 2219 aluminum alloy, a new, precise constitutive model based on the partial derivative of flow
data was constructed and hot processing maps were constructed based on the new model. First,
isothermal compression experiments were conducted at strain rates of 0.01–10 s−1 and temperatures
of 573–773 K, and the high-order differences of the logarithmic stress with respect to the temperature
and logarithmic strain rate were calculated. Second, a new, precise constitutive model based on
the high-order differences was constructed, and the predictive accuracies of the new model and
the Arrhenius model were compared. Finally, the hot processing maps of 2219 aluminum alloy
were constructed using the new model, and its optimal hot processing parameters were validated
with metallographic experiments. The results showed that a first-order approximation between
logarithmic stress and temperature and a third-order approximation between logarithmic stress and
the logarithmic strain rate need to be considered to construct a high-precision constitutive model
without significantly increasing material parameters. The new model exhibited a significantly higher
prediction accuracy than the Arrhenius model at a high strain rate and low temperature levels. With
an increase in temperature, the energy dissipation increased at a constant strain rate, and with an
increase in the strain rate, the energy dissipation first increased and then decreased at constant
temperature. The best region for hot processing was located in the temperature range of 673–773 K
and the strain rate range of 0.1–1 s−1 . The results of microstructure analysis were in good agreement
with the prediction results of hot processing maps. Hot processing maps can be used to guide the hot
working process formulation of 2219 aluminum alloy.
Keywords: new constitutive model; Arrhenius model; isothermal compression; 2219 aluminum alloy;
partial derivative
1. Introduction
Due to its high specific strength, low density, easy machinability, and excellent cor-
rosion resistance, 2219 aluminum alloy, a typical Al–Cu–Mn aluminum alloy, is widely
used in aerospace, automobile, ship, and other industries [1,2]. To manufacture various
components, the hot forming process, including forging, extrusion, and stamping, is usually
applied for forming 2219 aluminum alloy [3]. Therefore, studying the hot deformation
behavior of this alloy is essential for optimizing the forming process and developing
numerical models for forming simulation [4]. Constructing a constitutive model of this
material is at the core of studying its deformation behavior and is also the basic work of
numerical simulation. Phenomenological models, such as the Arrhenius(AH) model [5], the
Johnson–Cook(JC) model [6], and the Zerilli–Armstrong(ZA) model [7], are widely used
to describe the constitutive relationship of metals due to their characteristics with fewer
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/crystals
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 2 of 18

constants and experiments [8]. Currently, the AH-type model is widely used to describe
the relationship between flow stress and flow strain in aluminum alloys. For example,
Liu et al. [9] modified the conventional Arrhenius-type constitutive model to investigate
the flow behavior of 2219 Al alloy during warm deformation. The modified flow stresses
were found to be in close agreement with the experimental values. Jia et al. [10] established
an Arrhenius constitutive model and an exponential constitutive model, considering the
influence of the temperature and strain rate, respectively. The predicted results of the
two constitutive models were in good agreement with the test results. Wang et al. [11]
proposed a newly modified constitutive model of 2219-O Al alloy with a simpler function
structure to accurately predict the evolution behavior of flow stress with the strain effect
included. The newly founded constitutive model of 2219-O Al alloy shows its advantages
in applications because of its structural simplicity. He et al. [12] established a constitutive
equation to describe the steady flow stress of an alloy based on the Arrhenius model. The
predicted result of the constitutive model was in good agreement with the experimental
data. Li et al. [13] compared the predicting accuracy of stress in an aluminum alloy using a
traditional AH model and a BP-ANN model. It was found that the Arrhenius-type equation
loses accuracy in cases of high stress. Additionally, the BP-ANN model was superior in
regressing and predicting than the Arrhenius-type constitutive equation. The JC-type
model and the ZA-type model have not been used to describe the constitutive relationship
of 2219 aluminum alloy but have been widely used in other aluminum alloys. For instance,
Shayanpoor et al. [14] developed proper constitutive equations based on phenomenological
and physical models to predict the hot flow behavior of the Al–Cu composite. The results
indicated that the accuracy of the modified JC constitutive equation is higher than that of
other models. Jiang et al. [15] developed a modified JC model fitted with a polynomial
and power-exponential function to describe the flow stress of AA2055 Al alloy. The modi-
fied Johnson–Cook constitutive model could predict the flow stress well, especially in the
high-temperature zone (around 500 ◦ C) and the low-temperature zone (around 320 ◦ C).
Xiao et al. [16] proposed a constitutive model inspired by the JC material model and the
generalized incremental stress-state-dependent damage fracture model. The model cap-
tured the ductile and fracture behavior for 7003 aluminum alloy with different stress states
and strain rates, thus improving the finite element (FE) simulation accuracy.
However, in the past decades, research on the phenomenological constitutive models
of aluminum alloys has focused on improving or modifying these models [17,18], without
achieving significant improvements in prediction accuracy [19]. In response, this study
conducted isothermal compression experiments and microstructure analyses at different
strain rates and temperatures to propose a new constitutive model. This new model, which
is based on the partial derivatives of experimental flow stress data, was developed without
significantly increasing the material parameters. Compared to the classic Arrhenius model,
the new model achieved significantly higher predictive accuracy. The new model was used
to construct hot processing maps for 2219 aluminum alloy, and the optimal hot processing
parameters were validated with metallographic experiments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material
The study specifically focused on 2219 aluminum alloy, which is primarily composed
of Cu, Mn, Zr, and Zn as the main alloy elements, as shown in Table 1. It is noteworthy that
this material offers several advantages, such as high specific strength, low density, easy
machinability, and superior corrosion resistance.

Table 1. The chemical composition of 2219 Al alloy (wt%).

Cu Mn Si Zr Fe Zn V Ti Al
5.8–6.8 0.2–0.4 ≤0.2 0.1–0.25 ≤0.3 0.1 0.05–0.15 0.02–0.1 Bal.
 Table 1. The chemical composition of 2219 Al alloy (wt%).

CrystalsCu
2023, 13, 732 Mn Si Zr Fe Zn V Ti Al3 of 18
5.8–6.8 0.2–0.4 ≤0.2 0.1–0.25 ≤0.3 0.1 0.05–0.15 0.02–0.1 Bal.

The originally
The originally homogenized
homogenizedmicrostructure
microstructureofof2219 aluminum
2219 aluminum alloy is shown
alloy in Fig-
is shown in
ure 1. The initial microstructure of the material consists of an α matrix
Figure 1. The initial microstructure of the material consists of an α matrix phase, phase, an Al an
Cu
phase
Al dissolved in the matrix, and an elongated Al Cu Fe phase. One of the purposes of
2 Cu phase dissolved in the matrix, and an elongated Al7 Cu2 Fe phase. One of the pur-
the process design is
poses of the process to eliminate
design the elongated
is to eliminate Al Cu Al
the elongated Fe Cu
phase, which can cause stress
7 2 Fe phase, which can cause
concentration by splitting the α matrix phase and ultimately degrade
stress concentration by splitting the α matrix phase and ultimately degrade the material’s me-
the material’s
chanical properties.
mechanical properties.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The microstructure
microstructureof
of2219
2219Al
Al alloy.
alloy.

2.2.
2.2. Experiment
Experiment
Usually,
Usually, the
the solidus
solidus temperature
temperature of of 2219
2219 aluminum
aluminum alloy
alloy is
is 816
816 K,K, and
and the
the service
service
temperature
temperature is usually below 573 K. The actual forming strain rate of 2219 aluminum alloy
is usually below 573 K. The actual forming strain rate of 2219 aluminum alloy
ranges −1 to 10 s−1 . It was been determined that the temperature range for the
ranges from
from0.01
0.01ss−1 to 10 s−1. It was been determined that the temperature range for the
compression
compressionexperiments
experimentswouldwouldbe bebetween
between573
573 KK and
and 773
773 K.
K. Additionally,
Additionally,the the strain
strain rate
rate
for these experiments was determined to be between 0.01 s −1 and 10 s−1 . The homogenized
for these experiments was determined to be between 0.01 s and 10 s . The homogenized
−1 −1
metal
metal was
was used
used to
to machine
machine hot
hot compression
compression specimens
specimens with
with aa diameter
diameter of of 10
10 mm
mm and
and aa
height of 15 mm. As shown in Table 2, 25 samples were heated to temperatures of 573 K,
height of 15 mm. As shown in Table 2, 25 samples were heated to temperatures of 573 K,
623 K, 673 K, and 773 K at a rate of 5 K/s and were subsequently subjected to isothermal
623 K, 673 K, and 773 K at a rate of 5 K/s and were subsequently subjected to isothermal
compression at deformation rates of 0.01 s−1−1, 0.1 s−1−1, 1 s−−11 , and 10 s−−11 , with deformation
compression at deformation rates of 0.01 s , 0.1 s , 1 s , and 10 s , with deformation
amounts of 60% each. After compression, the specimens were quenched immediately in a
amounts of 60% each. After compression, the specimens were quenched immediately in a wa-
water medium to preserve their high-temperature deformation microstructure. A tantalum
ter medium to preserve their high-temperature deformation microstructure. A tantalum foil
foil with a thickness of 0.1 mm was placed between the specimen and the tool to minimize
with a thickness of 0.1 mm was placed between the specimen and the tool to minimize friction
friction during hot deformation. The flow stress–strain curves were automatically recorded
during hot deformation. The flow stress–strain curves were automatically recorded from load-
from load-stroke data during the isothermal compression experiments with Gleeble 3500
stroke data during the isothermal compression experiments with Gleeble 3500 (Gleeble,
(Gleeble, Poestenkill, NY, USA).
Poestenkill, NY, USA).
Table 2. Isothermal compression test parameters.
Table 2. Isothermal compression test parameters.
Heating Strain Rate Heating Rate Quenching Amount of
Number . −1
Temperature (T/K) (ε/s
Strain Rate ) (K/s)
Heating Rate Medium Deformation
Number Heating Temperature (T/K) Quenching Medium Amount of Deformation
1–4 573 (𝛆/s−1) (K/s)
1–4 5–8 573 623
5–8
9–12 623
673 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 5 Water 60%
13–16 723
9–12 673 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 5 Water 60%
17–20 773
13–16 723
17–20 773
Figure 2 shows the true stress–strain curves obtained under different deformation con-
ditions. During the initial compression deformation, work hardening dominates, leading to
a rapid increase in flow stress. The presence of generating dislocations in a material impedes
the movement of other dislocations, increasing the material’s resistance to deformation.
Generating dislocations arise when the lattice planes of the material are distorted due to
plastic deformation, creating a type of imperfection in the crystal structure. These disloca-
tions act as obstacles to the movement of other dislocations, slowing down the deformation
 mation. Generating dislocations arise when the lattice planes of the material are distorted
due to plastic deformation, creating a type of imperfection in the crystal structure. These
dislocations act as obstacles to the movement of other dislocations, slowing down the de-
formation
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 process. As the strain increases, dynamic softening starts to play a more signif-4 of 18
icant role. Dynamic softening occurs due to a variety of mechanisms, including dynamic
recovery, recrystallization, and grain refinement, among others. These mechanisms can
process.
partially or completely As thethe
reverse strain
workincreases, dynamic
hardening thatsoftening starts toin
has occurred play
theamaterial,
more significant
lead- role.
Dynamic softening occurs due to a variety of mechanisms, including dynamic recovery,
ing to a reduction in flow stress. The point at which work hardening and dynamic soften-
recrystallization, and grain refinement, among others. These mechanisms can partially
ing balance out is orreferred to as
completely peakthe
reverse stress.
work It can be observed
hardening from the
that has occurred figure
in the thatleading
material, the to
flow stress increased as the temperature
a reduction in flow stress. decreased
The point atandwhich the strain
work rate increased.
hardening and dynamic This is
softening
because a lower temperature and a higher strain rate increase the amount of work hard- flow
balance out is referred to as peak stress. It can be observed from the figure that the
ening and generating stress increased as the
dislocations, temperature decreased
respectively, which inand theincreases
turn strain rate increased. This is re-
the material’s because
a lower temperature and a higher strain rate increase the amount of work hardening and
sistance to deformation. Conversely, a higher temperature and a lower strain rate promote
generating dislocations, respectively, which in turn increases the material’s resistance to
dynamic softening,deformation.
leading to Conversely,
a reduction in flow
a higher stress. and a lower strain rate promote dynamic
temperature
softening, leading to a reduction in flow stress.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 2. Flow stress–strain
Figure 2.curves of 2219 Al alloy
Flow stress–strain curvesduring
of 2219hotAl compression at compression
alloy during hot strain rates at
ofstrain
(a) 0.01
rates of
− 1 − 1 − 1 − 1
s , (b) 0.1 s , (c) 1 s (a)
−1 −1 −1, and
0.01(d)
s 10 , (b)s 0.1
−1 . s , (c) 1 s , and (d) 10 s .

The observed phenomenon can be attributed to several factors. First, the tempera-
The observed phenomenon can be attributed to several factors. First, the temperature
ture increase weakens the bond between metal atoms, which in turn reduces the thermal
increase weakens the bond between
activation metalfor
energy required atoms, whichand
dislocations in boundaries
turn reduces the thermal
to move. acti-in the
This results
vation energy required forbecoming
material dislocations
moreand boundaries
susceptible to move.
to plastic This [20].
deformation results in the
Second, anmate-
increase in
rial becoming more susceptible to plastic deformation [20]. Second, an increase indensity
the strain rate leads to a more rapid deformation process, resulting in a higher the of
dislocations within the material. This increased density of dislocations is responsible for
strain rate leads to a more rapid deformation process, resulting in a higher density of dis-
the observed increase in flow stress. Finally, the shorter time available for accumulating
locations within theactivation
material. Thisresults
energy increased density
in reduced of dislocations
recovery behavior, whichis contributes
responsible forconsump-
to the the
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 5 of 18

tion of dislocations. These factors collectively lead to an increase in flow stress under the
specified deformation conditions.
To facilitate the determination of material parameters for the constitutive model, the
flow stress curves were discretized into 10 equidistant intervals. This was done to ensure
that sufficient data were available for accurately fitting the constitutive model. The intervals
spanned from a strain of 0.04 to 0.8 to capture the complete range of plastic deformation
experienced by the material during the isothermal compression experiments. The stress
values presented in Table 3 were derived via linear interpolation, grounded in the flow
curves depicted in Figure 2.

Table 3. Stress data obtained at different strain levels (the units of the strain rate, temperature, and
stress are s−1 , K, and MPa, respectively).

Strain Temperature Strain Temperature

Strain Strain
Rate 573 623 673 723 773 Rate 573 623 673 723 773
0.01 84.21 54.89 47.13 35.22 28.63 0.01 94.84 68.59 46.72 34.42 28.58
0.10 62.62 69.12 64.62 46.26 40.47 0.10 125.80 87.02 71.85 50.33 41.25
0.040 0.124
1 98.47 84.13 61.53 58.65 53.91 1 152.65 115.68 82.70 69.99 58.62
10 131.57 105.85 92.82 96.95 74.94 10 187.39 151.39 123.41 100.93 84.99
0.01 94.41 69.31 45.79 31.92 28.23 0.01 91.96 66.71 45.79 32.25 28.27
0.10 131.04 88.22 70.25 50.12 40.72 0.10 130.48 86.15 67.45 48.64 39.94
0.209 0.293
1 163.23 122.57 88.19 71.69 59.31 1 165.94 123.86 88.96 71.87 59.18
10 189.90 148.10 121.22 98.83 81.72 10 189.38 148.93 118.87 97.69 80.82
0.01 89.29 65.04 43.62 32.12 28.31 0.01 89.29 65.04 43.62 32.12 28.31
0.10 127.16 82.05 63.88 48.01 38.94 0.10 127.16 82.05 63.88 48.01 38.94
0.378 0.462
1 165.40 122.76 88.95 71.45 58.53 1 165.40 122.76 88.95 71.45 58.53
10 181.82 142.40 116.56 96.28 79.95 10 181.82 142.40 116.56 96.28 79.95
0.01 84.82 63.00 41.09 30.17 27.31 0.01 83.17 61.35 41.08 29.85 27.07
0.10 118.00 76.18 61.40 45.41 36.60 0.10 114.98 74.80 60.15 43.42 35.46
0.547 0.631
1 159.49 118.05 86.18 68.75 55.80 1 156.74 115.09 84.06 67.45 54.56
10 165.51 133.00 112.08 92.82 78.00 10 161.50 130.00 109.92 91.35 77.00
0.01 81.89 60.11 40.48 29.34 26.94 0.01 80.95 58.72 40.48 28.94 26.86
0.10 112.03 74.20 59.07 42.17 34.44 0.10 108.76 73.18 58.13 40.63 33.57
0.716 0.800
1 154.25 112.69 82.04 66.55 53.76 1 151.36 110.07 80.12 65.95 53.31
10 158.30 126.89 107.79 90.32 76.00 10 156.02 124.26 105.71 89.79 75.02

3. Constitutive Model
3.1. Arrhenius Model
3.1.1. Basic Expression
The Arrhenius (AH) constitutive model is widely used to predict flow stress, due to
its simple form, few parameters, and good generalized ability. The AH model was first
proposed by Sellars and McTegart [21]. The formula for the model is shown in Equation
.
(1), which relates the flow stress (σ) to the temperature (T), strain rate (ε), and material
parameters (A, α, n, and β).
 β
 
α exp −
Q
Aσ RT ασ ≤ 0.8



.
 
Q
ε= A exp( βσ ) exp − RT ασ > 0.8 (1)
  
 A[sinh(ασ)]n exp − Q f or all σ


RT

where A, α, n, and β are material parameters, Q is the activation energy (J·mol−1 ), R is

.
the universal gas constant (8.314 J·K−1 ·mol−1 ), T is the absolute temperature (K), ε is the
strain rate (s−1 ), and σ is the flow stress (MPa). To simplify the calculation of material
 where A, α, n, and β are material parameters, Q is the activation energy (J·mol−1), R is the
universal gas constant (8.314 J·K−1·mol−1), T is the absolute temperature (K), ε is the strain
rate (s−1), and σ is the flow stress (MPa). To simplify the calculation of material parameters
for the Arrhenius model, Equation (1) can be transformed into Equation (2) by taking log-
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 6 of 18
arithms on both sides of the equation.

⎧ln𝐴 lnσ − 𝛼𝜎 ≤ 0.8

⎪
parameters for the Arrhenius model, Equation (1) can be transformed into Equation (2) by
ln𝜀 = ln𝐴 𝛽𝜎 − 𝛼𝜎 > 0.8 (2)
⎨ on both sides of the equation.
taking logarithms
⎪
⎩ln𝐴 𝑛ln  sinh 𝛼𝜎 − 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝜎
 ln A + β ln σ − Q ασ ≤ 0.8
.
 α RT
ln ε = Q (2)
ln A + βσ − RT ασ > 0.8
3.1.2. Parameter Solution
 Q
ln A + n ln sinh(ασ) − RT f or all σ


The material parameters of ln𝐴, 𝛼 , 𝑛, and 𝑄 at each strain level can be obtained
3.1.2. Parameter Solution
with multivariate nonlinear regression of Equation (2) using flow stress data (Table 3).
The material
Next, the curves of ln𝐴-𝜀, 𝛼-𝜀, 𝑛-𝜀,parameters
and 𝑄-𝜀 of can lnA, α, n, and using
be obtained Q at each
thesestrain level can
regression be obtained
data.
with multivariate nonlinear regression of Equation (2) using flow stress data (Table 3).
The polynomial fitting of ln𝐴-𝜀, 𝛼-𝜀, 𝑛-𝜀, and 𝑄-𝜀 is conducted to obtain the constitu-
Next, the curves of ln A-ε, α-ε, n-ε, and Q-ε can be obtained using these regression data.
tive equation withThe
strain compensation by using flow data listed in Table 3.
polynomial fitting of ln A-ε, α-ε, n-ε, and Q-ε is conducted to obtain the constitutive
As shown inequation
Figure 3, a fifth-degree
with polynomial
strain compensation wasflow
by using used to listed
data fit these data,3. and ex-
in Table
pressions for each parameter
As shownwere obtained.
in Figure 3, aThe degree ofpolynomial
fifth-degree polynomial wascanused
be determined
to fit these data, and
according to the regression accuracy, but using too high a degree can lead
expressions for each parameter were obtained. The degree of polynomial to overfitting.
can be determined
according to
The Arrhenius constitutive the regression
equation accuracy,
for 2219 Al alloybutcan
using too high aby
be obtained degree can lead to
introducing theoverfitting.
The Arrhenius constitutive
value from Table 4 into Equation (1). equation for 2219 Al alloy can be obtained by introducing the
value from Table 4 into Equation (1).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3. Regression values
Figure of materialvalues
3. Regression parameters at different
of material parametersstrain levels and
at different straintheir polynomial
levels and their polynomial
fitting curves: (a) lnA-ε, (b) α-ε, (c) n-ε, and (d) Q-ε.
fitting curves: (a) lnA-ε, (b) α-ε, (c) n-ε, and (d) Q-ε.
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 7 of 18

Table 4. Polynomial regression coefficients of material parameters for the Arrhenius constitutive
model.

Each Term of the Fifth-Degree Polynomial

Parameters
ε5 ε4 ε3 ε2 ε Constant
ln A 1067.9341 −2772.1319 2761.7040 −1301.7920 279.1318 15.8880
α 0.2801 −0.6748 0.5739 −0.1950 0.0209 0.0103
n −176.8387 421.8186 −372.8122 148.9734 −26.2920 7.4828
Q 12,129,779.65 −30,821,120.08 29,740,283.34 −13,393,248.5 2,706,665.33 104,677.46

3.2. New Constitutive Model

3.2.1. Higher-Order Derivatives
It is well known that when the strain is constant, the key to building a constitutive
model of 2219 Al alloy is to establish a functional relationship between stress, the strain
rate, and temperature. The Arrhenius model is an implicit function that is complicated
in practical application. For easy application, the relationship between stress, the strain
rate, and temperature can be defined as an explicit function, which can be expressed as
.

ln σ = f ln ε, T . According to the Taylor series, the function of f can be approximated
with a polynomial. To study the relationship between logarithmic stress, the logarithmic
strain rate, and temperature, the partial derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect to
temperature and logarithmic strain rate can be calculated with numerical calculations.
The discrete formulas of derivatives include the forward difference, backward difference,
and central difference. To maintain the number of rows and columns of the stress data
(shown in Table 3), forward and backward differences are used at the start and end bound-
aries, respectively, and the central difference is used in the middle region. Next, the
high-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect to the temperature and
logarithmic strain rate for the stress data can be calculated using Equations (3)–(5).

∂n−1 ln σ n −1 σ
− ∂ . nln
. n −1 −1


 n
∂ ln σ ∂ ln ε i +1,j ∂ ln ε i −1,j

 .n = .
ln ε −ln ε
.
∂ ln ε

 i,j i +1,j i −1,j
∂n−1 ln σ − ∂n−1 ln σ (3)
∂n ln ∂T n−1 i,j+1 ∂T n−1 i,j−1
=




 ∂T n i,j Ti,j+1 − Ti,j−1



where n is the order of the partial derivative and i and j are indices of the strain rate
and temperature, respectively. For instance, when i = 1 and j = 1, ln σi,j represents the
logarithmic stress with a strain rate of 0.01 s−1 and a temperature of 573 K. The maximum
values of i and j are the numbers of strain rates and temperatures, respectively. When i = 1
or j = 1, Equation (3) should be replaced by Equation (4), which is a backward difference.



∂n−1 ln σ n −1 σ

− ∂ . nln

. n −1

 −1
 ∂n ln. nσ ∂ ln ε i +1,j ∂ ln ε i,j

 = . .
ln εi+1,j −ln εi,j
∂ ln ε i,j (4)
 ∂n−1 ln σ n −1
− ∂ n−ln1 σ
∂n ln σ ∂T n−1 i,j+1
 ∂T i,j
=


∂T n Ti,j+1 − Ti,j

i,j




Crystals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 8 of 18

When i = 5 or j = 5, Equation (3) should be replaced by Equation (5), which is a

forward difference. ⎧
⎪
⎪ , ,
=


 ∂n−1 ln σ n −1 σ
− ∂, . nln
, . n,−1
 −1
(5)
 n ln ln
 ∂ ln σ ∂ ε i,j ∂ ε i −1,j

⎨ ∂ ln ε. n i,j =
 . .
ln εi,j −ln εi−1,j
, , (5)
⎪
⎪ = ∂n−1 ln σ − ∂n−1 ln σ
 ∂ ln σ,
 n ∂T ,
n − 1 i,j, ∂T n − 1 i,j−1
⎩
 =
 ∂T n i,j


Ti,j − Ti,j−1

The logarithmic stress–temperature and logarithmic stress–logarithmic strain rate
The logarithmic stress–temperature and logarithmic stress–logarithmic strain rate
curves are shown in Figure 4.
curves are shown in Figure 4.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Curves
Figure at a strain
4. Curves of 0.209:
at a strain (a) logarithmic
of 0.209: stress
(a) logarithmic andand
stress temperature andand
temperature (b) (b)
logarithmic
logarithmic stress
stressand
andlogarithmic
logarithmicstrain
strainrate.
rate.

As canAs becanseen fromfrom

be seen Figure 4a,b,4a,b,
Figure the minimum
the minimum value of the
value ofsquare
the squareof the
of correction
the correction
between logarithmic
between stress
logarithmic and and
stress temperature
temperaturewas was 0.9762, which
0.9762, is significantly
which larger
is significantly thanthan
larger
0.8, the
0.8, and andminimum
the minimum valuevalue
of the ofsquare
the square
of the ofcorrection
the correction
betweenbetween logarithmic
logarithmic stressstress
and and
logarithmic
logarithmic strain strain
rate rate
was was
0.9715,0.9715,
which which
is alsois also significantly
significantly larger larger
thanthan 0.8. Therefore,
0.8. Therefore,
therethere
is a is a strong
strong linear
linear relationship
relationship between
between logarithmic
logarithmic stress
stress and and temperature,
temperature, asas well as
well
between logarithmic stress and the logarithmic
as between logarithmic stress and the logarithmic strain rate. strain rate.
To further
To further analyze
analyze the higher-order
the higher-order relationship
relationship between
between logarithmic
logarithmic stressstress and tem-
and tem-
perature,
perature, the higher-order
the higher-order partial partial derivatives
derivatives of logarithmic
of logarithmic stress
stress with with respect
respect to temper- to tem-
atureperature were calculated
were calculated using Equations
using Equations (3)–(5). As (3)–(5).
can beenAs can
seenbeen
fromseen Figurefrom Figure
5a,b, 5a,b, the
the max-
imum maximum absolute
absolute value value
of the of the first-order
first-order derivative at derivative
a strain of at0.209
a strainwasof 0.209
close was close
to 0.008 for to
all strain rate and temperature levels. Meantime, as shown in Figure 5c,d, the maximum the
0.008 for all strain rate and temperature levels. Meantime, as shown in Figure 5c,d,
maximum
absolute value absolute value of thederivative
of the second-order second-order wasderivative
significantly waslesssignificantly
than that less
of thethan that of
first-
the first-order derivative and the maximum absolute value
order derivative and the maximum absolute value of the second-order derivative at a of the second-order derivative
at of
strain a strain of 0.209
0.209 was closewas
to 0close to strain
for all 0 for all strain
rate and rate and temperature
temperature levels. If levels. If fact,
fact, these phe-these
phenomena exist at other strain levels. Therefore, to build
nomena exist at other strain levels. Therefore, to build a high-precision constitution a high-precision constitution
model,
model, the first-order
the first-order derivative
derivative mustmust be considered
be considered for thefor constitutive
the constitutive modelmodel
and and
the the
second-order derivative is assumed as 0. Therefore, a first-order
second-order derivative is assumed as 0. Therefore, a first-order approximation between approximation between
logarithmic
logarithmic stressstress
and and temperature
temperature shouldshould be considered
be considered to construct
to construct a high-precision
a high-precision
constitutive model without significantly increasing
constitutive model without significantly increasing material parameters. material parameters.
Similarly, to further analyze the higher-order relationship between logarithmic stress
and the logarithmic strain rate, the high-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress with
respect to the logarithmic strain rate were calculated using Equations (3)–(5).
As can be seen from Figure 6a,b, the maximum absolute value of the first-order partial
derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect to the logarithmic strain rate at a strain of 0.209
were close to 0.2 for all strain rate and temperature levels. As can be seen from Figure 6c,d,
the maximum absolute value of the second-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress
with respect to the logarithmic strain rate at a strain of 0.209 were close to 0.02 for all strain
 Crystals 2023, 13, 732 9 of 18

rate and temperature levels. As can be seen from Figure 6e,f, the maximum absolute value
of the third-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect to the logarithmic
strain rate at a strain of 0.209 were close to 0.005 for all strain rate and temperature levels.
As can be seen from Figure 6g,h, the msaximum absolute value of the fourth-order partial
derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect to the logarithmic strain rate at a strain of
0.209 were close to 0.0009 for all strain rate and temperature levels. Obviously, the third-
and fourth-order partial derivatives were significantly less than the first-order derivatives.
The difference between the maximum and minimum values of the third-order partial
derivatives was equal to 0.0088. In fact, these phenomena exist at other strain levels. Next,
to reduce the material parameters without significantly reducing the prediction accuracy of
the new model, the third-order partial derivative was assumed as a constant at all strain
EER REVIEW rates and temperatures and the fourth-order partial derivative was assumed 9 as
of 018at all
strain rates and temperatures. Therefore, a third-order approximation between logarithmic
stress and the logarithmic strain rate should be considered to construct a high-precision
constitutive model without significantly increasing material parameters.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 5. At a strain of 0.209,
Figure 5. the At higher-order
a strain of 0.209,partial derivatives
the higher-order partialof logarithmic
derivatives stress with
of logarithmic stressrespect
with respect
to temperature at different temperatures
to temperature (573temperatures
at different K, 623 K, 673 K, 623
(573 K, 723K,K,673and 773K, K)
K, 723 andand strain
773 K) ratesrates
and strain
(0.01 s −−11 , 0.1 s−1 , 1 s−1 , and 10 s−1 ): (a) first-order derivative distributed on temperature, (b) first-
(0.01 s , 0.1 s , 1 s , and 10 s ): (a) first-order derivative distributed on temperature, (b) first-order
−1 −1 −1

derivative distributed on order

thederivative
logarithmic distributed
strainonrate,
the logarithmic strain rate,derivative
(c) second-order (c) second-order derivative on
distributed distributed
tem- on
temperature, and (d) second-order derivative distributed on the logarithmic strain rate.
perature, and (d) second-order derivative distributed on the logarithmic strain rate.

Similarly, to further analyze the higher-order relationship between logarithmic stress

and the logarithmic strain rate, the high-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress
with respect to the logarithmic strain rate were calculated using Equations (3)–(5).
Crystals 2023,
Crystals 2023, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10 of
10 of 18
18
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 10 of 18

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)

(e)
(e) (f)
(f)

(g)
(g) (h)
(h)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. At
At aa strain
strain of 0.209,
0.209, thethe higher-order
higher-order partial
partial derivatives
derivatives of
of logarithmic
logarithmic stress
stress with
with respect
respect
Figure of 6. At a strain of 0.209, the higher-order partial derivatives of logarithmic stress with respect
to the logarithmic strain rate at different temperatures (573 K, 623 K, 673
to the logarithmic strain rate at different temperatures (573 K, 623 K, 673 K, 723 K, and 773 K)K, 723 K, and 773 K) and
and
strain rates to the
rates (0.01
(0.01 −1 logarithmic strain rate (a)at differentderivative
temperatures (573 on
K, temperature,
623 K, 673 K,(b)723 K, and 773 K) and
ss−1,, 0.1
0.1 ss−1
−1, 1 s−1
, 1 s ,, and
−1 and 10 ss−1
−1 ): (a) first-order distributed
strain 10 ): first-order derivative distributed on temperature, (b)
strain rates (0.01 s−1 , 0.1 s−1 , 1 s−1 , and 10 s−1 ): (a) first-order derivative distributed on temperature,
(b) first-order derivative distributed on the logarithmic strain rate, (c) second-order derivative
distributed on temperature, (d) second-order derivative distributed on the logarithmic strain rate,
(e) third-order derivative distributed on temperature, (f) third-order derivative distributed on the
logarithmic strain rate, (g) fourth-order derivative distributed on temperature, and (h) fourth-order
derivative distributed on the logarithmic strain rate.
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 11 of 18

3.2.2. Expression for the New Model

The conclusion extracted from the previous section is that to construct a high-precision
constitutive model without significantly increasing material parameters, a first-order ap-
proximation between logarithmic stress and temperature and a third-order approximation
between logarithmic stress and the logarithmic strain rate should be considered. Therefore,
the expression of the new constitutive model is assumed in Equation (6).
. .2 .3
ln σ = (m0 + m1 T )(w0 + w1 ln ε + w2 ln ε + w3 ln ε ) (6)

where m0 , m1 , w0 , w1 , w2 , and w3 are material parameters. To easily obtain the material

parameters, the general form of the new model is shown in Equation (7).
. .2 .3 . .2 .3
ln σ = k0 + k1 T + k2 T ln ε + k3 T ln ε + k4 T ln ε + k5 ln ε + k6 ln ε + k7 ln ε (7)

where k0 ~k7 are material parameters, which can be obtained using multiple linear regression.


. .
2 .
3 . .
2 .
3 

ln σ1

1 T 1 T1 ln ε 1
T1 ln ε1 T1 ln ε1 ln ε1 ln ε1 ln ε1
. .
.
3 . .
2 .
3
 ln σ2   1 T2 T2 ln ε2 T2 ln ε2 2
 
T2 ln ε2 ln ε2 ln ε2 ln ε2 
. .
 ln σ3  1 T3 T3 ln ε3 T ln ε.
2 .
3 . 2 .
3
   
ln ε3


  = 2 3 T2 ln ε3 ln ε3 ln ε3 β + δ

(8)
 .  . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
 ..   ..

. . . . . . .

 . .
n . 
ln σn 1 Tn Tn ln εn T ln ε.
2 Tn ln εn ln εn .
2
ln εn
.
3
ln εn
n n

.
where n is the number of strain interpolations, which is equal to 10 in this study. Ti and εi are
temperatures and strain rates corresponding to the i strain interpolation, respectively. β is
the parameter column vector, which is equal to [k0 , k1 , k2 , k3 , k4 , k5 , k6 , k7 ] T , and δ is the
error column vector with a size of 1 × n.

3.2.3. Parameter Solution

The material parameters can be obtained easily using multilinear regression (Equation (8))
based on the interpolation data provided in Table 3. The fifth-degree polynomial was used
to fit these material parameters, and the expression of each parameter was obtained. The
degree of polynomial can be determined according to the regression accuracy, but too high
a degree leads to overfitting. The new constitutive equation of 2219 Al alloy can be obtained
by introducing Table 5 into Equation (6).
Table 5. Polynomial regression coefficients of material parameters for the new constitutive model.

Each Term of the Fifth-Degree Polynomial

Parameters
ε5 ε4 ε3 ε2 ε Constant
k0 179.4716 −443.8829 416.0393 −183.7675 38.0742 5.1071
k1 −0.2187 0.5422 −0.5083 0.2237 −0.0462 −0.0016
k2 0.0939 −0.2319 0.2162 −0.0931 0.0181 −0.0009
k3 −0.0101 0.0269 −0.0281 0.0139 −0.0029 0.0002
k4 −0.0072 0.0181 −0.0175 0.0080 −0.0016 0.0001
k5 −64.5804 160.1938 −149.8846 64.6076 −12.4424 0.7181
k6 7.6524 −20.1266 20.6121 −9.8073 1.8902 −0.1290
k7 5.3234 −13.4004 12.8984 −5.7884 1.1455 −0.0769

The formulas for the material parameters are listed in Table 5, and the corresponding
curves are shown in Figure 7. Although the number of material parameters was more
than that of the Arrhenius model, the solution for these material parameters was simpler.
The new model only used multiple linear regression to solve the parameters, while the
Arrhenius model requires multiple nonlinear regression. It is often difficult to find global
optimal parameters for multiple nonlinear regression, but it is easy for multiple linear
 eters for multiple nonlinear regression, but it is easy for multiple linear regression. Therefore,
Crystals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
the new model is better than the Arrhenius model for solving material parameters.

that of the Arrhenius model, the solution for these material parameters was simpler. The new
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 12 of 18
model only used multiple linear regression to solve the parameters, while the Arrhenius
model requires multiple nonlinear regression. It is often difficult to find global optimal param-
eters for multiple nonlinear regression, but it is easy for multiple linear regression. Therefore,
regression.
the new model Therefore, the the
is better than new model ismodel
Arrhenius betterforthan the material
solving Arrhenius model for solving
parameters.
material parameters.

(b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(f) (g) (h)

Figure 7. Regression values of material parameters at different strain levels and their polynomial
fitting(e)curves: (a) 𝑘 -ε, (b) 𝑘 -ε, (c)
(f) 𝑘 -ε, (d) 𝑘 -ε, (e) 𝑘 -ε, (f)
(g) 𝑘 -ε, (g) 𝑘 -ε, (h) 𝑘 -ε. (h)
Figure 7. Regression values of material parameters at different strain levels and their polynomial
Figure 7. Regression values of material parameters at different strain levels and their polynomial
3.3. Prediction Accuracy Comparison
fitting curves: (a) 𝑘 -ε, (b) 𝑘 -ε, (c) 𝑘 -ε, (d) 𝑘 -ε, (e) 𝑘 -ε, (f) 𝑘 -ε, (g) 𝑘 -ε, (h) 𝑘 -ε.
fitting curves: (a) k0 -ε, (b) k1 -ε, (c) k2 -ε, (d) k3 -ε, (e) k4 -ε, (f) k4 -ε, (g) k5 -ε, (h) k6 -ε.
To analyze prediction accuracy, the predicted data of both the Arrhenius model and
3.3.
3.3. Prediction
Prediction Accuracy
Accuracy Comparison
Comparison
the new model are shown in Figure 8. The solid lines in Figure 8 represent experimental
To
To analyze prediction accuracy, the predicted data of both the Arrhenius model andand
flow stress curves,the
thenew
redmodel
circles represent prediction values of theFigure
Arrhenius model, and
the new model are are shown
shown inin Figure 8. The
The solid
solid lines
lines in
in Figure 8 represent experimental
experimental
the blue • symbolsflow
represent
flow stress prediction
stress curves,
curves, the
the red valuesrepresent
red circles
circles of the new
represent model.
prediction values of the
the Arrhenius
Arrhenius model,
model, and
and
the blue •• symbols represent prediction values of the new model.
the blue

(a) (b)

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Cont.
OR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 13 of 18

Crystals 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Comparison of prediction
Figure
Figure Comparison
8. 8. flowof prediction
Comparisonof
stress andflow
prediction flow
experimental
stress
stress and
and
flow stress
experimental
experimental
for for
flowflow
thetheArrhenius
stressstress for and and
the Arrhenius
Arrhenius and
new models: (a) 0.01new , models:
s−1new(b) 0.1 (a)
models:s−1 0.01s1s−−1s1, −1
(a),0.01
(c) , and
,(b)
(b) ,−(c)
0.1s−1s(d)
0.1 1 , 10 s−. 1 ,(d)
s−11s, −1
1(c) and and s−1. 10 s−1 .
10(d)

AsAs
can bebeseen
can seenfrom
fromFigure 8a,b,at
Figure 8a,b, ataalow
lowstrain
strain （0.01
rate
rate (0.01 −1 and
s−1sand 0.1
0.1 s−1, s−1,prediction
）the ) the prediction
As can be seen from Figure
accuracyofofthe
8a,b,model
the new
at a was
lowslightly rate（0.01
strainhigher than that
s−1 and 0.1 s−1,） the prediction
accuracy new model was slightly higher thanofthat
the Arrhenius model. Themodel.
of the Arrhenius com- The
accuracy of the new model
parison of
comparison was slightly
correlation
of correlation higher
coefficients inthan
coefficients in that
Figure 9a,bof
Figure can the
9a,b Arrhenius
prove
can this
prove thismodel.
phenomenon. The com-
However,
phenomenon. as
However,
as shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure8c,d, the
8c,d, prediction
the prediction accuracy
parison of correlation coefficients in Figure 9a,b can prove this phenomenon. However, as
accuracy of the
of new
the model
new was
model significantly
was higher
significantly higher
than than thatofofthe
that theArrhenius
Arrhenius model
model atathigh strain
high raterate
strain (1 s−1(1
and
s −10 s−1) and
1 and 10 low
s −1 ) temperature
and low (573
temperature
shown in Figure 8c,d, the prediction accuracy of the new model was significantly higher
K and 623 K) levels. In addition, with increasing deformation temperature, the prediction ac-
(573 K and 623 K) levels. In addition, −1 with increasing deformation temperature, the
than that of the Arrhenius curacy model at highmodel
of the Arrhenius strainalsorate (1 s atand
increased 10 s−1strain
a constant ) andrate. lowThe temperature
new model had(573 a
prediction accuracy of the Arrhenius model also increased at a constant strain rate. The new
K and 623 K) levels.model similar prediction
In addition, accuracy at
withprediction each
increasing deformation
deformation temperature and
temperature, deformation strain
the prediction rate, andac-
had a similar accuracy at each deformation
the prediction accuracy was higher than that of the Arrhenius model.
temperature and deformation
curacy of the Arrhenius model
strain rate, andalso increasedaccuracy
the prediction at a constant
was higher strain thanrate.
thatTheof thenew modelmodel.
Arrhenius had a
similar prediction
1.4 accuracy at each deformation temperature 1.4
and deformation strain rate, and
Arrhenius model New model Arrhenius model New model
the prediction
1.2 accuracy was higher than that of the Arrhenius 1.2 model. 0.991
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficient

0.995 0.991 0.976 0.929

0.987 0.917 0.986
0.940 0.909 0.986 0.958 0.910 0.981 0.995
1.0 0.928 1.0 0.906
0.886
0.851 0.876
0.8 0.8
0.6 1.4 0.6
Arrhenius model New model Arrhenius model New model
0.4 1.2 0.4 0.991
Correlation coefficient

0.991 0.995 0.976 0.987 0.929 0.917 0.986

0.940 0.20.909 0.986 0.958 0.2 0.910 0.981 0.995
0.851
0.928
0.876
1.0 0.906
0.886
0.0 0.0
573 623 673 723 773 0.8 573 623 673 723 773
Temperature(T/K) Temperature(T/K)
0.6
(a) 0.4 (b)
1.4 0.2 1.4
Arrhenius model New model Arrhenius model New model
1.2 1.2
Correlation coefficient

Correlation coefficient

0.974 0.947 0.972 0.979 0.986 0.0 0.958 0.924 0.933 0.933
0.958
1.0 0.942 1.0 0.924
573 623 673 7230.724 773
0.850
0.887 573 623
0.873 673 0.842 723
0.825
0.868 773
0.8 0.8
Temperature(T/K)
0.662 Temperature(T/K)
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
(a) (b)
0.0 0.0
573 623 673 723 773 1.4 573 623 673 723 773
Arrhenius model New model Temperature(T/K) Arrhenius model New model
Temperature(T/K)
1.2
Correlation coefficient

0.974 0.972 0.979 0.986 0.958

0.947 0.942
0.958 0.924 0.933 0.933
0.887 (c) 1.0 0.873
(d)
0.868 0.924
0.850 0.825 0.842
0.724
Figure 9. Comparison of the correlation 0.8
Figure 9. Comparison of the correlation coefficients between predicted stress and experimental stress at
coefficients between predicted stress and experimental
0.662 different strain rates for the Arrhenius and new models: (a) 0.01 s−1, (b) 0.1 s−1, (c) 1 s−1−
, and (d) 10 s−1.
stress at different strain rates for0.6 the Arrhenius and new models: (a) 0.01 s 1 , (b) 0.1 s−1 , (c) 1 s−1 ,
and (d) 10 s−1 . 0.4
0.2
0.0
573 623 673 723 773 573 623 673 723 773
Temperature(T/K) Temperature(T/K)
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 14 of 18

To further analyze the prediction accuracy, correlation coefficients were calculated at

different strain rates and temperatures and are shown in Figure 9. It is well known that a
larger value of the correlation coefficient indicates a higher prediction accuracy. As can be
seen from Figure 9a,b, all the other correlation coefficients of the new model were slightly
higher than those of the Arrhenius model, with one particular exception (0.1 s−1 and 573 K).
In addition, the correlation coefficient of the Arrhenius model was slightly higher than
that of the new model in this particular exception. As can be seen from Figure 9c,d, all
the correlation coefficients of the new model were significantly higher than those of the
Arrhenius model.

4. Hot Processing Maps and Microstructure

4.1. Hot Processing Maps
Based on the analysis conducted in the previous section, it was found that the new con-
stitutive model exhibits a significant level of precision in predicting flow stress. Therefore,
the establishment of hot processing maps for 2219 aluminum alloy was carried out using
the new constitutive model. According to Prasad’s theory [22], the hot deformation of a
material is a process of power dissipation, and the total energy applied on the workpiece
is divided into two parts, namely (1) power dissipated for plastic deformation (G) and
(2) power dissipated for microstructural transformation (J). So, the total power (P) can be
expressed as:
Z ε. Z σ
. . .
P = σε = G + J = σdε + εdσ (9)
0 0
The ratio between G and J was determined using the strain rate sensitivity and can be
calculated as: .
dJ εdσ dlnσ
m= = . = . (10)
dG σdε dlnε
In nonlinear energy dissipation, the energy dissipation rate (η) can be introduced to
characterize the proportion of energy consumed by organizational evolution. The greater
the energy dissipation rate, the greater the energy consumption of organizational evolution,
and the greater the change in organizational morphology.

2m
η= (11)
1+m
According to Narayan’s study [22], when the rate of entropy generation in the system
does not match the rate of applied entropy, the system experiences flow instability. Its
criterion is as follows:
∂ ln mm+1


ξ= . +m ≤ 0 (12)
∂ ln ε
where ξ is the instability factor. The analytical formula of the strain rate sensitivity can be
derived using the new constitutive model (Equation (7)):
. .2 . .2
m = k2 T + 2k3 T ln ε + 3k4 T ln ε + k5 + 2k6 ln ε + 3k7 ln ε (13)

Next, the analytical formulas of the energy dissipation rate and the instability factor
can be obtained by putting Formula (13) into Formulas (11) and (12). Hot processing maps
at low (0.2), medium (0.6), and high (0.9) strain levels were drawn, as shown in Figure 10.
 Crystals2023,
Crystals 2023,13,
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
732 15 ofof1818
15

(a) (b) (c)

Figure10.
Figure 10.Hot
Hotprocessing
processingmaps
mapsatatvarious
variousstrain
strainlevels:
levels:(a)
(a)0.2,
0.2,(b)
(b)0.6,
0.6,and
and(c)
(c)0.9.
0.9.

InInFigure
Figure10,10,the
thedepth
depthofofcolor
colorononthe
thesurface
surfacerepresents
representsthe themagnitude
magnitudeofofthe theenergy
energy
dissipation rate and the red solid line represents the boundary
dissipation rate and the red solid line represents the boundary between the stable and between the stable and
unstableregions.
unstable regions.As Ascancanbebeseen
seenfrom
fromFigure
Figure10a–c,
10a–c,with
withan anincrease
increaseinintemperature,
temperature,the the
energydissipation
energy dissipation increased
increased at at a constant
a constant strain
strain rate.
rate. WithWith an increase
an increase instrain
in the the strain
rate, rate,
the
the energy
energy dissipation
dissipation first increased
first increased and thenanddecreased
then decreased at constant
at constant temperature.
temperature. The stable The
stablewas
region region was located
located within awithin
medium a medium strain
strain rate rateConsidering
range. range. Considering
that thethat the defor-
deformation
ofmation
metalsofis metals is a continuous
a continuous process, theprocess, the best
best region forregion for hot processing
hot processing is in the tem-
is in the temperature
perature
range range of
of 673–773 K 673–773 K and rate
and the strain the strain
range rate range
of 0.1–1 − 1
s of 0.1–1 sthe
. When −1 . When
strain the
ratestrain s−1is
is 0.01rate ,
0.01
the s , the
energy
−1 energy dissipation
dissipation rate is low rate is low
and the andconsumed
energy the energybyconsumed by microstructural
microstructural evolution is
relatively
evolutionsmall, which may
is relatively result
small, which in may
coarse grains.
result in coarse grains.

4.2.
4.2.Microstructure
Microstructure
ToTofurther
furtherstudy
study the
the hot processing maps,
hot processing maps,the themicrostructures
microstructuresofof each
each compres-
compression
sion specimen
specimen are listed
are listed in Table
in Table 6. At6.theAtsame
the same temperature,
temperature, the microstructure
the microstructure sizes
sizes (Table
(Table 6b,c,f,g,i,j,m,n,q,r) at strain rates of 0.1 s −1 and 1 s−1 were smaller than those under
6b,c,f,g,i,j,m,n,q,r) at strain rates of 0.1 s and 1 s were smaller than those under other
−1 −1
other
strainstrain rate conditions.
rate conditions. This isThis is consistent
consistent with the with the conclusion
conclusion of the
of the heat heat treatment
treatment diagram,
diagram, that is, when the strain rate is 0.1 s −1 or 1 s−1 , the energy dissipation rate is the
that is, when the strain rate is 0.1 s or 1 s , the energy dissipation rate is the highest. It
−1 −1
highest. It canfrom
can be seen be seen
the from the hot processing
hot processing diagram diagram (Figure
(Figure 10c) that10c) thatthe
when when the tempera-
temperature was
ture was 573 K and the strain rate was 10 s −1 , the energy dissipation rate was lower and the
573 K and the strain rate was 10 s−1, the energy dissipation rate was lower and the degree
degree of recrystallization
of recrystallization was smaller.
was smaller. Therefore,Therefore,
underunder
these these conditions,
conditions, the microstruc-
the microstructure of
ture of the material is the coarsest, which was proved by the microstructure of the specimen
the material is the coarsest, which was proved by the microstructure of the specimen
(shown in Table 6d). When the strain rate was 0.01 s−1−1(shown in Table 6a,e,h,l,p), the size
(shown in Table 6d). When the strain rate was 0.01 s (shown in Table 6a,e,h,l,p), the size
of the microstructure was large, which is indicated by the hot processing maps (Figure 10c).
of the microstructure was large, which is indicated by the hot processing maps (Figure 10c).
In addition, when the temperature was constant (e.g., Table 6a–d), the grain size first de-
In addition, when the temperature was constant (e.g., Table 6a–d), the grain size first decreased
creased and then increased with an increase in the strain rate, which verifies the correctness
and then increased with an increase in the strain rate, which verifies the correctness of the hot
of the hot processing maps. In summary, the results of microstructure analysis are in good
Crystals
Crystals
Crystals 2023,
Crystals
2023, 13,
2023, x13,
2023,
13, FORx FOR
x13, xPEER
FOR FORPEER processing
REVIEW
REVIEW
PEERPEER REVIEW with
REVIEW maps. In summary, the results of microstructure analysis are in good agreement
16of18
1616of 16of
18of1818
agreement the prediction results of the hot working diagram. Hot processing maps
with the prediction results of the hot working diagram. Hot processing maps can be used to
can be used to guide the hot working process formulation of 2219 aluminum alloy.
guide the hot working process formulation of 2219 aluminum alloy.
Table
TableMicrostructures
6.TableM6.
Table
6. 6.
Table M M
6. M under
icrostructures
icrostructures different
icrostructures
icrostructures under
under under
under experimental
different
different
different
experimental
different conditions.
experimental conditions.
experimental
conditions.
experimental conditions.
conditions.

Strain
Strain Rate
Strain Rate
Strain
Rate
Strain (sRate
Rate −1
(s −)−1
(s)−1(s 1(s)−1)
T/K T/K T/K
T/K T/K
0.010.01
0.010.01 0.10.10.10.1 1111 10101010
0.01 0.1 1 10
(a)
(a)(a) Average
Average
(a) Average
Average size：25
size：25
size：25 um
size：25
umum (b)
um (b)(b) Average
Average
(b) Average
Average size：15
size：15 size：15
size：15 umumumum (c)(c) (c)
Average(c)Average
AverageAveragesize：16
size：16 um
size：16
size：16umum (d)
um (d)(d) Average
Average
(d) size：25
Average
size：25
Average um
size：25
size：25umum um
(a) Average size: 25 um (b) Average size: 15 um (c) Average size: 16 um (d) Average size: 25 um

573 573 573

573 573

(e)
(e)(e) average
average
(e)
average size：15
average
size：15
size：15 um
size：15
umum um (f)(f)(f) average
average
(f)
average size：15
average
size：15 um
size：15
size：15umum (g)
um (g)(g) average
average
(g) size：18
average
averagesize：18 um
size：18
size：18umum (h)
um (h)(h) average
average
(h) size：20
average
size：20
average um
size：20
size：20umum um

623 623
623 623
 T/K
T/K T/K
T/K
(a)
(a)
(a)(a) Average
Average
Average
Average 0.01
0.01
0.01
size：25size：25
size：25
size：25
0.01 um um
um um (b)(b) (b)
(b) Average
Average
Average
Average 0.1
0.1 0.1
size：15 size：15
size：15
size：15
0.1 umum
Strain
um um
Rate
Strain
Strain (s
(c)
Rate
Rate
Strain (c)
−1)(c))(c)
Average
(s
Rate (s
−1 −1
(s)−1Average
Average
Average ) 1size：16 1size：16
1size：16
1size：16 um um
um um (d)(d) (d)
(d) Average
Average
Average
Average 10size：25
10size：25
10size：25
10size：25 um um
um um
T/K
T/K
T/K
T/K
(a)
(a)(a) Average
Average
Average
(a) 0.01
Average
0.01 size：25
size：25
size：25
0.01 um um
um
size：25
0.01 (b)
um (b)(b) Average
Average
Average
(b) 0.1
Average
0.1 size：15
size：15
size：15
0.1 umum
size：15
0.1 umum (c)(c) (c)
Average
Average Average
(c) 1size：16
1size：16
1size：16
Average um um
um
1size：16 (d)
um (d)(d) Average
Average
Average
(d) 10size：25
10size：25
10size：25
Average um um
um
10size：25 um
(a)(a)
Average
(a)
Average
(a) size：25
Average size：25
Average um
size：25um
um
size：25 um (b)(b)
Average
(b)
Average
(b) size：15
Average size：15
Average um
size：15 um
size：15umum (c)(c) Average
(c)
Average
Average
(c) size：16
size：16
Average um
size：16 um
um
size：16 um (d)(d)
Average
(d)
Averagesize：25
Average
(d) size：25
Average um
size：25 um
um
size：25 um

573
573
Crystals 2023, 573
573
13, 732 16 of 18
573
573 573
573
573
573
573
573

Table 6. Cont.

(e)(e)(e)(e)
average average
average
average size：15size：15
size：15
size：15 um um
um um (f)(f)(f)(f) average
average
average
average Strain
size：15
size：15
size：15
size：15 um um
um umRate
(g)(g) −average
(g)1average
(saverage
(g)) average size：18
size：18
size：18
size：18 um um
um um (h)(h) (h)
(h) average
average
average
average size：20
size：20
size：20
size：20 um um
um um
T/K (e)(e)(e) average
average
average
(e) averagesize：15
size：15
size：15 um um
um um (f)(f)
size：15 (f) average
average
average size：15
size：15
size：15
(f) average um um
um um (g)(g)
size：15 (g) average
average
average
(g) size：18
size：18
size：18
average um um
um
size：18 (h)
um (h)(h) average
average
average
(h) size：20
size：20
size：20
average um um
um
size：20 um
0.01 0.1 1 10
(e)(e)
average
(e)
average
(e) size：15
average size：15
average um
size：15um
um
size：15 um (f)(f)
average
(f)
average
(f) size：15
averagesize：15
average um
size：15um
um
size：15 um (g)(g)average
(g)
averagesize：18
average
(g) size：18um
size：18
average um
um
size：18 um (h)(h)
average
(h) size：20
average
average
(h) size：20um
size：20
average um
um
size：20 um
(e) average size: 15 um (f) average size: 15 um (g) average size: 18 um (h) average size: 20 um

623
623 623
623
623
623 623
623
623 623
623
623
623

(h)
(h)
(h)(h) average
average
average
average size：25
size：25
size：25
size：25 um um
um um (i)(i) (i)(i)
average average
average
average size：16
size：16
size：16
size：16 um
um um (j)(j)
um (j) (j)
average average
average
average size：18
size：18
size：18
size：18 um um
um um (k)(k) (k)
(k) average
average
average
average size：22
size：22
size：22
size：22 um um um
um
(h)
(h)(h) average
average
average
(h) size：25
size：25
size：25
average um um
um
size：25 um (i)(i) (i) average
average
average
(i) size：16
size：16
size：16
average um
um
size：16um
um (j)(j)(j) average
average
average
(j) size：18
size：18
size：18
average um um
um
size：18 (k)
um (k)(k) average
average
average
(k) size：22
size：22
size：22
average um um
size：22 um
um
(h) average
(h)(h)
average
(h) size:
average
average
(h) 25
size：25
size：25um
um
size：25
average um
um
size：25 (i)(i)
um (i) average
average
(i)
average
average
(i) size:
size：16 16um
size：16
size：16
average um
um
size：16um (j)(j)
um (j)(j) average
average
average
average
(j) size:
size：18
size：18 18um
um
size：18
average size：18um
umum (k)(k)(k)
(k) average
average
average
average
(k) size:
size：22
size：22um
size：22
average 22um
um
size：22 um
um

673
673 673
673
673
673 673 673
673
673
673
673
673

(l)(l)(l)(l)
average average
average
average size：20
size：20
size：20
size：20 um um
um um (m) (m)
(m)
(m) average
average
average
average size：14
size：14
size：14
size：14 um um
um um (n)(n) (n)
(n) average
average
average
average size：15
size：15
size：15
size：15 um um
um um (o)(o)
(o)(o) average
average
average
average size：23
size：23
size：23
size：23 um um
um um
(l)(l)average
(l)(l)(l) size:
average
average
average 20
size：20
size：20
average um
size：20
um um
um
size：20 (m)
(m)
um (m) average
(m)
average
average
(m) size:
average 14um
size：14
size：14
size：14
average um
um
size：14um (n)
(n)
um (n)(n) average
average
average
average
(n) size:
size：15
size：15
average 15um
size：15
um
size：15um
umum (o)(o)(o)
(o) average
average
average
average
(o) size:
size：23
size：23
size：23
average um 23um
um
size：23 um
um
(l)(l)
average
(l)
average
(l) size：20
averagesize：20
average um
size：20um
um
size：20 um (m) average
(m)
(m)
(m) size：14
average
average
size：14
average um
size：14um
um
size：14 um (n)(n)
average
(n) size：15
average
average
(n) size：15um
size：15
average um
um
size：15 um (o)(o)
average
(o) size：23
average
average
(o) size：23um
size：23
average um
um
size：23 um

723
723 723 723
723
723
723 723723
723723
723
Crystals 723
Crystals
Crystals
2023,
Crystals 2023,
2023,
13,
2023, 13, x13,
x13,
FOR xPEER
FOR
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 17of18of1818
1717of17of18

773 (p)
773
773
773 average
(p)
(p)(p) (p) size:
average
average
average
average 25 um
size：25
size：25
size：25
size：25 um um
um um (q)
(q)
(q) average
(q)
(q) average
average
average size:
average 15um
size：15
size：15
size：15 um
size：15
umum (r)
um (r)(r)
(r)average
(r)
average
average
average size:
average 20um
size：20
size：20
size：20
size：20 um um
umum (s)(s) (s)
(s) (s)average
average
average
average
average size:
size：30
size：30
size：30 um 30um
size：30
um um
um
773
773
773 (p)
773(p)(p) average
average
average
(p) size：25
size：25
size：25
average um um
um
size：25 um (q)
(q)(q) average
average
average
(q) size：15
size：15
size：15
average um
um
size：15um (r)
um (r)(r) average
average
average
(r) size：20
size：20
size：20
average um um
um
size：20 (s)
um (s)(s) average
average
average
(s) size：30
size：30
size：30
average um um
size：30 um
um
773
773 773(p)(p)
773 average
(p)
(p) size：25
average
average
size：25
average um
size：25um
um
size：25 um (q)(q)
average
(q)
average
(q) size：15
averagesize：15 um
size：15
average um
size：15 um (r)(r)
um average
(r)
averagesize：20
average
(r) size：20 um
size：20
average um
size：20umum (s)(s)
average
(s)averagesize：30
average
(s) size：30um
size：30
average um
size：30 um
um

773

5. Discussion
5. 5. 5. 5. Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
This article
This This
This
article
This discussed
article
article
articlediscussed
discussed the
discussed
discussed
the results
thethe
results
the results of
results
results
ofof ofisothermal
of isothermal
isothermal
isothermal
isothermal compression
compression
compression
compression
compression experiments
experiments
experiments
experiments
experiments and
and and
and andmicro-
micro-
micro-
micro- mi-
crostructure
structure
structure analysis
structure
structure analysis
analysis
analysis experiments
analysis experiments
experiments
experiments
experiments performed
performed
performed
performed
performed at
at different
atdifferent
atatdifferent different
different temperatures
temperatures
temperatures
temperatures
temperatures and and and
and strain
strain
strain
strain
and strain rates.
rates.
rates. AA rates.
rates. AA
new
A new new new
new constitutive
constitutive
constitutive
constitutive
constitutive model model
model
model
model was
was
was was
was proposed,
proposed,
proposed,
proposed,
proposed, which which
which
which
which is isbasedisbased
isisbasedbased
based onon the
on on
onthethethe
partial
the partial
partial
partial derivatives
derivatives
derivatives
partial derivatives ofofthe
derivatives of
ofthe
ofthethe
the
experimental
experimental
experimental
experimental
experimental flowflow
flowflow
flow
data, data,
data,
data,
data, without
without
without
without
without requiring
requiring
requiring
requiring
requiring significant
significant
significant
significant
significant increasesincreases
increases
increases
increases inin
in inmaterial
material
inmaterial
material
material parameters.
parameters.
parameters.
parameters.
parameters. The
The
study The The
The
study study
study
study
comparedcomparedcompared
compared
compared
and andand
analyzedand
and analyzed
analyzed
analyzed
the the
analyzed the the
the predictive
predictive
predictive
predictive
predictive accuracy accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy ofof
of of
the
the of
thethe
new
newthe
new
new new
model model
model
and
model
model and
and and
and
the thethe
clas-
the
the clas- clas-
clas-
classic
sic sic
sic Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius
sic Arrhenius model. model.
model.
model. The
The The
The
main
mainmain
main conclusions
conclusions
conclusions
conclusions
Arrhenius model. The main conclusions are as follows: are
areare
as are
as as as
follows: follows:
follows:
follows:
(1)
(1)(1)(1)
The The
The The
flow flow
flow flow
stress
stress stress
stresslevel
level level
level
increases increases
increases
increases significantly
significantly
significantly
significantly with with
with with
increasing increasing
increasing
increasing strainstrain strain
strainrate
rate rate
rate
andandandand decreasing
decreasing
decreasing
decreasing
(1) The flow stress level increases significantly with increasing strain rate and decreasing
deformation
deformation
deformation
deformation temperature.
temperature.
temperature.
temperature. Since
Since Since
Since2219
2219 22192219
aluminum aluminum
aluminum
aluminum alloyalloy alloy
alloy isastrain-rate-
astrain-rate-
is isa isastrain-rate-strain-rate-
andandand and tempera-
tempera-
tempera-
tempera-
deformation temperature. Since 2219 aluminum alloy is a strain-rate- and temperature-
ture-sensitive
ture-sensitive
ture-sensitive
ture-sensitive material, material,
material,
material, itsits itsits constitutive
constitutive
constitutive
constitutive relationship
relationship
relationship
relationship must must
must must
take take taketake
intointo into
into
account account
account
account thethethethe
influ- influ-
influ-
influ-
sensitive
ence ence
ence of material,
encethe
of ofthe
ofthe the
temperature its constitutive
temperature
temperature
temperature andand andand
strain relationship
strain
strain
strain rate. rate.
rate.
rate. A mustapproximation
Afirst-order
first-order
Afirst-order
Afirst-order take into account
approximation
approximation
approximation the loga-
between
between
between
between influence
loga-
loga-
loga-
of the temperature
rithmic rithmic
rithmic
rithmic stress
stress stress
stressand and and
andand strain
temperaturetemperature
temperature
temperature rate.
andand aA
and a first-order
and a third-order
a third-order
third-order
third-order approximation
approximation
approximation
approximation
approximation betweenbetween
between
between
between logarithmic
logarithmic
logarithmic
logarithmic
logarithmic
stress
stressand
stress
stress and temperature
stress
and and and
the the the the
logarithmic
logarithmic andstrain
logarithmic
logarithmic astrain
third-order
strain
strain
rate
rate raterate
should approximation
should
should
should bebe be be considered
considered
considered
considered tobetweento to logarithmic
construct
construct
construct
to construct a high-preci-
a high-preci-
a high-preci- stress
a high-preci-
andsion the
sion
sion logarithmic
sion constitutive
constitutive
constitutive
constitutive modelstrain
model
model
model rate
withoutwithout
without should
without be
significantly
significantly
significantly considered
significantly increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing to
material construct
material
material
material a high-precision
parameters.
parameters.
parameters.
parameters.
(2)constitutive
(2)(2)(2)
The The
The The
prediction model
prediction
prediction
prediction without
accuracy accuracy
accuracy
accuracy ofof significantly
of
thetheof
the
newthe
newnew new
model model
model increasing
model
is is is
slightly
is slightly
slightly
slightly material
higher higher
higher
higher than than parameters.
thanthan
that ofthat
that
that of
the
of of
thethethe Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius
model
model model
model atat lowat at
low low low
strain
strainstrain
strain
raterate rate
rate
levels
levels levels
levels(0.01
(0.01 s(0.01
(0.01 s−1
and
−1s−1 s−1
andandand
0.10.1s0.10.1
−1s −1s).
).−1s).
The −1).
TheTheThe
new newnew new
modelmodel model
model displays
displays
displays
displays a signif-
a signif-
a signif-
a signif-
icantly icantly
icantly
icantly higher
higher higher
higher prediction prediction
prediction
prediction accuracy accuracy
accuracy
accuracy than than
than than
thethe thethe
Arrhenius Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius model model
model modelatat at
high at
high high
high
strain
strainstrain
strain
rate
rate(1rate
rate(1 (1
s−1 (1
s−1s−1s−1
and and
and 10and
10 −1s)10
s10 s)−1sand
−1and )low
)−1and and
lowlow low temperature
temperature
temperature
temperature (573
(573 K(573
(573 and
K K K
andandand
623623 K)623
623 K) K) K)
levels.
levels.levels.
levels.
InIn In In
addition, addition,
addition,
addition, with with
with
with increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing
deformation
deformation
deformation
deformation temperature,
temperature,
temperature,
temperature, the thethe the
prediction prediction
prediction
prediction accuracy accuracy
accuracy
accuracy ofofthe ofthe
ofthe the
Arrhenius Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius model
model model
model also also
also
also in-in-in-in-
creases creases
creases
creases atat aat aat
constanta constant
a constant
constant strain
strainstrain
strain
rate.
rate. rate.
rate.
TheTheThe The
new newnewnew
model
model model
model has has a has
has similara similar
a similar
a similar predictionprediction
prediction
prediction accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy atatatat
each each
each each deformation
deformation
deformation
deformation temperature
temperature
temperature
temperature andandand and
deformation deformation
deformation
deformation strainstrain strain
strain
rate, rate,
rate, rate,
and and andand
its itsprediction
prediction
itsprediction
prediction
its accu-
accu- accu-
accu-
racy racy
racy racy
is is
higher
is is
higher higher
higher thanthan than
than
thatthat that
that
of of
the
of of
thethethe
Arrhenius Arrhenius
Arrhenius
Arrhenius model.
model.model.
model.
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 17 of 18

(2) The prediction accuracy of the new model is slightly higher than that of the Arrhenius
model at low strain rate levels (0.01 s−1 and 0.1 s−1 ). The new model displays a
significantly higher prediction accuracy than the Arrhenius model at high strain rate
(1 s−1 and 10 s−1 ) and low temperature (573 K and 623 K) levels. In addition, with
increasing deformation temperature, the prediction accuracy of the Arrhenius model
also increases at a constant strain rate. The new model has a similar prediction accu-
racy at each deformation temperature and deformation strain rate, and its prediction
accuracy is higher than that of the Arrhenius model.
(3) With an increase in temperature, the energy dissipation increases at a constant strain
rate. With the increase of the strain rate, the energy dissipation first increases and
then decreases at a constant temperature. The best region for hot processing is in the
temperature range of 673~773 K and the strain rate range of 0.1~1 s−1 . The results
of microstructure analysis are in good agreement with the prediction results of hot
processing maps. Hot processing maps can be used to guide the hot working process
formulation of 2219 aluminum alloy.
In addition, the prediction accuracy of the new model established in this article is
extremely high within the experimental temperature, strain rate, and strain range. How-
ever, the prediction accuracy cannot be guaranteed in areas outside the experimental range.
Therefore, when using this model in numerical simulation, it is necessary to verify whether
the simulation parameter range is within the experimental range. The method of con-
structing a new model in this article is a universal method, so it can be further studied on
other materials.

Author Contributions: J.W. put forward the relevant algorithms and ideas, wrote the article, and
carried out the experiments. G.X. developed the calculation programs. J.Z. guided the writing process.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Fund (grant no. Joint Fund
U2030120) and the Chongqing Board of Education, China (scientific research project grant no.
KJQN202000813).
Data Availability Statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this
published article.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to all the authors for their contributions to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Prabhu, T.R. Effects of ageing time on the mechanical and conductivity properties for various round bar diameters of AA 2219 Al
alloy. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 133–142. [CrossRef]
2. He, H.; Yi, Y.; Huang, S.; Zhang, Y. An improved process for grain refinement of large 2219 Al alloy rings and its influence on
mechanical properties. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019, 35, 55–63. [CrossRef]
3. Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Li, R.; Jiang, R.; Zhang, L. Effects of high-intensity ultrasound on the microstructures and mechanical properties
of ultra-large 2219 Al alloy ingot. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 763, 138154. [CrossRef]
4. Kaibyshev, R.; Sitdikov, O.; Mazurina, I.; Lesuer, D.R. Deformation behavior of a 2219 Al alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2002,
334, 104–113. [CrossRef]
5. Sellars, C.M.; McTegart, W.J. On the mechanism of hot deformation. Acta Metall. 1966, 14, 1136–1138. [CrossRef]
6. Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1983, 21, 541–548.
7. Senthilkumar, V.; Balaji, A.; Arulkirubakaran, D. Application of constitutive and neural network models for prediction of high
temperature flow behavior of Al/Mg based nanocomposite. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2013, 23, 1737–1750. [CrossRef]
8. Lin, Y.C.; Chen, X.M. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive descriptions for metals and alloys in hot working.
Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1733–1759. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, L.; Wu, Y.; Gong, H.; Wang, K. Modification of constitutive model and evolution of activation energy on 2219 aluminum alloy
during warm deformation process. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2019, 29, 448–459. [CrossRef]
10. Jia, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Cao, M. The study on forming property at high temperature and processing map of 2219 Aluminum
alloy. Metals 2021, 11, 77. [CrossRef]
Crystals 2023, 13, 732 18 of 18

11. Wang, H.; Qin, G.; Li, C. A modified Arrhenius constitutive model of 2219-O aluminum alloy based on hot compression with
simulation verification. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 19, 3302–3320. [CrossRef]
12. He, H.; Yi, Y.; Cui, J.; Huang, S. Hot deformation characteristics and processing parameter optimization of 2219 Al alloy using
constitutive equation and processing map. Vacuum 2019, 160, 293–323. [CrossRef]
13. LI, S.; Chen, W.; Krishna, S.B.; Dong, W.J.; Chen, X. Flow Behavior of AA5005 Alloy at High Temperature and Low Strain Rate
Based on Arrhenius-Type Equation and Back Propagation Artificial Neural Network (BP-ANN) Model. Materials 2022, 15, 3788.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Shayanpoor, A.A.; Rezaei Ashtiani, H.R. The phenomenological and physical constitutive analysis of hot fow behavior of Al/Cu
bimetal composite. Appl. Phys. A 2022, 128, 636. [CrossRef]
15. Jiang, D.; Zhang, J.; Liu, T.; Li, W.; Wan, Z.; Han, T.; Che, C.; Cheng, L. A modified Johnson–Cook model and microstructure
evolution of as-extruded AA 2055 alloy during isothermal compression. Metals 2022, 12, 1787. [CrossRef]
16. Xiao, Y.; He, Z. A Continuum Constitutive Model for a 7003-Aluminum Alloy Considering the Stress State and Strain Rate Effects.
Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng. 2022, 128, 1–11. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, P.; Chen, M. Progress in characterization methods for thermoplastic deforming constitutive models of Al–Li alloys: A
review. J. Mater. Sci. 2020, 55, 9828–9847. [CrossRef]
18. Shin, H.; Ju, Y.; Choi, M.K.; Ha, D.H. Flow Stress Description Characteristics of Some Constitutive Models at Wide Strain Rates
and Temperatures. Technologies 2022, 10, 52. [CrossRef]
19. Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, H. Microstructure evolution and mechanical responses of Al–Zn–Mg–Cu alloys during hot deformation
process. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 13429–13478. [CrossRef]
20. Zhou, Y.; Lin, X.; Wang, Z.; Tan, H.; Huang, W. Hot deformation induced microstructural evolution in local-heterogeneous wire
plus arc additive manufactured 2219 Al alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2021, 865, 158949. [CrossRef]
21. Richardson, G.J.; Sellars, C.M.; Tegart, W. Recrystallization during creep of nickel. Acta Metall. 1996, 14, 1225–1236. [CrossRef]
22. Narayana Murty, S.V.S.; Nageswara Rao, B.; Kashyap, B.P. Identification of flow instabilities in the processing maps of AISI 304
stainless steel. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005, 166, 268–278. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.