Advertisement

A machining-based methodology to identify material constitutive law for finite element simulation

  • M. DaoudEmail author
  • W. Jomaa
  • J. F. Chatelain
  • A. Bouzid
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

The success and reliability of any finite element modeling (FEM) depends strongly on the constitutive law which describes the thermo-mechanical behavior of the machined materials. The constitutive model proposed by Johnson and Cook (JC) is widely used in the modeling of machining processes. However, different material constants of the JC constitutive law for the same material could be found in the literature which can affect significantly the predicted results (cutting forces, chip morphology, temperatures, etc.). These differences could be attributed to the different methods used for the determination of the material parameters. In the present work, an inverse approach based on response surface methodology (IABRSM) was developed to determine the parameters of the JC constitutive law. Three aluminum alloys (Al2024-T3, Al6061-T6, and Al7075-T6) were considered in the experiments, and specific attention was given to the effect of the rake angle. It is found that the material constants obtained from the proposed approach predict more accurate values of flow stresses as compared to those reported in the literature. Moreover, the FEM investigation has also shown a good agreement between predicted parameters (cutting forces and chip morphologies) and experimental ones when using material constants obtained by IABRSM.

Keywords

Constitutive law Identification Machining RSM FEM Aluminum alloys 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gonzalo O, Jauregi H, Uriarte L, de Lacalle LL (2009) Prediction of specific force coefficients from a FEM cutting model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davim JP, Maranhao C, Jackson M, Cabral G, Gracio J (2008) FEM analysis in high speed machining of aluminium alloy (Al7075-0) using polycrystalline diamond (PCD) and cemented carbide (K10) cutting tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39:1093–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics. 21, pp 541–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaw MC (2005) Metal cutting principales, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kececioglu D (1960) Shear-zone size, compressive stress, and shear strain in metal-cutting and their effects on mean shear-flow stress. J Eng Ind 82:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okushima K, Hitomi K (1961) An analysis of the mechanism of orthogonal cutting and its application to discontinuous chip formation. J Eng Ind 83:545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stevenson R (1997) Study on the correlation of workpiece mechanical properties from compression and cutting tests. Mach Sci Technol 1:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lesuer DR (2001) Experimental investigations of material models for Ti-6AL-4V titanium and 2024-T3 aluminium. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guo Y (2003) An integral method to determine the mechanical behavior of materials in metal cutting. J Mater Process Technol 142:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rule WK (1997) A numerical scheme for extracting strength model coefficients from Taylor test data. Int J Impact Eng 19:797–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panov V (2006) Modelling of behaviour of metals at high strain rates. Cranfield UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sartkulvanich P, Altan T, Soehner J (2005) Flow stress data for finite element simulation in metal cutting: a progress report on madams. Mach Sci Technol 9:271–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shatla M, Kerk C, Altan T (2001) Process modeling in machining. Part I: determination of flow stress data. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 41:1511–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang JB, Wu WT, Srivatsa S (2011) Inverse Flow Stress Calculation for Machining Processes. Adv Mater Res 223:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tounsi N, Vincenti J, Otho A, Elbestawi M (2002) From the basic mechanics of orthogonal metal cutting toward the identification of the constitutive equation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42:1373–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shrot A, Bäker M (2012) Determination of Johnson–Cook parameters from machining simulations. Comput Mater Sci 52:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozel T, breve rul, Zeren E (2006) A methodology to determine work material flow stress and tool-chip interfacial friction properties by using analysis of machining. J Manuf Sci E-T ASME 128:119–129. doi:10.1115/1.2118767Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Limido J (2008) Étude de l’effet de l’usinage grande vitesse sur la tenue en fatigue de pièces aéronautiques. Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oxley PLB (1989) The mechanics of machining an analytical approach to assessing machinability. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montgomery DC (2008) Design and analysis of experiments, 7th edn. John Wiley and Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corporation SFT (2012) DEFORM 2D, V8.1, User’s Manual. Columbus, OH, USA, pp 760Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Filice L, Micari F, Rizzuti S, Umbrello D (2007) A critical analysis on the friction modelling in orthogonal machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASM (1983) ASM Metals reference book, 2nd edn. Metals Park, OHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yen Y-C, Jain A, Chigurupati P, Wu W-T, Altan T (2004) Computer simulation of orthogonal cutting using a tool with multiple coatings. Mach Sci Technol 8:305–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shi B, Attia H, Tounsi N (2010) Identification of material constitutive laws for machining. Part I: an analytical model describing the stress, strain, strain rate, and temperature fields in the primary shear zone in orthogonal metal cutting. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 132 (5):051008Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lesuer DR, Kay GJ, LeBlanc MM (1999) Modeling large-strain, high-rate deformation in metals. In Engineering Research Development and Technology, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dannemann KAA, C E, Johnson GR (2001) Modeling the ballistic impact performance of two aluminum alloys. Modelling the performance of engineering structural materials symposium. Modelling the performance of engineering structural materials, 2nd edn. pp 63–74Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klocke F, Lung D, Buchkremer S, Jawahir I (2013) From orthogonal cutting experiments towards easy-to-implement and accurate flow stress data. Mater Manuf Process 28:1222–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davies MA, Burns TJ (2001) Thermomechanical oscillations in material flow during high-speed machining. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 359:821–846CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Daoud
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Jomaa
    • 1
  • J. F. Chatelain
    • 1
  • A. Bouzid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Quebec, ETSMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations