Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 6958–6968 | Cite as

A Modified Johnson–Cook Constitutive Model for the Compressive Flow Behaviors of the SnSbCu Alloy at High Strain Rates

  • Hanzhang Xu
  • Bin ZhaoEmail author
  • Xiqun Lu
  • Zhigang Liu
  • Tongyang Li
  • Ning Zhong
  • Xunshuai Yin


The SnSbCu alloy is widely used as the material for the main bearing in low-speed marine engines, and an accurate constitutive model is the foundation for studying the frictional behaviors of bearings. In this work, the compressive flow behaviors of the SnSbCu alloy were considered under the different strain rates (1000-5000 s−1) and temperatures (20-110 °C) by quasi-static and split-Hopkinson pressure bar dynamic compression tests. First, the original Johnson–Cook model was used to describe the constitutive relation of the SnSbCu alloy at high strain rates, and the results predicted by the original model showed relatively large errors compared with the experimental results since the coupled effect of temperature and strain rate was omitted. Then, a modified Johnson–Cook constitutive model was developed to describe the compressive flow behaviors of the SnSbCu alloy, and the results predicted by this modified model agreed well with the experimental data. Moreover, a finite element analysis was also conducted to verify the accuracy of the modified Johnson–Cook model.


flow behavior high strain rate modified Johnson–Cook model SnSbCu alloy 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51809057) and the Marine Low-Speed Engine Project—Phase I (Grant No. CDGC01-KT11).


  1. 1.
    L. Gambirasio and E. Rizzi, An Enhanced Johnson–Cook Strength Model for Splitting Strain Rate and Temperature Effects on Lower Yield Stress and Plastic Flow, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2016, 113, p 231–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bobbili, and V. Madhu. A Modified Johnson–Cook Model for FeCoNiCr High Entropy Alloy Over a Wide Range of Strain Rates. Mater. Lett., 2018: S0167577X18301812.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.D. Song, J.G. Ning, X.N. Mao, and H.P. Tang, A Modified Johnson–Cook Model for Titanium Matrix Composites Reinforced with Titanium Carbide Particles at Elevated Temperatures, Mater. Sci. Eng. A Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process., 2013, 576, p 280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.N. Zhang, Q.Q. Shangguan, C.J. Xie, and F. Liu, A Modified Johnson–Cook Model of Dynamic Tensile Behaviors for 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy, J. Alloys Compd., 2015, 619, p 186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.J. Chen, L. Chen, G.Q. Zhao, C.S. Zhang, and W.C. Cui, Microstructure Analysis of an Al-Zn-Mg Alloy During Porthole Die Extrusion Based on Modeling of Constitutive Equation and Dynamic Recrystallization, J. Alloys Compd., 2017, 710, p 80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.R. Johnson, and W.H. Cook. A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates, and High Temperatures. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, International Ballistics Committee, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983, p 541–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D.J. Bammann, M.L. Chiesa, and G.C. Johnson, Modeling Large Deformation and Failure in Manufacturing Processes, Theor. Appl. Mech., 1996, 9, p 359–376Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.S. Follansbee and U.F. Kocks, A Constitutive Description of the Deformation of Copper Based on the Use of the Mechanical Threshold Stress as an Internal State Variable, Acta Metall., 1988, 36, p 81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.J. Zerilli and R.W. Armstrong, Dislocation-Mechanics-Based Constitutive Relations for Material Dynamics Calculations, J. Appl. Phys., 1987, 61, p 1816–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.N. Nasser and Y.L. Li, Flow Stress of fcc Polycrystals with Application to OFHC Cu, Acta Mater., 1998, 46, p 565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.R.R. Ashtiani, M.H. Parsa, and H. Bisadi, Constitutive Equations for Elevated Temperature Flow Behavior of Commercial Purity Aluminum, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2012, 545, p 61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.F. Xu, X.Y. Peng, X.P. Liang, X. Li, and Z.M. Yin. Constitutive Relationship for High Temperature Deformation of Al-3Cu-0.5Sc Alloy. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 2013, 23: 1549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.Z. Quan, Y. Shi, C.T. Yu, and J. Zhou, The Improved Arrhenius Model with Variable Parameters of Flow Behavior Characterizing for the as-Cast AZ80 Magnesium Alloy, Mater. Res., 2013, 16, p 785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.N. Zou, K. Wu, Y. Han, W. Zhang, B. Cheng, and G.J. Qiao, Deformation Characteristic and Prediction of Flow Stress for as-Cast 21Cr Economical Duplex Stainless Steel Under Hot Compression, Mater. Des., 2013, 51, p 975–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.T. Gray, S.R. Chen, and K.S. Vecchio, Influence of Grain Size on the Constitutive Response and Substructure Evolution of MONEL 400, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1999, 30, p 1235–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.T. Chiou, W.C. Cheng, and W.S. Lee, Strain Rate Effects on the Mechanical Properties of a Fe-Mn-Al Alloy Under Dynamic Impact Deformations, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2005, 392, p 156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Choung, W. Nam, and J.Y. Lee, Dynamic Hardening Behaviors of Various Marine Structural Steels Considering Dependencies on Strain Rate and Temperature, Marine Struct., 2013, 32, p 49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook, Fracture Characteristics Of Three Metals Subjected to Various Strains, Strain Rates, Temperatures and Pressures, Eng. Fract. Mech., 1985, 21, p 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Prawoto, M. Fanone, S. Shahedi, M.S. Ismail, and W.B. Wan Nik, Computational Approach Using Johnson-Cook Model on Dual Phase Steel, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2012, 54, p 48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Vedantam, D. Bajaj, N.S. Brar, and S. Hill, Johnson–Cook Strength Models for Mild and DP 590 Steels//AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP, 2006, 845, p 775–778Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Chen, G.Q. Zhao, and J.Q. Yu, Hot Deformation Behavior and Constitutive Modeling of Homogenized 6026 Aluminum Alloy, Mater. Des., 2015, 74, p 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Shrot and M. Bäker, Determination of Johnson–Cook Parameters from Machining Simulations, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2012, 52, p 298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    X.G. Deng, S.X. Hui, W.J. Ye, and X.Y. Song, Construction of Johnson–Cook Model for Gr2 Titanium Through Adiabatic Heating Calculation, Appl. Mech. Mater., 2014, 487, p 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Samantaray, S. Mandal, and A.K. Bhaduri, A Comparative Study on Johnson Cook, Modified Zerilli-Armstrong and Arrhenius-Type Constitutive Models to Predict Elevated Temperature Flow Behaviour in Modified 9Cr–1Mo Steel, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2009, 47, p 568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. He, G.L. Xie, H.L. Zhang, and X.T. Wang. A Comparative Study on Johnson–Cook, Modified Johnson–Cook and Arrhenius-Type Constitutive Models to Predict the High Temperature Flow Stress in 20CrMo Alloy Steel. Mater. Des. (1980–2015), 2013, 52: 677–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.Y. Li, X.F. Wang, J.Y. Duan, and J.J. Liu, A Modified Johnson Cook Model for Elevated Temperature Flow Behavior of T24 Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2013, 577, p 138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    X.Y. Wang, C.Z. Huang, B. Zou, H.L. Liu, H.T. Zhu, and J. Wang, Dynamic Behavior and a Modified Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model of Inconel 718 at High Strain Rate and Elevated Temperature, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2013, 580, p 385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y.C. Lin and X.M. Chen, A Combined Johnson-Cook and Zerilli-Armstrong Model for hot Compressed Typical High-Strength Alloy Steel, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2010, 49, p 628–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Gangireddy and S.P. Mates, High Temperature Dynamic Response of a Ti-6Al-4V Alloy: A Modified Constitutive Model for gradual Phase Transformation, J. Dyn. Behav. Mater., 2017, 3, p 557–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    H.Y. Li, Y.H. Li, X.F. Wang, J.J. Liu, and Y. Wu, A Comparative Study on Modified Johnson Cook, Modified Zerilli-Armstrong and Arrhenius-Type Constitutive Models to Predict the Hot Deformation Behavior in 28CrMnMoV Steel, Mater. Des., 2013, 49, p 493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Cai, K.S. Wang, P. Zhai, F.G. Li, and J. Yang, A Modified Johnson–Cook Constitutive Equation to Predict Hot Deformation Behavior of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2015, 24, p 32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Shokry, A Modified Johnson–Cook Model for Flow Behavior of Alloy 800H at Intermediate Strain Rates and High Temperatures, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2017, 26, p 5723–5730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. Chen, G.Q. Zhao, J. Gong, X.X. Chen, and M.M. Chen, Hot Deformation Behaviors and Processing Maps of 2024 Aluminum Alloy in as-Cast and Homogenized States, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2015, 24, p 5002–5012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    C.A. Ross and J.W. Tedesco, Split-Hopkinson Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression, Mater. J., 1989, 86, p 475–481Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Z.G. Gao, X.M. Zhang, M.A. Chen, Y.S. Zhao, H.J. Li, and B. Liu, Effect of Temperature on Dynamic Yield Stress and Microstructure of 2519A Aluminum Alloy at High Strain Rate, Rare Metal Mater. Eng., 2009, 35, p 881–886Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M.R. Rokni, A. Zarei-Hanzaki, A.A. Roostaei, and A. Abolhasani, Constitutive Base Analysis of a 7075 Aluminum Alloy During Hot Compression Testing, Mater. Des., 2011, 32, p 4955–4960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Srinivasulu and A. Jain, A Comparative Analysis of Training Methods for Artificial Neural Network Rainfall–Runoff Models, Appl. Soft Comput., 2006, 6, p 295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Y.H. Zhao, J. Sun, J.F. Li, Y.Q. Yan, and P. Wang, A Comparative Study on Johnson–Cook and Modified Johnson–Cook Constitutive Material Model to Predict the Dynamic Behavior Laser Additive Manufacturing FeCr Alloy, J. Alloys Compd., 2017, 723, p 179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.J. Kim, H.J. Jeong, J.W. Park, S.T. Hong, and H.N. Han, Modified Johnson–Cook Model Incorporated with Electroplasticity for Uniaxial Tension Under a Pulsed Electric Current, Met. Mater. Int., 2018, 24, p 42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J.Q. Tan, M. Zhan, S. Liu, T. Huang, J. Guo, and H. Yang, A Modified Johnson–Cook Model for Tensile Flow Behaviors of 7050-T7451 Aluminum Alloy at High Strain Rates, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2015, 631, p 214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. Warnecke and J.D. Oh, A New Thermo-Viscoplastic Material Model for Finite-Element-Analysis of the Chip Formation Process, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 2002, 51, p 79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    B. Gladman. LS-Dyna Keyword Users’ Manual. Livermore Software Corporation California, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanzhang Xu
    • 1
  • Bin Zhao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xiqun Lu
    • 1
  • Zhigang Liu
    • 1
  • Tongyang Li
    • 1
  • Ning Zhong
    • 2
  • Xunshuai Yin
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Power and Energy EngineeringHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina
  2. 2.Chongqing Hongjiang Machinery Co., LtdChongqingChina
  3. 3.Shandong Institute of Space Electronic TechnologyYantaiChina

Personalised recommendations