PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026Materials1 citationsOpen Access

Determination of Johnson–Cook Constitutive and Failure Parameters for Cr20Ni80 Alloy Using an Experimental–Numerical Approach

View Full Paper
ZLZhi LiWuhan Polytechnic UniversityXYXuejin YangWuhan Polytechnic UniversityKZKemin ZhouWuhan Polytechnic University

Key Points

  • This study aims to calibrate and validate the Johnson-Cook parameters for Cr20Ni80 alloy under various stress states and strain rates.
  • Conducted quasi-static tensile tests on smooth and notched specimens.
  • Performed dynamic Split Hopkinson Tension Bar (SHTB) tests at strain rates of 1000–3000 s−1.
  • Calibrated failure parameters using SHTB data to account for stress triaxiality effects.
  • Constitutive parameters were determined as A=621.02 MPa, B=543.20 MPa, n=0.4564, C=0.0141.
  • Failure parameters were calibrated with R2=0.978, showing strong correlation with experimental data.
  • Simulated engineering stress–strain curves matched well with experimental results, confirming parameter reliability.

Abstract

Accurate numerical simulation of Cr20Ni80 alloy processing relies on reliable constitutive and failure models. This study employs a comprehensive experimental–numerical approach to calibrate and validate the Johnson–Cook (J-C) parameters of Cr20Ni80 alloy under varying stress states and strain rates. Quasi-static tensile tests on smooth and notched specimens, alongside dynamic Split Hopkinson Tension Bar (SHTB) tests (1000–3000 s−1), were conducted. Pulse-shaping technology was employed, and dynamic force balance was verified to ensure the physical validity of the high-strain-rate data. The constitutive parameters (A=621.02 MPa, B=543.20 MPa, n=0.4564, C=0.0141) were determined based on true stress–strain responses. Theoretical analysis confirms that the thermal softening effect caused by adiabatic heating can be neglected. Furthermore, the failure parameters (D1=−0.4300, D2=2.6405, D3=−0.7055) were calibrated to capture the stress triaxiality effects (R2=0.978). The parameter D4 was iteratively calibrated using SHTB data from the 1000 s−1 and 3000 s−1 test conditions and validated using SHTB data from the 2000 s−1 test condition. The engineering stress–strain curves obtained from simulations using the calibrated parameters showed good agreement with experimental results, confirming the reliability of the calibrated parameters.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed17eb9154b0b82878e5bhttps://doi.org/10.3390/ma19091909
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1In-situ EBSD study of deformation behavior of nickel-based superalloys during uniaxial tensile tests2023 · 31 citations
  2. 2Finite element modelling and experimental investigation of the impact of filling different materials in copper tubes during 3D free bending process2019 · 44 citations
  3. 3Comparison of Modified Johnson–Cook Model and Strain–Compensated Arrhenius Constitutive Model for 5CrNiMoV Steel during Compression around Austenitic Temperature2022 · 11 citations
  4. 4Deformation mechanisms in Cr20Ni80 alloy at elevated temperatures2009 · 13 citations
  5. 5A New Technique for Conducting Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar Test at Elevated Temperatures2017 · 17 citations