Talk On MTS Moel For 6061T6 Al

A modified Follansbee-Kocks model
for 6061-T6 aluminum
Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah
ASME Applied Mechanics and Materials Conference, 2007
Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Modified
of Utah)
Follansbee-Kocks Model McMat07 1 / 33
Outline
1 Mechanical Behavior of 6061-T6 Aluminum
2 Models
3 Modified Follansbee-Kocks Model
4 How well does our model do?
5 Some numerical simulations
6 Summary

Modified
of Utah)
Mechanical Behavior of 6061-T6 Aluminum
Temperature Dependence
Strain-Rate = 0.001 /s. Strain-Rate = 1000 /s.
400 400
Flow Stress (MPa)
Flow Stress (MPa)

300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Temperature (K) Temperature (K)
Sigmoidal curves?
For sources of data see Anup Bhawalkar’s M.S. Thesis.

Modified
of Utah)
Strain-Rate Dependence
Strain = 0.2; Temperature = 300K
4
10
?
Flow Stress (MPa)
Older Data
3
10
Recent Data
2
10 −5 −1 3 7 11
10 10 10 10 10
Strain Rate (/s)
High temperature data?

ForBiswajit
Anup Bhawalkar and sources of data (University
Banerjee see http://www.eng.utah.edu/
Modified
of Utah) banerjee/Papers/MTS6061T6Al.pdf/
Pressure Dependence
Strain Rate = 0.001/s; Plastic Strain = 0.05
500
450
Flow Stress (MPa)
300 K
400
367 K
350
422 K
300
478 K
250
200
0 100 200 300 400
Pressure (MPa)
High strain rate data?

Experimental data from Davidson, 1973

Modified
of Utah)
Can a single flow stress model predict all these behaviors?

Modified
of Utah)
Models
Older Models
Steinberg, Cochran, Guinan (1980), Steinberg and Lund

(1989).
Johnson and Cook (1983, 1985), Johnson and Holmquist
(1988).
Zerilli and Armstrong (1987, 1993), Abed and Voyidajis (2005).
Different regimes need different sets of parameters.

Modified
of Utah)
Models
More Recent Models
Mechanical Threshold Stress Model - Follansbee and Kocks

(1988), Goto et al. (2000).
Preston, Tonks, Wallace (2003).
Physically based to some extent. May be possible to extend so

that the same parameters can be used for a large domain of
regimes.

Modified
of Utah)
Models
Original Follansbee-Kocks Model
µ(p, T )
σy (σe , ε̇, p, T ) = [τa + τi (ε̇, T ) + τe (σe , ε̇, T )] (1)
µ0
where
σe =an evolving internal variable that has units of stress (also called the mechanical threshold stress)
ε̇ =the strain rate
p =the pressure
T =the temperature
τa =the athermal component of the flow stress
τi =the intrinsic component of the flow stress due to barriers to thermally activated dislocation motion
τe =the component of the flow stress due to structure evolution (e.g., strain hardening)
µ =the shear modulus
µ0 =a reference shear modulus at 0 K and ambient pressure.

Modified
of Utah)
Models
Assumptions in Original Model
Thermally activated dislocation motion dominant and

viscous drag effects on dislocation motion are small.
This assumption restricts the model to strain rates of 104 s−1
and less.
High temperature diffusion effects (such as solute diffusion

from inside grains to grain boundaries) are absent.
This assumption limits the range of applicability of the model
to temperatures less than around 0.6 Tm . For 6061-T6
aluminum alloy this temperature is approximately 450 - 500 K.

Modified
of Utah)
Modified Follansbee-Kocks Model
The Modified Follansbee-Kocks Model

Modified
of Utah)
A Simple Modification
µ(p, T )
σy (σe , ε̇, p, T ) = [τa + τi (ε̇, T ) + τe (σe , ε̇, T )]
µ0
Since hardening is relatively small we can
Try to get the correct temperature dependence of µ and τi .

Add a viscous terms that can account for viscous drag.
Include a modification for overdriven shocks a la
Preston-Tonks-Wallace.
to get
 (" # )
min µ
for T < Tm

τv + (τa + τi + τe ) , σys
σy = µ0 (2)

µv ε̇ for T ≥ Tm


Modified
of Utah)
A Model for the Shear Modulus
Temperature dependence from Nadal and LePoac (2003) and

pressure dependence from Burakovsky and Preston (2005).
"( !)
1 ∂µ a1 a2 a3
µ(p, T ) = µ0 + p 1/3
+ 2/3 + (1 − Tb)+
J (T , ζ)
b ∂p η η η (3)
ρ i
k T
CM b
ρ (6π 2 )2/3 2 b T
η := ; C := f ; T :=
ρ0 3 Tm
" #
1 + 1/ζ
T , ζ) := 1 + exp −
J (b for b
T ∈ [0, 1 + ζ] .
1 + ζ/(1 − b T)

Modified
of Utah)
A Model for the Melt Temperature
The Burakovsky-Greeff-Preston model (2003):

( ! !)
1 1 2Γ2 1 1
Tm (ρ) = Tm0 η 1/3 exp 6Γ1 1/3
− 1/3 + q − q . (4)
ρ ρ q ρ0 ρ
0
ρ
η :=
ρ0
1 Γ1 Γ2
Γ(ρ) = + +
2 ρ1/3 ρq

Modified
of Utah)
Model Checks
Shear Modulus Melt Temperature
50 6000
Recent data
40 η=1.05 5000
Shear Modulus (GPa)
4000
30
Tm (K)
3000
20
2000
10 η=0.95 1000 Older data
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
T/Tm Pressure (GPa)
Models do reasonably well.

Modified
of Utah)
A Model for τi
Use a quadratic model to allow for rapid decrease in τi at high

temperatures:
!1/qi 2 1/pi
  
kb T
 ε̇0i 
τi = σi 1 − ln . (5)
 
3
 g0i b µ(p, T ) ε̇ 


Modified
of Utah)
Fit Parameters for τi
0.05
σi = 375 MPa, g = 0.61
0.045 0i
0.04
95%
0.035 Confidence
Interval
pi
0.03
y = (σy / µ)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
x = [(kbT/ µ b3) ln(ε0i/ ε)]1/qi

Modified
of Utah)
A Model for the Viscous Drag
Use ideas from Kumar and Kumble (1969) and Frost and Ashby
(1971).
2 B
τv = √ ε̇ (6)
3 ρm b 2
Need to find drag coefficient B and the density of mobile
dislocations ρm .

Modified
of Utah)
The Drag Coefficient
Assume that
B = Be + Bp
where Be = electron drag, Bp = phonon drag. Neglect Be for
temperatures greater than 50 K.
λp q
B ≈ λp Bp = hEi (7)
10 cs
where q = cross-section of dislocation core, cs = shear wave
speed, and ! ! 1/3
3 kb T ρ θD h c̄ 3ρ
hEi = D3 ; θD =
M T kb 4πM

Modified
of Utah)
Mobile Dislocation Density
Use simple model developed by Estrin and Kubin (1986) ?

!
dρm M1 ρf I3 √
= 2 − I2 (ε̇, T ) ρm − ρf
dεp b ρm b
(8)
dρf I3 √
= I2 (ε̇, T ) ρm + ρf − A4 (ε̇, T ) ρf
dεp b
Stiff differential equations!

A model that works for our purposes is
ρm ≈ ρm0 (1 + Tb)m . (9)

Modified
of Utah)
Check Viscous Drag Model
5
10
0
10
900 K
300 K
τv (MPa)
−5
10
50 K
−10
10
−15
10
−5 −3 −1 1 3 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Strain Rate (s−1)

Modified
of Utah)
How well does our model do?
How well does our model do ?

Modified
of Utah)
Temperature Dependence
Strain-Rate = 0.001 /s. Strain-Rate = 1000 /s.
ε = 0.001 s−1 εp = 0.02 ε = 1000 s−1 εp = 0.10

500 600
450
500
400
350
400
300
σy (MPa)
σy (MPa)
250 300
200
200
150
100
100
50
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
T/Tm T/Tm

Modified
of Utah)
Strain Rate Dependence
4
10
σy (MPa)
3
10
2
10 −5 −1 3 7 11
10 10 10 10 10
−1
ε (s )

Modified
of Utah)
Pressure Dependence
500
450
400
Flow Stress (MPa)
350
300
250
200
0 100 200 300 400
Pressure (MPa)

Modified
of Utah)
Some numerical simulations
Numerical validation of the model

Modified
of Utah)
Flyer Plate Impact
Evacuated Target
chamber
Target Specimen
Gas gun
Direction of
flyer plate
VISAR
Free Surface with

mirror finish
Flyer Plate

Modified
of Utah)
Flyer Plate Simulations
hi = 1.879 mm, ht = 3.124 mm, hi = 1.600 mm, ht = 3.073 mm,

v0 = 270 m/s. v0 = 265 m/s.
300 300
Expt. Data
Exp. Data
Simulation
250 FEM 250
Free Surface Velocity (m/s)

Free Surface velocity (m/s)
200 200
150 MPM 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (µ sec) Time (µ sec)
Experimental data from Isbell (2005).

Modified
of Utah)
Taylor Impact Tests
11111111111
00000000000
00000000000
11111111111
Xf
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
Centroid
00000000000
11111111111
L af
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
C 11111111111
00000000000
xf 11111111111
00000000000 Lf
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
Af
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
C Wf 00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
yf
0.2 L 0 00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111 X
Df

Modified
of Utah)
Comparison of Metrics
Final Length Mushroom Diameter

1 2.4
0.9 2.2
0.8 2
Simulated Df/D0
0
X=Y
Simulated L /L
f
0.7 1.8
0.6 1.6
0.5 1.4
0.4 X=Y 1.2
0.3 1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Experimental Lf/L0 Experimental Df/D0

Modified
of Utah)
Comparison of Profiles
l0 = 30.00 mm, l0 = 6.00 mm, l0 l0 = 30.00 mm, d0 = 6.00 mm,

= 358 m/s, T0 = 295 K v0 = 194 m/s, T0 = 635 K
40 30
Expt. Expt.
MTS MTS
35
25
30
20
25
mm
mm
20 15
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
mm mm
Experimental data from Gust (1982).

Modified
of Utah)
Summary
Summary
Improved high temperature prediction.

Improved strain rate dependence at high rates.
Pressure dependence cannot be solely from shear modulus.

Modified
of Utah)
Appendix For Further Reading
For Further Reading I
B. Banerjee and A. Bhawalkar.

An extended Mechanical Threshold Stress plasticity model:
modeling 6061-T6 aluminum alloy.
under review, 2007.
A. Bhawalkar,
The Mechanical Threshold Stress Plasticity Model for 6061-T6
aluminum alloy and its numerical validation
M.S. Thesis, University of Utah, 2006.

Modified
of Utah)

Talk On MTS Moel For 6061T6 Al

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Talk On MTS Moel For 6061T6 Al

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A modified Follansbee-Kocks model

for 6061-T6 aluminum

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah

ASME Applied Mechanics and Materials Conference, 2007

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

1 Mechanical Behavior of 6061-T6 Aluminum

3 Modified Follansbee-Kocks Model

4 How well does our model do?

5 Some numerical simulations

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Flow Stress (MPa)

For sources of data see Anup Bhawalkar’s M.S. Thesis.

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

High temperature data?

High strain rate data?

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Can a single flow stress model predict all these behaviors?

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Steinberg, Cochran, Guinan (1980), Steinberg and Lund

Different regimes need different sets of parameters.

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

More Recent Models

Mechanical Threshold Stress Model - Follansbee and Kocks

Physically based to some extent. May be possible to extend so

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Original Follansbee-Kocks Model

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Assumptions in Original Model

Thermally activated dislocation motion dominant and

High temperature diffusion effects (such as solute diffusion

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

The Modified Follansbee-Kocks Model

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Try to get the correct temperature dependence of µ and τi .

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

A Model for the Shear Modulus

Temperature dependence from Nadal and LePoac (2003) and

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

A Model for the Melt Temperature

The Burakovsky-Greeff-Preston model (2003):

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Shear Modulus Melt Temperature

Models do reasonably well.

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Use a quadratic model to allow for rapid decrease in τi at high

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Fit Parameters for τi

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

A Model for the Viscous Drag

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

The Drag Coefficient

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Mobile Dislocation Density

Use simple model developed by Estrin and Kubin (1986) ?

Stiff differential equations!

ρm ≈ ρm0 (1 + Tb)m . (9)

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Check Viscous Drag Model

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

How well does our model do ?

Anup Bhawalkar and Biswajit Banerjee (University

Strain-Rate = 0.001 /s. Strain-Rate = 1000 /s.