Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330

Material behaviour in conditions similar to metal cutting:

flow stress in the primary shear zone
S.P.F.C. Jaspersa,*, J.H. Dautzenbergb
a
LG Philips Displays Netherlands, Electron Beam Devices, P.O. Box 7, NL-6130 AA Sittard, The Netherlands
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Section Materials Technology, Eindhoven University of Technology,
P.O. Box 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Received 5 January 2000; received in revised form 17 April 2001; accepted 21 November 2001

Abstract

This paper is aimed at determining the flow stress in metal cutting. A major problem in finding the flow stress is the intense circumstances
under which deformation takes place in the chip root. Large deformations are imposed on the workpiece material at high speed in a very small
area. This results in mechanical material behaviour far removed from that encountered in conventional material tests. Therefore, to determine
the flow stress in cutting, it is necessary to determine the conditions under which the material is being deformed firstly. Hereafter, a material
test has been developed that can be used in conditions similar to those found in cutting.
Based on the obtained information on the deformation conditions in cutting as found in previous work [J. Mater. Process. Technol, in press],
a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) facility could be constructed for mechanical testing of materials at high strain rates and elevated
temperatures. From measurements with this SHPB facility, it appeared that both strain rate and temperature have a considerable influence on
the flow stress of metals. Combining the information on the deformation conditions in the primary shear zone with the measured constitutive
behaviour, the flow stress of the metals in the primary shear zone is found. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Metal cutting; Material behaviour; Strain; Strain rate; Temperature; SHPB

1. Introduction be used up to reasonable strains and can be tailored for tests

Aside from microstructural conditions, the main para-
meters that determine the flow stress of metals are: strain,
strain rate and temperature. These three parameters have
been the topic of study in earlier research in case of
orthogonal machining of steel AISI 1045 and aluminium
AA 6082-T6 [1]. Thus, the circumstances under which these
workpiece materials are deformed in the primary shear zone
have been quantified for the range of cutting conditions
investigated. For the strain rate, it has been found that its
magnitude is in the order of 2
104 s1. This means merely
material tests using the method of loading based on an
impact mechanism are suitable to determine the flow stress
under cutting conditions. A method that has been used for
impact testing in particular but can be used generally to
perform material tests at high strain rates is the split Hop-
kinson pressure bar (SHPB) method. The SHPB method
enables to perform material tests at strain rates up to 104 s1
by exposing the sample to stress waves. Furthermore, it can
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: serge.jaspers@lgphilips-displays.com (S.P.F.C. Jaspers).
at an elevated temperature. Accordingly, this method is very
suitable for the determination of mechanical behaviour of
materials under conditions similar to those found in machin-
ing.
A Hopkinson apparatus is constructed to measure the flow
stress at high strain rate and elevated temperature for the
materials used in the machining tests. To consider strain rate
influence on the flow stress, conventional material tests at
low strain rate are also made. In this way, the flow stress is
found for a wide range of strains, strain rates and tempera-
tures, and with that the flow stress under cutting conditions.
2. High strain rate tests: SHPB
2.1. Considerations on the loading mechanism
Since the strains found in the cutting process are relatively
large, it is necessary that the strains achieved in the material
tests are of the same order. This means that as a deformation
mode tension tests cannot be used due to problems asso-
ciated with preliminary necking. Thus, the method of load-

0924-0136/02/$ – see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 2 2 8 - 6
 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330 323

ing in the material test should be either torsional or com-

pressive. When choosing the loading mechanism of the
material tests, it should be noted that the flow curve is
dependent upon the strain path [2]. As a result, values found
for the flow stress during torsion may well differ from those
during compression. Since the deformation mode in the chip
formation is predominantly simple shear, a torsion test
should be preferred. Additionally, torsional testing is advan-
tageous in determining the material behaviour due to the
absence of radial expansion. Hence, the inertial and fric-
tional effects present in axial testing are absent when testing
in torsion at high strain rate. However, according to Hartley
and Duffy [3] the use of a torsional SHPB imposes also some
distinct disadvantages. Firstly, when a compressive stress
wave travels down a bar, it undergoes geometric dispersion,
because the different frequency components in the compres-
sive stress waves have different velocities [4,5]. The higher
frequency components travel at a lower velocity than the
main pulse. In contrast, there is no dispersion when a
torsional stress wave propagates through a bar. Thus, if a
torsional stress wave is noisy when initiated, this character-
istic will be maintained, regardless of the length of the bar.
As a result the strain rate imposed on the specimen will not
be constant. An axial stress wave, on the other hand, tends to
smooth out as it travels through the bar due to the dispersion.
Secondly, another problem when using a torsional SHPB is
the gripping of the specimen. Special care must be taken that
the specimens are held firmly in the bar and that there are no
reflections due to the gripping method. Furthermore, the
torsional SHPB generally is more difficult to build and
implement than the axial testing system.
For this work, it is desired that the temperature depen-
dence on the flow stress is included. The extension of the
SHPB facility up to elevated temperature is rather complex.
Therefore, it is decided, also regarding the disadvantages
of the torsional SHPB mentioned above, to construct a
compressive SHPB apparatus.
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of SHPB apparatus and a visualisation of the
stress waves during testing.
[8]. This means that for a strain rate of 104 s1, the specimen
will be strained up to 2% before the stress can be considered
to be uniform.
Heating of the SHPB apparatus imposes several pro-
blems. Because the stress waves are measured with strain
gauges, heating of the entire apparatus is restricted to a low
temperature regime. An alternative would be to only heat
the pressure bars near the specimen while the strain gauges
stay at room temperature. But the temperature gradient thus
arising along the pressure bars affects the Young’s modulus
and the density of the bars and therefore distorts the stress
wave propagation. As pointed out by Lindholm and
Yeakley [9], this can lead to substantial errors at higher
temperatures, making correction of the measurement data
necessary. To avoid such a correction, Frantz et al. [10]
developed a procedure in which the specimen is heated
independently from the pressure bars. In their facility, the
pressure bars are moved towards the heated specimen just
before the striker bar impacts. The contact time has to be
minimised between the ends of the cold bars and the heated
specimen to reduce heat exchange to a negligible amount
so that the temperatures remain approximately constant.
Based on their successful design, a similar SHPB facility
was constructed [8,11].

2.2. Experimental set-up of the heated SHPB apparatus

In compression tests made with the SHPB method, a stress

wave is caused by a projectile impacting at the far end of the
incident bar, as shown in Fig. 1 [6,7]. This compressive wave
propagates with the speed of sound through the bar only
deforming it elastically. Upon reaching the other end of the
bar, the incident wave is partly transmitted to the specimen
and partly reflected back into the pressure bar as a tensile
wave. While propagating in the specimen, the stress wave
causes plastic deformation. At the specimen–transmitter bar
interface, a part of the remaining stress wave is transmitted
and a part is reflected into the specimen. Due to reverbera-
tions of the plastic wave in the specimen and because the
initial stress wavelength is chosen to be much larger than the
specimen length, a situation is reached where the specimen
deforms in a uniform state of stress. It is found that for a steel Fig. 2. Photo of furnace housing: specimen (A); furnace mouth (B);
specimen of 3 mm length equilibrium is reached after 1.8 ms thermo-couple wire (C); the pressure bars (D).
324 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
Fig. 3. SHPB specimen together with their holder. Left: aluminium prior
(A) and after (B) the testing. Right: steel after (C) and before (D) the
testing.
All specimens have a diameter of 6 mm, but the lengths
vary between 2.5 and 4.0 mm to control the strain rate. The
specimens are placed in a tubular-shaped furnace housing
with a gas furnace placed underneath (Fig. 2). The furnace
housing has two round openings positioned at the centreline
of the pressure bars through which the bars can be moved
inside. The gas used in the furnace is argon to minimise the
corrosion of the specimen at high temperatures. The max-
imum temperature reached with this furnace is 600 8C. The
specimens are mounted in a ring discharge machined out of
Inconel X750 with three springs holding the specimen, as
shown in Fig. 3. The springs support the specimen at the
centreline of the pressure bars, though they are weak enough
to not disturb the radial expansion of the specimen during
compression. The end faces of the specimen are treated with
a MoS2 lubricant to reduce barrelling as a result of friction at
the interface with the pressure bars. As can be seen in Fig. 3,
the specimens indeed remain cylindrical during compres-
sion.
Fig. 4. Examples of measured flow stress and equivalent strain rate curves
versus equivalent strain (AA 6082-T6, 300 8C).
A typical example of a flow curve obtained with the SHPB
facility is shown in Fig. 4. This graph clearly reveals the
large oscillations in the measured flow stress due to disper-
sion of the elastic stress waves in the pressure bars. For
increasing strain, however, these oscillations are smoothed
out. Besides, at low strains the stress inside the specimen is
not yet uniform and therefore has to be disregarded.
Another typical feature of the SHPB test is that the strain
rate changes during an experiment, as shown by the dotted
curve in Fig. 4. Therefore, to find the mean strain rate during
an experiment the strain rate is averaged in the area between
1/4 and 3/4 of the total strain, as indicated by the arrows.
3. Low strain rate tests: Rastegaev type compression
For easily interpretable results in low strain rate compres-
sion tests, it is necessary for the specimen to be deformed at
uniaxial stress, which means that the initial cylindrically
shaped specimen must remain cylindrical during deforma-
tion. This situation, however, is only guaranteed in the ideal
case that the friction is zero at the end faces of the specimen.
Since friction cannot entirely be avoided, the aim has to be to
reduce the friction as much as possible. A simple but very
effective method to reduce the friction is the use of a
Rastegaev type specimen [12]. These specimens differ in
geometry from the normal types in that they have shallow
cavities at the end faces as shown in Fig. 5. These cavities are
filled with paraffin wax as a lubrication medium, whereas
the small walls prevent the lubricant from being squeezed
out during loading.
The samples in the Rastegaev experiments have an initial
length (L0) and diameter (D0) between 9 and 12 mm,
whereas the ratio L0 =D0 ¼ 1 in all cases. The walls at the
end faces have a height of 0.06 mm and a width of 0.6 mm.
In these experiments the upper punch is fixed, whereas the
lower punch is moved upwards with a constant speed such
that the average strain rate is approximately 0.006 s1. Fig. 6
shows some specimens before and after compression. It
clearly demonstrates that due to the lubrication pools hardly
any barrelling occurs, so an uniaxial stress state can be
assumed. In fact, it results in grainy dull end faces of the
Fig. 5. Dimensions of Rastegaev type specimen for compression tests at
low strain rate.
 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
Fig. 6. Examples of Rastegaev specimen: steel samples prior (A) and after
(B) compression and aluminium samples after compression (C).
specimens because the trapped lubrication does not restrain
deformation of the material at the end faces. The low strain
rate compression tests are made at room temperature only.
4. Results of low and high strain rate compression tests
Fig. 7 shows flow curves of normalised AISI 1045
obtained from low strain rate compression experiments at
room temperature and the high strain rate experiments at
room and elevated temperature. A considerable difference is
observed between the conventional low strain rate test and
the high strain rate experiment at room temperature. In fact,
at the highest strain rate the flow stress has increased by
approximately 20% for the steel. The SHPB experiments at
elevated temperature show the effect of thermal softening at
high strain rates. As for the strain rate dependency, there
evidently is a large influence of temperature on the flow
stress. Nevertheless, the slope of the flow curves is hardly
influenced by temperature. Apparently, the strain hardening
of the steel is independent of temperature.
The flow stress of the aluminium AA 6082 has been
measured in the T6-type temper. Fig. 8 reveals that for
the aluminium alloy the flow stress hardly increases at
high strain rate. In contrast, the experiments at elevated
Fig. 7. Flow stress of AISI 1045 in low (continuous line) and high
(markers) strain rate compression tests at various temperatures. The
temperatures indicate the setting of the furnace, which equals the initial
specimen temperature.
325
Fig. 8. Flow stress of AA 6082-T6 in low (continuous line) and high
(markers) strain rate compression tests at various temperatures. The
temperatures indicate the setting of the furnace, which equals the initial
specimen temperature.
temperature show that the flow stress is highly temperature
dependent. It should be noted, though, that the heating of
the specimen can undo the T6 temper. The extent in which
the heating affects the T6 temper highly depends upon the
temperature and the duration of heating. In particular, above
220 8C the time needed to reduce the strength decreases
rapidly. Whereas the maximum admissible heating time in
which the strength will not decrease more than 5% is 15 min
at 220 8C, this time reduces to 5 min at 230 8C [13]. Since
the heating of the specimens in the SHPB experiments takes
about 5–10 min and they are kept at the final temperature for
1–2 min before the compression is made, the heating will
surely alter the T6 temper if raised above 230 8C. Therefore,
in case of the experiments made on the AA 6082-T6 at 300,
400 and 500 8C, the results should be interpreted with great
care since they are highly dependent upon the heating time.
It has to be noted that the artificial heating of the specimen
in the material test might lead to different mechanical
behaviour compared to circumstances where heating is
made partly or even merely due to deformation. In the latter
case, which is often found in production, the temperature
increase is a result of straining, and therefore strain hard-
ening and thermal softening cannot be treated separately as
is the case in the experiments.
Furthermore, as mentioned already, the flow stress also
depends on the strain path, whereas with the current experi-
mental set-up only compression tests can be achieved. Other
authors have found the flow stress to be invariably higher in
compression as in torsion in low [2] and high [3] strain rate
experiments.
5. Assessment of constitutive models
5.1. Proposed constitutive relations
Basically, the advantage of a constitutive model over a
purely empirical method is that for a (new) material the
experimental data required to determine the dependence of
326 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
flow stress on temperature, strain and strain rate can be
strongly reduced. Ideally, theoretical relationships derived
from the physical processes at the atomic level should be
used to describe the macroscopic flow behaviour of materi-
als. However, a soundly based theoretical approach of good
accuracy is still some way from being realised [14]. Con-
sequently, it is inevitable that (semi) empirical models are
used to describe the constitutive behaviour of the materials.
Two of these constitutive models that of Johnson–Cook and
Zerilli–Armstrong, will be evaluated.
If e is the equivalent plastic strain, the von Mises flow
stress s, according to the Johnson–Cook model, is given by
[15]:
 sðeÞ de ¼
s ¼ ½A þ Ben ½1 þ C ln e_ ½1  T m 
 where TF is the furnace temperature and rc(T) the volume
_ e_ 0 is the dimensionless strain rate for e_ 0 ¼
where e_ ¼ e=
1
1:0 s and A, B, C, n, and m are considered to be material
constants.
The relationship between the absolute temperature T and
the thermal softening term T is expressed as
T  T0
T ¼
TM  T0
where T0 is the room temperature and TM the melting point
of the specific alloy. Obviously, the Johnson–Cook model
assumes the slope of the flow stress curve to be indepen-
dently affected by strain, strain rate and temperature repre-
sented by the terms in each set of brackets. It should be noted
though that there is an influence of strain on the temperature
in this model due to adiabatic deformation at high strain
rates.
Applying the recent developments in dislocation-
mechanics theory, Zerilli and Armstrong [16] derived a
more complex constitutive model in which they also made
a distinction between f.c.c. and b.c.c. materials. The con-
stitutive equation for body-centred cubic metals is written as

s ¼ C0 þ C1 expðC3 T þ C4 T ln e_ Þ þ C5 en
and for the face-centred cubic materials:
 data are examined for cases in which only one variable is left
s ¼ C0 þ C2 e1=2 expðC3 T þ C4 T ln e_ Þ
T is the absolute temperature, C1–C5 and n are material
constants. C0 is an additional component of stress that
accounts for the solute and the original dislocation density
on the flow stress. Furthermore, this term comprises the
stress related to the requirements of slip band-stress con-
centrations at grain boundaries needed for the transmission
of plastic flow between the polycrystal grains.
In the case of b.c.c. materials, it is remarkable that Zerilli
and Armstrong assume that the dependence of the flow stress
upon the strain is not affected by temperature or strain rate.
In contrast, for the f.c.c. materials, they consider the strain
dependence to be strongly affected by the latter two vari-
ables, whereas the strain hardening exponent is assumed to
have a fixed value of 0.5 for all f.c.c. materials.
5.2. Comparison of constitutive models to measurements
The low strain rate tests are made at approximately
isothermal conditions, whereas the high strain rate experi-
ments are considered to be adiabatic. Especially, for alloys
having a low melting point such as aluminium, the tem-
perature rise of the specimen during rapid deformation
cannot be ignored and therefore should be considered in
the graphs. This can be made relatively easy if it is assumed
that all the deformation energy is converted into heat. Thus
the instantaneous temperature of the specimen TIS during
compression can be derived from
Z eIS Z TIS
rcðTÞ dT (5)
(1) 0 TF
specific heat. For both alloys the values of rc(T) will be used
as given by Jaspers [8].
To include the adiabatic heating, it is more convenient to
represent the flow stress versus the temperature, instead of
the more commonly used stress–strain curves as shown in
Figs. 7 and 8. After all, in the stress versus temperature
(2)
graphs the temperature correction due to the adiabatic
heating can be easily incorporated. Also, in the stress versus
strain curves, some experiments were left out for the sake of
clarity. In the stress versus temperatures graphs in Figs. 9
and 10, all SHPB experiments are shown. Besides the
temperature correction, the dispersion oscillations in these
graphs have been smoothed with appropriate curve fits to
determine the average flow stress at a certain strain.
After the flow stress data has been corrected for the
adiabatic heating they can be used to determine the con-
stants in the constitutive models. The best method to
estimate the constants is by minimising a weighted sum
of squared differences between calculated and measured
values. However, such a method is laborious, since the
minimum has to be found by varying four or five constants.
(3) Therefore, such a method is omitted here. Instead the
constants of the models are determined as suggested by
the authors of the models. This means, that the flow stress
(4)
unconstrained, whereas the others have a constant value.
Thus the material constants related to the unconstrained
variable can be fitted. Using this procedure for each variable
the material constants are found for both models, as listed in
Table 1.
Fig. 9 shows the flow stress versus the instantaneous
temperature for the steel AISI 1045. In these curves the
temperature corrections lead to a slight shift of the markers
to higher temperatures for higher strains. The results of the
SHPB tests on the steel AISI 1045 show a remarkable
increase in flow stress starting at approximately 500 8C after
the expected decrease. Since the maximum temperature of
the furnace is 600 8C the extent of this phenomenon could
not be investigated up to higher temperatures. Probably this
bulge in the flow curve is caused by dynamic strain-ageing.
 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330 327

Fig. 9. Flow stress versus temperature for AISI 1045 at a strain rate of Fig. 10. Flow stress versus temperature for AA 6082-T6 at a strain rate of
7:5
103 s1. The dotted lines represent the models, the markers are the 10:5
103 s1. The dotted lines represent the models, the markers are the
experimental data at equivalent strains of: (&) 0.05; (~) 0.10; (
) 0.15; experimental data at equivalent strains of: (&) 0.05; (~) 0.15; (
) 0.25;
(^) 0.20. (^) 0.30.

If the temperature of the steel is raised into the dynamic tests on AISI 1045 made at a strain rate of 1.6 s1, he found
strain-ageing region, the dislocations generated are quickly an increase in flow stress starting at 300 8C and a maximum
pinned by interstitial nitrogen atoms thus increasing the flow at 400 8C. For a higher strain rate of 40 s1, he noted a shift
stress [17]. The increase in flow stress at higher temperature of these two breakpoints to 350 and 500 8C, respectively. So,
was also found by Meyer-Nolkemper [18]. In compression combining this result with the results in this paper, it seems
that this phenomenon is strain rate dependent and shifts to
Table 1 higher temperatures at higher strain rates.
Constants for the constitutive models of Johnson–Cook and Zerilli– The dotted lines in Fig. 9 are the fits of the constitutive
Armstrong models proposed by Johnson–Cook and Zerilli–Armstrong.
AISI 1045 AA 6082-T6 Clearly, the Johnson–Cook model gives a far too simple
representation of the actual flow stress of the steel according
Johnson–Cook
to the rather pronounced deviations from the measurements.
A (MPa) 553.1 428.5
B (MPa) 600.8 327.7 In this respect the Zerilli–Armstrong model for b.c.c. mate-
C (–) 0.0134 0.00747 rials is preferred since it describes the flow stress with good
n (–) 0.234 1.008 accuracy, especially up to 300 8C.
m (–) 1 1.31 In Fig. 10 the flow curves for aluminium AA 6082 in T6-
TM (K) 1733 855
type temper can be found. The flow curves of this alloy
Zerilli–Armstrong show a steep decrease between 200 and 400 8C. Obviously,
b.c.c./f.c.c. b.c.c. f.c.c. this is partly due to the removal of the T6 temper. Compar-
C0 (MPa) 159.2 0
C1 (MPa) 1533.7 –
ing the measurements to the constitutive models, it is clear
C2 (MPa) – 3551.4 that the Zerilli–Armstrong model for f.c.c. materials is not
C3 (K1) 0.00609 0.00341 suited. This model not only describes the trend of the
C4 (K1) 0.000189 0.000057 thermal softening wrong, but it also overestimates the
C5 (MPa) 742.6 – strain hardening tremendously. For the aluminium alloy
n (–) 0.171 –
the Johnson–Cook model appears to be a much better
328 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
alternative giving a reasonable approximation of the flow
stress.
6. Flow stress in the primary shear zone
The aim of this section is to combine the information on
the strain, strain rate and temperature in the primary shear
zone as found in [1] with the information on the constitutive
behaviour as reported in the previous section. Thus, a well
founded prediction of the flow stress in the primary shear
zone can be given. With respect to the secondary shear zone
it should be noted that the deformation appeared to be so
intense that the strain and strain rate cannot be assessed
quantitatively. It is doubtful, though, whether strain and
strain rate influence the flow stress behaviour in this area,
since the material behaviour is presumably more of a fluid
kind.
6.1. Flow stress relationships
In Table 2 the results of earlier work [1], concerning the
conditions at the primary shear zone are summarised. It
should be noted, that the maximum shear plane temperature
has been measured at the chip side, which means that it not
necessarily holds through the entire primary shear zone
thickness. However, regarding the extremely small thickness
of the primary shear zone, the measured shear plane tem-
perature will hardly differ from the average primary shear
zone temperature due to heat conduction. In this respect it is
worth mentioning that 20–50% of the energy generated at
the primary shear zone conducts even back into the work-
piece [8].
Combining the information of Table 2 with the constitu-
tive equations resulting from Section 5, appropriate flow
stress relationships can be deduced which are valid for the
primary shear zone.
First, the flow stress behaviour of the steel will be dis-
cussed. Fig. 9 shows that in the temperature range of interest
(i.e. up to 290 8C), the constitutive behaviour is well
described by the Zerilli–Armstrong model. That is, both
the temperature as well as the strain dependence are
described adequately. The strain rate dependence is based
on two measurement points only and, moreover, has values
that are three times lower in the SHPB experiments as
compared to those found in the primary shear zone. How-
ever, it is not expected that this results in considerable errors,
since the strain rate sensitivity is found to be relatively small.
Table 2
Conditions at the primary shear zone as measured in Ref. [1]
Condition AISI 1045 AA 6082-T6
Equivalent strain (–) 1–2 1–1.5
Strain rate (s1)
20,000 – 1120 MPa and n ¼ 0:12 in the case of AISI 1045, whereas
Shear plane temperature (8C)
290
190
Using the appropriate constants found in Section 5 for
AISI 1045 (Table 1), Eq. (3) of the Zerilli–Armstrong model
yields:
s ¼ 159:2 þ 1533:7 expð6:09
103 T þ 1:89


104 T ln e_ Þ þ 742:6e0:171 MPa (6)
For the specific range of cutting conditions investigated,
it can be assumed that e_ ¼ 20,000 s1 and T ¼ 563 K
(¼290 8C). Thus, the flow stress in the primary shear zone
can be estimated to be
s ¼ 301:9 þ 742:6e0:171 MPa (7)
The same line of reasoning can be applied to the aluminium
AA 6082-T6. For this alloy the Johnson–Cook model is
preferred above the Zerilli–Armstrong model. However, the
model constants found in Section 5 are optimised in the
temperature range between 20 and 500 8C, resulting in a less
optimal prediction of the flow stress in a temperature range
only up to 190 8C. Optimisation of the fit in this lower
temperature region yields

s ¼ ½526:3e0:0705 ½1 þ 7:47
103 ln e_ ½1  T 1:714  MPa
(8)
For this alloy the shear plane temperature has been found to
be T ¼ 463 K (¼190 8C). The strain rate of the aluminium
has not been determined, therefore it will be assumed to
equal the strain rate measured for the steel. Since, the strain
rate sensitivity is very low for the aluminium, this assump-
tion does not seem to be a critical one. As a result, Eq. (8)
reduces to
s ¼ 492:4e0:0705 MPa (9)
It should be noted that the heating at 190 8C is not likely to
affect the T6-type temper of the workpiece material in the
cutting or SHPB experiments. As mentioned in Section 5,
the T6-type temper is not expected to be altered within 5 min
of heating below 230 8C. Indeed, SHPB experiments made
at room temperature on specimens previously heated up to
200 8C in the SHPB facility showed no change in flow stress
compared to specimen not preheated.
Eqs. (7) and (9) can be regarded to represent the flow
stress of the steel and aluminium in the primary shear zone.
Accordingly, it is interesting to compare these equations to
the ones found in a conventional material test. For the latter,
the data of the Rastegaev compression tests described in
Section 3 will be used, which have been made at low strain
rate and room temperature. The flow stress in the conven-
tional material test will be described using the Ludwik
relation, for which it holds:
s ¼ Cen (10)
In the Rastegaev compression tests, it is found that C ¼
C ¼ 530 MPa and n ¼ 0:042 in the case of AA 6082-T6.
 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
Fig. 11. Comparison of flow stress determined in a conventional material
test at room temperature and under shear plane conditions for steel AISI
1045.
A comparison between the flow stress under shear plane
conditions and in a conventional material test is made in
Fig. 11 for the steel and in Fig. 12 for the aluminium alloy.
These graphs show the flow stress in the relevant range of
strains. It should be noted though, that these strains are much
larger than the achievable strains in the material tests, which
have a maximum of approximately 0.7 in the Rastegaev tests
and of approximately 0.4 in the SHPB tests. This means that
a considerable extrapolation of the measurement data has
been necessary.
For both materials it is found that the flow stress
according to the approach presented in this work is lower
than measured in the conventional material test. Appar-
ently, the thermal softening at the primary shear zone is of
overriding importance compared to the strain rate hard-
ening. Overall, the difference between the conventional
material tests and Eqs. (7) and (9) is found to be less than
10%. This small difference might be found disappointing
at first sight. Nevertheless, it should be considered that
many uncertainties arising from the use of conventional
material tests data are expelled in the approach used in this
work. After all, it might be possible for other cutting
conditions or other workpiece materials, that the thermal
softening and the strain rate hardening do not annihilate
each other as much as in the above examples. Moreover,
Fig. 12. Comparison of flow stress determined in a conventional material
test at room temperature and under shear plane conditions for aluminium
AA 6082-T6.
329
for numerical simulations such as finite-element models, in
which a high accuracy can be achieved, this difference can
still be relevant. Besides, numerical simulations can be
used to study local phenomena in the cutting process, in
which the specific conditions can have a more decisive
influence on the flow stress. Thus more detailed informa-
tion of the constitutive behaviour, as given in the present
approach, can definitely be considered to be important.
The flow stress relationships based on the cutting condi-
tions have been used to evaluate the analytical cutting force
models of Ernst and Merchant [19], Lee and Shaffer [20] and
Dautzenberg et al. [21]. It appears that the use of these flow
stress relationships improves the predictions of the cutting
force models [8]. The model of Lee–Shaffer and Dautzen-
berg et al. give a quite accurate prediction of the main cutting
force using the newly proposed flow stress relationships. In
case of the thrust force, however, the predictions remain
rather disappointing. Thus it seems that the accuracy of the
analytical models is limited not so much by the constitutive
equations used, but by the other simplifications made.
Also interesting is the possibility the constitutive models
offer to determine the temperature in the primary shear
zone. Even with a simple analytical model based on the
deformation energy, a good approximation of the shear
plane temperature can be calculated [8]. These temperature
calculations are very useful in practice, since they do not
necessitate knowledge of the cutting forces.
7. Conclusions
The dependence of the material flow stress upon strain,
strain rate and temperature clearly demonstrates the neces-
sity to perform material tests at strain rates similar to those of
the process investigated. In this respect the SHPB facility at
elevated temperature appears to be an excellent apparatus to
determine the mechanical material behaviour at high strain
rate and elevated temperature. In combination with Raste-
gaev compression tests at low strain rates, the flow stress can
be determined in a wide range of strains, strain rates and
temperatures. Thus, the mechanical behaviour of materials
at a wide range of production conditions can be assessed.
For two proposed constitutive models, the applicability
has been investigated. It is found that the Zerilli–Armstrong
constitutive relation gives a far better description of the AISI
1045 steel, compared to the Johnson–Cook constitutive
relation. However, in case of the aluminium AA 6082-T6
it is preferred to use the Johnson–Cook constitutive relation,
which gives much better results as the f.c.c. Zerilli–Arm-
strong relation.
By means of the information on the cutting conditions and
constitutive behaviour described in another paper [1], the
flow stress relationships in the primary shear zone have been
deduced for steel AISI 1045 and aluminium AA 6082-T6. In
[1] it has been found that the strain, strain rate and tem-
perature show only slight variations for the investigated
330 S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 122 (2002) 322–330
range of cutting conditions. Consequently, the variation in
the flow stress for different cutting conditions is also small.
Furthermore, it is found for both alloys that the average
flow stress at conditions existing in the primary shear zone is
5–10% lower than that found in a conventional material test.
This relatively small difference is due to the fact that strain
rate hardening and thermal softening in the primary shear
zone act in opposite sense on the flow stress. It should be
noted though, that this holds for the average flow stress, so if
the primary shear zone is represented by a shear plane. If
local phenomena of the cutting process are to be studied, the
actual flow stress might differ distinctively to that found in
conventional material tests.
References
[1] S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg, Material behaviour in metal
cutting: strains, strain rates and temperatures in chip formation, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., in press.
[2] W.H. Sillekens, Backward can extrusion and materials behaviour,
Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 1992.
[3] K.A. Hartley, J. Duffy, High strain rate shear testing, in: Metals
Handbook, Vol. 8, 10th Edition, American Society of Metals,
Cleveland, OH, 1990, pp. 215–239.
[4] P.S. Follansbee, High strain rate compression testing, in: Metals
Handbook, Vol. 8, 10th Edition, American Society of Metals,
Cleveland, OH, 1990, pp. 190–207.
[5] P.S. Follansbee, C. Frantz, Wave propagation in the split Hopkinson
pressure bar, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 105 (1983) 61–66.
[6] J.E. Field, S.M. Walley, N.K. Bourne, J.M. Huntley, Experimental
methods at high rates of strain, J. Phys. IV 4 (Suppl. C8) (1994) C-
83–C-822.
[7] H. Kolsky, An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials
at very high rates of loading, in: Proceedings of the Physical Society
B: Atomic and Molecular Physics, Vol. 62, 1949, pp. 676–700.
[8] S.P.F.C. Jaspers, Metal cutting mechanics and material behaviour,
Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 1999.
[9] U.S. Lindholm, L.M. Yeakley, High strain-rate testing: tension and
compression, Exp. Mech. (January 1968) 1–9.
[10] C.E. Frantz, P.S. Follansbee, W.T. Wright, Experimental techniques
with the split Hopkinson pressure bar, in: I. Berman, J.W. Schroeder
(Eds.), High Energy Rate Forming, ASME, New York, 1984, pp. 229–
236.
[11] S.P.F.C. Jaspers, J.H. Dautzenberg, W.P. Vellinga, Mechanical
behaviour of industrial alloys at high strain rate and temperature
using the split Hopkinson pressure bar, in: P.H. Osanna, D.
Prostrednik, N.M. Durakbasa (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth
ISMQC IMEKO Symposium, Metrology for Quality Control in
Production, Wein, 1998, pp. 291–296.
[12] T.F. Oberländer, Ermittlung der Fließkurven und der Anisotropie-
Eigenschaften metallischer Werkstoffe im Rastegaev-Stauchversuch,
Berichte aus dem Institut für Umformtechnik, Universität Stuttgart,
Nr. 109, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
[13] W.H. Cubberly, et al. (Eds.), Metals Handbook, Vol. 2, 10th Edition,
American Society of Metals, Cleveland, OH, 1990, p. 869.
[14] J. Harding, The development of constitutive relationships for
material behaviour at high rates of strain, in: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Mechanical Properties of Materials at
High Rates of Strain, Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 102, Session 5, 1989,
pp. 189–203.
[15] G.J. Johnson, 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,
The Hague, 1983, pp. 541–547.
[16] F.J. Zerilli, R.W. Armstrong, Dislocation-mechanics-based constitu-
tive relations for material dynamics calculations, J. Appl. Phys. 61 (5)
(1987) 1816–1825.
[17] W.C. Leslie, The Physical Metallurgy of Steels, McGraw-Hill,
Tokyo, 1981.
[18] H. Meyer-Nolkemper, Flieskurven Metallischer Werkstoffe, HFF-
Bericht Nr. 4, Hannoversches Forschungsinstitut für Fertigungsfragen
e.V., Germany, 1982.
[19] H. Ernst, M.E. Merchant, Chip formation, friction and high qua-
lity machined surfaces, Trans. Am. Soc. Met. 29 (1941) 299–
335.
[20] E.H. Lee, B.W. Shaffer, The theory of plasticity applied to a problem
of machining, J. Appl. Mech. 18 (4) (1951) 405–413.
[21] J.H. Dautzenberg, P.C. Veenstra, A.C.H. Van der Wolf, The
minimum energy principle for the cutting process in theory and
experiment, Ann. CIRP 30 (1) (1981) 1–4.