BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

HYDERABAD CAMPUS
SECOND SEMESTER 2017-2018
MATH F266 – STUDY PROJECT
PROJECT TITLE & PLAN OF WORK

Date: 23-01-2017

1. Title of the project

Identification of Johnson-Cook Material Model parameters for high strain and strain rate

machining using Response Surface Methodology along with inverse cutting operations.

2. Need for the study

FEM is one of the important and efficient research methods in the field of machining. There has

been an immense amount of research on developing the finite element method (FEM) based on

numerical models for the simulation of machining processes. An accurate material constitutive

model is a key issue to develop a realistic finite element model of a machining operation. The

material models play a vital role in predicting chip formation, computing forces, distributions of

strain, strain rate, temperature, and stress in cutting zones. The simulation results of the

machining process are highly dependent on the constitutive model that represents the material

behavior as well as the parameters that constitute the material model. This project is aimed at

providing an inverse approach based on Response Surface Methodology to identify the material

model parameters (Johnson-Cook Material Model).

3. Objectives (Bullet points)

 Learning the basics of R software.

 Implementing Response Surface Methodology using R software.

 Optimizing the JCMM parameters using the experimental conditions generated from

RSM.

4. Literature Review
Introduction:
M Daoud has used an inverse identification method based on orthogonal cutting tests to
determine the Johnson-Cook material parameters. One unique feature is the usage of response
surface methodology (RSM) as a technique to improve the existing inverse method. This
technique has been tested on a 6061T6 high strength aluminium alloy. The parameters acquired
using this technique were found to predict more accurate values of flow stress as compared to
those mentioned in the literature.
Methodology:
The author has used the common Johnson-Cook constitutive model without any modifications in
this technique. The material parameters were acquired using the inverse method. The cutting
forces and chip thickness were the input data, output data were equivalent flow stress, the plastic
equivalent strain, the equivalent strain rate, and the cutting temperature (calculated using Oxley’s
model). A nonlinear regression based on the interior point algorithm was employed to determine
the material parameters:

(A, B, n, C, m) =

The author has used the technique of Response Surface Methodology to include a large number
of cutting conditions during the optimization routine. The cutting experiments are conducted
using central composite design. A central composite design contains an imbedded factorial or
fractional factorial design with the center points that is augmented with a group of ‘star points’
that allow estimation of curvature The CCD models provide a more accurate resolution of non-
linear responses. A central composite design can be used to
1) Effectively calculate first- and second-order terms.
2) Model a response variable with curvature by adding center and axial points to a
previously done factorial design.

In this experiment, three factors are taken into consideration: rake angle (α), cutting speed (V)
and feed rate (f). This is represented graphically in space on a 3D cube by corresponding each
axis the cube to an independent factor and each point in the space to an experiment.
According to the central composite design, 16 experiments have been generated (8 factor points,
6 star points and 2 center points). The upper limit of the factor is coded as +1.68 and the lower
limit -1.68. These values were used to determine the material parameters. Four extra conditions
were left for validation purpose. With the help of RSM and CCD, a second-order model has been
developed with 95% confidence level:

where y is the corresponding response and are the values of the ith and jth machining process

parameters. The terms are the regression coefficients and the represents the

experimental error of the observations. By using the machining parameters, such as rake angle
(α), cutting speed (V) and feed rate (f). The relation between the response surface and the
machining parameters is given by:

Experimental Results:
Second-order models for cutting forces and chip thickness were developed using the
experimental results. A response surface equation that is based on CCD has been developed to
determine the cutting force, thrust force and chip thickness, which is in terms of rake angle,

cutting speed and feed rate. The coefficient of determination for all the experimental observed

values was found to between 94% and 95%. Value of adjusted coefficient of determination

is between 85% and 97%. Second order model was able to predict the cutting forces and chip

thickness in an accurate manner. The extra four machining conditions were used to validate the
model and the predicted results were in good agreement with the observed experimental values
of cutting forces, thrust force and chip thickness. The identification procedure has been
performed with 99 cutting tests.

Verification of the approach:

The developed models allow to define a set of conditions at 0 degree rake angle. These results
will be used in finding the physical quantities such as strain, strain rate, stress and temperature at
 the primary shear zone. The nonlinear regression solution will be employed to acquire the
material constants.
Table 1 compares the constants of 16061-T6 obtained by different methods. The relative average
errors related to the predicted flow stress has been listed out in the table 2. The relative errors
obtained from the Johnson-Cook material parameter sets given in the literature<Mention author
and the kind of test performed> were found to be greater than the errors obtained from RSM
technique. From Table 2, it is observed that the flow stress from the parameters obtained by RSM
technique has been slightly overestimated. This comes from the weakness of Johnson-Cook
parameter model to fully predict the complexity of material behavior. The analytical models used
by the author are based on assumptions and simplifications that may decrease the model’s
accuracy.
Table 1: Al6061-T6 material constants obtained by different methods [8]
Method Set of JC A(MPa) B(MPa) n C m Ref.
Cutting and JC1 275 86 0.39 (*) 1 Guo[12]
Compression
exp.
SHBT JC2 324 114 0.42 0.002 1.34 Lesuer et al.
SHBT JC3 335 85 0.11 0.012 1 Dabboussi,
Nemes[8]
RS JC-RSM 250 79.70 0.499 0.0249 1.499 Daoud et al.[9]

Table 2: Relative errors of the predicted flow stress [8]

Material Cutting conditions Material constants Error(%)
JC1, Guo 17.50
JC2, Lesuer et al. 17.94
Guo JC3, Dabboussi and 17.70
Nemes
JC_RSM, Daoud et al. 16.92
A16061-T6
JC1, Guo 22.26
JC2, Lesuer et al. 20.16
RSM Table JC3, Dabboussi and 19.00
Nemes
JC_RSM, Daoud et al. 18.37

5. Work Plan (Include Detailed Methodology with Time Schedule)

 Work to be done Time Period
Learning

i. to code on R software 4 weeks

ii. The basics of RSM

Writing the code on R software to find the optimal experimental
3-4 weeks
conditions for machining
Writing the code for optimizing the JCMM parameters and comparing
3-4 weeks
the results obtained through RSM with those of other methods

6. References
i. Daoud, M., et al. “Identification of Material Constitutive Law Constants Using
Machining Tests: a Response Surface Methodology Based Approach.” High Performance
and Optimum Design of Structures and Materials, Sept. 2014, doi:10.2495/hpsm140031.
ii. Malakizadi, Amir, et al. “Inverse Identification of Flow Stress in Metal Cutting Process
Using Response Surface Methodology.” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol.
60, 2016, pp. 40–53., doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2015.09.009.
iii. Lesuer, D.R., Kay, G. J., LeBlanc, M. M., Modeling Large-Strain, HighRate Deformation
in Metals, Third Biennial Tri-Laboratory Engineering Conference Modeling and
Simulation, Pleasanton, CA, November 3-5, 1999, pp., 2001.
iv. Guo, Y.b. “An Integral Method to Determine the Mechanical Behavior of Materials in
Metal Cutting.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 142, no. 1, 2003, pp.
72–81., doi:10.1016/s0924-0136(03)00462-x.
v. Dabboussi, W., Nemes, J., Modeling of ductile fracture using the dynamic punch test,
International journal of mechanical sciences, 47, pp. 1282-99, 2005.

7. Expected Knowledge to be gained after completion of the project (Bullet points)

 Coding skills in R language.

 Knowledge of factorial designs (Central Composite Design in specific).

 Technique of Response Surface Methodology.

 Knowledge of multi-parameter optimization.

Signature of the student
Name: TARUN KUMAR S
ID No: 2014B4A4 0543H