materials

Article
Thermo–Mechanical Behavior and Constitutive
Modeling of In Situ TiB2/7050 Al Metal Matrix
Composites Over Wide Temperature and Strain
Rate Ranges
Kunyang Lin 1 , Wenhu Wang 1 , Ruisong Jiang 2, *, Yifeng Xiong 1 and Chenwei Shan 1
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;
linkunyang@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (K.L.); npuwwh@nwpu.edu.cn (W.W.);
xiongyifeng@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (Y.X.); shancw@nwpu.edu.cn (C.S.)
2 School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
* Correspondence: jiangrs@scu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-150-2922-5233




Received: 5 March 2019; Accepted: 9 April 2019; Published: 13 April 2019


Abstract: The thermo–mechanical behavior of in situ TiB2 /7050 Al metal matrix composites is
investigated by quasi-static and Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar compression tests over a wide range of
temperature (20~30 ◦ C) and strain rate (0.001~5000 s−1 ). Johnson–Cook and Khan–Liu constitutive
models determined from curve fitting and constrained optimization are used to predict the flow stress
during deformation. In addition, another Johnson–Cook model calculated from an orthogonal cutting
experiment and finite element simulation is also compared in this study. The prediction capability of
these models is compared in terms of correlation coefficient and average absolute error. Due to the
assumptions in orthogonal cutting theory, the determined Johnson–Cook model from cutting cannot
describe the material deformation behavior accurately. The results also show that the Khan–Liu
model has better performance in characterizing the material’s thermo–mechanical behavior.

Keywords: constitutive model; flow stress; metal matrix composites; TiB2 particle

1. Introduction
Over the past decades, particle reinforced metal matrix composites (PRMMCs) have received
wide attention against conventional material in the structural engineering field due to their excellent
properties, such as high strength-to-weight ratio, high modulus-to-weight ratio and excellent fatigue
resistance [1–4]. Severe processing technologies have been used to fabricate PRMMCs with different
kinds of reinforcement particulates [5–7]. As classified by the forming method of reinforced particles,
the PRMMCs can be classified into two kinds: in-situ and ex-situ PRMMCs. Ex-situ PRMMCs means
that the reinforced particles are added in the matrix in molten or powder form by physical mixing
or other ways. For the in-situ PRMMCs, the reinforced particles are formed in the metallic matrix
by a chemical reaction between different reaction salts under certain conditions. Contributed by the
chemical reaction, in-situ PRMMCs always have cleaner particulate–matrix interfaces, little particulate
size and more uniform particle distribution than ex-situ PRMMCs. Therefore, the in-situ PRMMCs
have shown better mechanical properties. Although great developments have been made in the
processing technology of PRMMCs, a systematic study on the response of PRMMCs over high strain
rate and high temperature is scare. Thus, for the widespread use and numerical simulation technology
of PRMMCs, it is necessary to characterize the stress–strain behavior of PRMMCs over a wide range of
strain rate and temperature.

Materials 2019, 12, 1212; doi:10.3390/ma12081212 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 1212 2 of 15

Constitutive models are mathematical representations describing the stress–strain behavior of

a material when it is subject to loading under different strain rates and temperatures [8]. An ideal
constitutive model should have the capability to precisely describe the strain hardening effect, strain
rate effect and thermal softening effect. The commonly used constitutive equation can be categories
as phenomenological based constitutive model and physical based constitutive model. Physical
based constitutive models are rooted on the micromechanism of the crystal plastic deformation and
predict the mechanical behavior of the material by introducing the concepts of thermal activation
energy and dislocation interaction, as well as dislocation density evolution mechanisms [9]. These
kind of models are always established under physical assumptions with a large number of material
constants. For the PRMMCs, the existence of brittle particles and ductile matrix complicates the
plastic deformation process under quasi-static or dynamic conditions. Four types of strengthening
mechanisms in PRMMCs (Hall–Petch strengthening, Orowan strengthening, coefficient of thermal
expansion mismatch strengthening and elastic modulus mismatch strengthening) and the particle
cluster effect aggravate the process of physical modeling of PRMMCs [10]. Especially, it is difficult to
conduct the numerical simulation by physical-based constitutive model. Therefore, a phenomenological
model is always preferred for engineering applications.
The normally used phenomenological constitutive models are Johnson–Cook (JC) model [11], the
Norton–Hoff law [12,13], Zerilli–Armstrong (ZA) model [14], KHL model [15] and Cowper–Symonds
model [16]. Due to the convenience form with just five material constants, JC model has always been
used to describe the flow stress behavior of different materials and has been widely combined into
many commercial software for numerical simulation. Zhou et al. [17] developed a 2D orthogonal
cutting simulation by JC model to study the formation mechanism of edge defects while machining
SiCp/Al composites. The disadvantage of JC model is that the strain hardening, strain rate hardening as
well as thermal softening effect of a material are multiplied together without considering the coupled
effect which has been shown on many materials. In order to address this issue, many modified JC
models have been proposed. Song et al. [18] modified the power law hardening term in the JC model by
a quadratic function to strain and substituted the thermal term by an exponential function considering
the coupled effects of temperature and strain rate. A good agreement between the model prediction
and the result of the Hopkinson tension bar experiment for the mechanical properties of TiCp/Ti metal
matrix composites in the temperature range of 20 ◦ C to 650 ◦ C and strain rate between 10−3 and
103 s−1 demonstrated the reliability of the modified JC model. Rudra et al. [19] used modified JC and
ZA models to describe the flow stress of SiC/Al5083 composites and found the modified ZA model
exhibited a higher prediction accuracy. Another typical phenomenological model is the KHL model
and the modified KHL model [9,15,20–23]. The KHL model has some coupled effects on the description
of work hardening of a material. From the research of Xu and Huang [24] on the thermomechanical
behavior of tungsten-based composites, they found that the KHL model had a better description
ability than JC model for both quasi-static and dynamic experiment data. This was consistent with the
conclusions by Khan and Liang [15].
In the manufacturing field, specified cutting experiments are also utilized to determine the
material constants in the constitutive model. Tounsi et al. [25] proposed a methodology to identify
the five material constants in the JC model using the basic mechanics of orthogonal cutting process
in conjunction with orthogonal cutting experiments. It is well known that an accurate constitutive
model is a precondition for the simulation of cutting process. However, the constitutive model of a
material usually has different material constants combination form different researches. Umbrello et
al. [26] compared five different sets of material constants in the JC model for AISI 316 L steel from
studies on the finite element simulation of orthogonal cutting. They found that the material constant
in the constitutive model had a sensitive effect on the simulation accuracy. Ducobu et al. [27] collected
twenty sets of JC constitutive model for Ti6Al4V from the literature and found that the material
constants obtained by different authors varied dramatically. Moreover, Daoud et al. [28] found that
the material constants of a JC model, determined through orthogonal cutting tests by cutting tools
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 3 of 15

with different rake angles, had different values, resulting in different simulation results. Thus,
Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
it is
3 of 15
necessary to evaluate the difference of constitutive models determined from an orthogonal cutting
process and
process andconventional
conventionalloading
loadingtest test(quasi
(quasistatic
staticand
anddynamic).
dynamic).On On the
the other
other hand,
hand, although great
although great
developments have been made in the constitutive model of different materials,
developments have been made in the constitutive model of different materials, a systematic research a systematic research
on the
on the constitutive
constitutive model
model of of PRMMCs
PRMMCs under under different
different strain
strain rates
rates and
and temperatures
temperatures is is limited.
limited. This
This
will also
will also hinder
hinder the
the finite
finite element
element simulation
simulation technology
technology of of PRMMCs.
PRMMCs.
In this research, the flow stress behavior
In this research, the flow stress behavior of TiB of TiB /7050 Al composites
2 2/7050 Al composites is studied. There
is studied. are two
There are aims
two
of thisofpaper.
aims The firstThe
this paper. is tofirst
systematically study the thermo–mechanical
is to systematically study the thermo–mechanical properties and deformation
properties and
mechanism of
deformation TiB2 /7050 of
mechanism AlTiBcomposites. The other isThe
2/7050 Al composites. to study
other is thetodescriptive ability of JC
study the descriptive and KL
ability of
models concerning
JC and KL models concerning TiB 2 /7050 Al composites. In addition, the result of the JC model
TiB2/7050 Al composites. In addition, the result of the JC model obtained by an
orthogonal
obtained bycutting experiment
an orthogonal from our
cutting previous research
experiment from our [29] is compared.
previous researchThe [29]
established constitutive
is compared. The
model can be well used for the simulation
established constitutive model can be well used for the study of TiB /7050 Al composites under different
2 simulation study of TiB 2/7050 Al composites processing
technologies.
under different The structure technologies.
processing of this paper isThe organized
structure as below.
of this In Section
paper 2, the procedure
is organized of quasi-static
as below. In Section
andthe
2, a dynamic
procedure compressive experiment
of quasi-static and isapresented.
dynamic The experimental
compressive results areisshown
experiment in Section
presented. The3.
In Section 4, the JC and KL models are established based on the experiment
experimental results are shown in Section 3. In Section 4, the JC and KL models are established based results. The reliabilities of
these
on themodels are evaluated
experiment results. Thein Section 5. Finally,
reliabilities the conclusions
of these models areare given inin
evaluated Section
Section6. 5. Finally, the
conclusions are given in Section 6.
2. Experimental Materials and Procedures
2. Experimental Materials and Procedures
2.1. Materials
The in-situ TiB2 (6 wt%) particle-reinforced 7050 aluminum matrix composites (shortened as
2.1. Materials
TiB2 /7050 Al composites) used in this study are the same as those in a previous work [29]. The material
The in-situ TiB2 (6 wt%) particle-reinforced 7050 aluminum matrix composites (shortened as
was fabricated via the controllable salt-metal reaction technique of K2 TiF6 and KBF4 by the State
TiB2/7050 Al composites) used in this study are the same as those in a previous work [29]. The material
Key Laboratory of Metal Matrix Composites of China [3,30]. Table 1 presents the nominal chemical
was fabricated via the controllable salt-metal reaction technique of K2TiF6 and KBF4 by the State Key
composition of TiB2 /7050 Al composite. Contributed by the in-situ synthesis method, the TiB2 particles
Laboratory of Metal Matrix Composites of China [3,30]. Table 1 presents the nominal chemical
are distributed uniformly in the matrix with a fine size that ranged from 20 to 500 nm [31]. Typical
composition of TiB2/7050 Al composite. Contributed by the in-situ synthesis method, the TiB2
microstructure images of TiB2 /7050 Al composites by SEM are shown in Figure 1.
particles are distributed uniformly in the matrix with a fine size that ranged from 20 to 500 nm [31].
Typical microstructure images of TiB 2/7050 Al composites by SEM are shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. Nominal chemical composition of TiB2 /7050 Al composite.
The cylindrical specimens were turned by a CNC lathe. Each specimen has a size of 4 mm in
length and 5 mmElements TiB2 The specimens
in diameter. Cu Mgpolished Zn
were Zr abrasive
on waterproof Alpaper with fine
grit mesh to reduce end
Content/wt% friction
6 during the
2.2 quasi-static
2.3 and dynamic
6.3 compression
0.11 experiments.
Balance

(a) (b)

50μm 500nm

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Microstructure
Microstructure of
of TiB /7050 Al
TiB22/7050 Al composite:
composite: (a)
(a) SEM
SEM images
images shows
shows the
the distribution
distribution of
of TiB
TiB22
particles;
particles; (b)
(b) Magnified
Magnified TiB
TiB22 particles
particles aggregated
aggregated along
along the
the grain
grain boundaries.
boundaries.

The cylindricalTable
specimens werechemical
1. Nominal turnedcomposition
by a CNC lathe. EachAl
of TiB2/7050 specimen has a size of 4 mm in
composite.
length and 5 mm in diameter. The specimens were polished on waterproof abrasive paper with fine
Elements TiB2 Cu Mg Zn Zr Al
grit mesh to reduce end friction during the quasi-static and dynamic compression experiments.
Content/wt% 6 2.2 2.3 6.3 0.11 Balance
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 4 of 15

Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

2.2. Quasi-Static Uniaxial
Materials 2019, 11, Compression
x FOR PEER REVIEW Experiments 4 of 15

2.2. Quasi-Static
Quasi-static Uniaxial were
experiments Compression Experiments
conducted using a DNS100 electromechanical testing machine
2.2. Quasi-Static Uniaxial Compression Experiments
(as shown Quasi-static experiments
in Figureexperiments were
2) at a strain rateconducted
of 10−3 usingsusing a DNS100
−1 under electromechanical
a temperature testing
rangetesting
of machine
20, machine
100, (as
200 ◦ C.
and(as
Quasi-static were conducted a DNS100 electromechanical
shown in Figure 2) at a strain rate of 10−3−3 s−1−1 under a temperature range of 20, 100, and 200 °C. The
The shown
high temperature
in Figure 2) atexperiments
a strain rate ofwere
10 sperformed with a radiant-heating
under a temperature range of 20, 100,furnace. The
and 200 °C. Theinside
high temperature experiments were performed with a radiant-heating furnace. The inside
temperature was measured
high temperature by an artificial
experiments thermocouple
were performed with aarrangement. Before
radiant-heating each The
furnace. experiment,
inside the
temperature was measured by an artificial thermocouple arrangement. Before each experiment, the
temperature
specimen waswarm
was kept measured
for 5bymin
an artificial
to makethermocouple arrangement.
sure that there was uniform Before each experiment, the
heat.
specimen was kept warm for 5 min to make sure that there was uniform heat.
specimen was kept warm for 5 min to make sure that there was uniform heat.

Figure 2. DNS100electromechanical
electromechanical testing machine.
Figure2.2.DNS100
Figure testing
DNS100 electromechanical testing machine.
machine.
2.3. Dynamic
2.3. Dynamic Compressive
Compressive Experiments
Experiments
2.3. Dynamic Compressive Experiments
Dynamic Dynamic compressive experiments were
compressive were performed
performed using the compression Split Hopkinson
Dynamic compressiveexperiments
experiments were performed using
using thethe compression
compression SplitSplit Hopkinson
Hopkinson
Pressure Bar (SHPB) technique as shown in Figure 3. The dynamic experiments were conducted
Pressure
Pressure Bar (SHPB) technique as shown in Figure 3. The dynamic experiments were conductedunder
Bar (SHPB) technique as shown in Figure 3. The dynamic experiments were conducted
under the temperature range of 20, 100, and 200 °C, and the strain rate range of 1000, 3000, and 5000 −1
the temperature
under range ofrange
the temperature 20, 100, and
of 20, and◦ C,
100,200 200and the the
°C, and strain rate
strain range
rate rangeofof1000,
1000, 3000, and5000
3000, and 5000 s .
s−1−1. The SHPB bars were manufactured by a steel with an elastic modulus of 210 GPa. The bars were
The sSHPB . The bars
SHPBwerebars were manufactured by by
a a steelwith
steel withanan elastic
elastic modulus
modulus ofof
210210
19 mm in diameter. During the experiments, specimens were placed between the incident bar and were
manufactured GPa. The The
GPa. bars were
bars
19 mm19 mm in diameter. During the experiments,specimens
specimenswerewere placed
placed between the incident bar and
theintransmitted
diameter. During
bar. Thethe experiments,
interface between the specimen and the between
two barsthe incident
was bar
lubricated and
by the
the
transmitted transmitted
bar. The bar. The
interface interface
between between
thefrictionthe
specimen specimen and the two bars was lubricated by
molybdenum powder to reduce end andand the twoa bars
guarantee was lubricated
uniform stress stateby molybdenum
during the
molybdenum powder to reduce end friction and guarantee a uniform stress state during the
powder to reduce
experiment. A end friction
shaper made and fromguarantee
copper wasa useduniform stresswave
to reduce stateoscillation
during the experiment.
during each test.ATheshaper
experiment. A shaper made from copper was used to reduce wave oscillation during each test. The
madewavesfrom were
coppermeasured
was usedby atoSDY2107B
reduce waveultrahigh dynamic
oscillation straineach
during indictor.
test.The
Theradiant
wavesheating furnace by
were measured
waves were measured by a SDY2107B ultrahigh dynamic strain indictor. The radiant heating furnace
used in the
a SDY2107B quasi-static
ultrahigh experiment
dynamic strainwas also used
indictor. Thein radiant
the dynamic
heatingcompressive experiment
furnaceexperiment
used in the with a 5-
quasi-static
used in the quasi-static experiment was also used in the dynamic compressive with a 5-
min
experiment holding time.
was time.
also used in the dynamic compressive experiment with a 5-min holding time.
min holding
Cushion equipment
Cushion equipment
Transmitted bar
Transmitted bar
Incident bar Specimen
Incident bar Specimen
Strain gauge
Air chamber
Strain gauge
Air chamber

Strain gauge
Strain gauge
Heating furnace
Heating furnace

Support
Support

Striker bar inside

Striker bar inside

Heating furnace with a specimen

Heating furnace with a specimen

Figure 3. The diagram illustration of SHPB system.

Figure3.3.The
Figure The diagram
diagram illustration
illustrationofof
SHPB system.
SHPB system.
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 5 of 15
Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

3.3.Experiment
ExperimentResults
Results
The experimentalresults
The experimental results of true
of true strainstrain
versusversus truefrom
true stress stress
thefrom
uniaxialtheanduniaxial
dynamic and dynamic
compressive
compressive
experiment over experiment
differentover different
strain strains rate
rate (10 −3 −1 (10 s s ,, 300
, 1000 −3 −1
−1 1000s s ,, 5000
−1−1 300 ss , 5000
−1
−1 ) ands temperature
−1 ) and temperature
(20 ◦ C,
(20
100°C,
◦ C,100200 °C,
◦ C)200 °C) arein
are shown shown
Figurein4.Figure 4. The
The strain rate strain rate and temperature
and temperature have profound have effect
profound
on theeffect
flow
on the flow stress behavior. It can be seen that in the strain
−3 rate
−1 of 10 −3 s−1 under room temperature,
stress behavior. It can be seen that in the strain rate of 10 s under room temperature, the strength
the strength
of TiB of TiB2/7050 Al composites is higher than that of aluminum alloy. This has been
2 /7050 Al composites is higher than that of aluminum alloy. This has been demonstrated that in
demonstrated that in metal
metal matrix composites, thematrix
mismatchcomposites,
of thermal the mismatch
expansion of thermal
coefficient andexpansion
elastic moduluscoefficient and
of matrix
elastic modulus of matrix
and reinforcement resultsand reinforcement
in the geometrically results in the geometrically
dislocations around particlesdislocations around particles
and contributes to work
and contributes
hardening effecttoofwork
metal hardening effect of metal
matrix composites. Thematrix
phenomenoncomposites. The phenomenon
is known is known as
as Orowan strengthening
Orowan
effect. As strengthening
the increase effect. As the increase
of temperature, the flowof temperature,
stress decreases the flow stress decreases
at a specified strain rate at adue
specified
to the
strain
softenrate dueOn
effect. to the
thesoften effect. the
other hand, On flow
the other
stresshand, the flow
increases withstress increases
the larger with
strain ratethefor
larger strain
a specified
rate for a specified
temperature. However,temperature.
under each However,
condition, underthe each
flow condition, the flow
stress increases stress
rapidly withincreases rapidly
the increase of
with the increase of plastic strain under 0.02 and the flow stress tends to reach
plastic strain under 0.02 and the flow stress tends to reach a plateau state with the plastic strain larger a plateau state with
the
thanplastic
0.02. strain
This islarger
due tothan
the0.02. This isofdue
decrease work to the decrease
hardening of work
rate. hardening
The increase of rate.
flowThe increase
stress is dueof to
flow stress is due to strain hardening. However, the degree of dynamic
strain hardening. However, the degree of dynamic recovery increases with higher strain. It seems that recovery increases with
higher
a nearly strain.
balanceIt seems that
state is a nearlywith
achieved balance state is achieved
the increasing plastic with
strain.the increasing plastic strain.

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

800 800
True stres (MPa)
True stres (MPa)

600 600

20℃
400 100℃ 400
20℃
200℃ 100℃
200 200 200℃

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
True strain True strain

(c) 1000 (d) 1000

800 800
True stres (MPa)

True stres (MPa)

600 600

400 20℃ 400 20℃

100℃ 100℃
200℃ 200℃
200 200

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
True strain True strain

Figure 4.
Figure True stress–strain
4. True stress–straincurves
curvesfor TiB
for 2 /7050
TiB composites under different temperature with the strain
2/7050 composites under different temperature with the
rate of (a) 0.001 s −1 , (b) 1000 s−1 , (c) 3000 s−1 , and (d) 5000 s−1 .
strain rate of (a) 0.001 s , (b) 1000 s , (c) 3000 s , and (d) 5000 s−1.
−1 −1 −1

4. Constitutive Modeling
4. Constitutive Modeling
It is well known that the strain rate, temperature, and plastic strain have significant effects on
It is well
the plastic knownof
behavior that the material.
metal strain rate,Intemperature, and the
order to predict plastic
flowstrain
stresshave
and significant
to describeeffects on
the strain
the
rateplastic
effect,behavior of metal
temperature material.
effect, and work In order to predict
hardening effect,the flow stress
different and to describe
constitutive the strain
models have been
rate effect, temperature effect, and work hardening effect, different constitutive models
developed by researchers in different domains [32]. In this section, the JC and KL models are used to have been
developed
describe the byplastic
researchers in different
behavior domains
of TiB2 /7050 [32]. In In
composites. this section,
our previousthe work,
JC andthe
KLmaterial
models constants
are used toin
describe the plastic
the JC model behavior
are obtained of TiB
from 2/7050 composites. In our previous work, the material constants in
basic mechanics of orthogonal cutting. The prediction ability of the JC
the JC model
model are obtained
from orthogonal fromexperiment
cutting basic mechanics of orthogonal
(shorted as JC modelcutting. The prediction
from cutting) ability ofwith
will be compared the
JC model from orthogonal cutting experiment (shorted as JC model from cutting) will be compared
with the result determined by the compressive experiment in this study. The brief procedures of
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 6 of 15

the result determined by the compressive experiment in this study. The brief procedures of parameter
determination are introduced in this section. In order to compare the description capability of different
models, correlation coefficient (R) and average absolute error (∆ave ) are calculated to evaluate the
deviation:
1 X σexp − σmodel
N i i
∆ave = × 100 (1)
N
i=1
σiexp
PN
i=1 (σiexp − σexp )(σimodel − σmodel )
R= q (2)
PN 2 PN 2
i=1 (σexp − σexp ) i=1 (σmodel − σmodel )
i i

where σexp and σmodel are flow stress obtained by experiment and prediction model, respectively. σexp
and σmodel are the mean experimental and model calculated values, respectively.

4.1. Johnson–Cook Constitutive Model

The Johnson–Cook (JC) model [11] is expressed as follows:
.∗
σ = (A + Bεn )(1 + C ln ε )(1 − T∗m ) (3)
.∗ . . .
where σ is the flow stress, ε is equivalent plastic strain, ε = ε/ε0 is the plastic strain rate in which ε
.
is the current plastic strain and ε0 is the reference strain rate (10−3 s−1 ), T∗ = (T − Tr )/(Tm − Tr ) in
which T is the current temperature, Tr is the reference temperature (20 ◦ C), and Tm is melt temperature
(476 ◦ C) of the material, and A, B, c, m, n are all material constants.
The material constants in the JC model can be determined progressively from the experiment
result by the following steps:

(1) By using the experiment result at reference strain rate and temperature, Equation (1) reduces to:

σ = A + Bεn (4)

ln(σ − A) = ln B + n ln ε (5)

The material constant A can be got from the yield stress when plastic strain ε = 0. By the stress
data at different plastic strains, B and n can be determined from the intercept and slope of the
ln(σ-A) versus lnε fitting line respectively.
(2) At the reference temperature, the third bracket in Equation (1) become unity and the Equation (1)
reduces to:
.∗
σ = (A + Bεn )(1 + C ln ε ) (6)
σ .∗
− 1 = C ln ε (7)
(A + Bεn )

By selecting a series of plastic strain at different strain rates, the material constant C can be
determined from the above relationship in Equation (7).
(3) At the reference strain rate, the second bracket in Equation (3) become unity and the Equation (3)
becomes:
σ = (A + Bεn )(1 − T∗m ) (8)
σ
!
ln 1 − = m ln T∗ (9)
(A + Bεn )

By selecting a series of plastic strain at different temperatures, the material constant m can be
determined from the above relationship.
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 7 of 15

Finally, in order to obtain a globally optimal solution, a least-squared-based optimization program

is used for the calculation. The five material constants from the above steps are set as an initial value
in the optimization
Materials program.
2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW The optimized values are listed in Table 2. The comparison between 7 of 15
experimental data and predicted data by the JC model is shown in Figure 5. The correlation coefficient
Finally,
(R) and averagein order to error
absolute obtain a globally
(∆ave ) of the JCoptimal solution,
model are a least-squared-based
91.1% and 4.11%, respectively.optimization
program is used for the calculation. The five material constants from the above steps are set as an
initial value in the optimization
Table 2.program. The optimized
The optimized values are
material constants of JClisted in Table 2. The comparison
model.
between experimental data and predicted data by the JC model is shown in Figure 5. The correlation
A B C m n
coefficient (R) and average absolute error (∆ave) of the JC model are 91.1% and 4.11%, respectively.
594 446.4538 0.0157 1.364 0.4655

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

True stress (MPa)

800
True stress (MPa)

800

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
200 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 200 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200℃ Exp 200℃ Model 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain

(c) 1000 (d) 1000

800 800
True stress (MPa)
True stress (MPa)

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model 20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200 200
200℃ Exp 200℃ Model 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain

Figure 5. Comparison between experiment result and the predicted flow stress by JC model at different
Figure 5. Comparison
strain rate between
of (a) 0.001 s−1 , (b)1000experiment
s−1 , (c) 3000result and(d)
s−1 , and the predicted
5000 s−1 . flow stress by JC model at
different strain rate of (a) 0.001 s , (b)1000 s , (c) 3000 s , and (d) 5000 s .
−1 −1 −1 −1

4.2. Johnson–Cook Constitutive Model Obtained from Cutting Experiment

Table 2. The optimized material constants of JC model.
In our previous study [29], the JC constitutive model of TiB2 /7050 Al composites is calculated from
the basic mechanics of orthogonal A cuttingB and finiteC element
m simulation
n based on reference [25]. A set
of orthogonal cutting experiments594 were
446.4538 0.0157
conducted by a1.364 0.4655During the cutting process, the
CNC lathe.
cutting forces were measured by a Kistler 9257B three-component piezoelectric dynamometer. After
4.2.
eachJohnson–Cook Constitutive
test, the cutting Model
chips were Obtained
collected andfrom Cutting
further Experiment
analyzed for the shear stress, strain, strain rate
and temperature in the shear zone. A more detailed description of orthogonal cutting experiment
In our previous study [29], the JC constitutive model of TiB2/7050 Al composites is calculated
with cutting parameter ranges can be found in the reference [29]. The basic schematic diagram of
from the basic mechanics of orthogonal cutting and finite element simulation based on reference [25].
orthogonal cutting experiment is shown in Figure 6. The physical quantities on the shear plane are
A set of orthogonal cutting experiments were conducted by a CNC lathe. During the cutting process,
determined based on the following formulas:
the cutting forces were measured by a Kistler 9257B three-component piezoelectric dynamometer.
After each test, the cutting chips were collected and√further analyzed for the shear stress, strain, strain
σ = 3|τ| (10)
rate and temperature in the shear zone. A more detailed description of orthogonal cutting experiment
with cutting parameter ranges can be found sin φ in the reference [29]. The basic schematic diagram of
τ= (FY cos φ − FX sin φ) (11)
orthogonal cutting experiment is shownwh inucFigure 6. The physical quantities on the shear plane are
determined based on the following formulas:

 = 3 (10)

sin 
= ( FY cos  − FX sin  ) (11)
wh
 2vs cos 
= (12)
3h cos( −  )

cos   1 cos(2 −  ) 
Materials 2019, 12, 1212
=  + 
8 of 15
(13)
3 cos( −  )sin   2 2 cos  
. 2vs cos γ
 1 cos(2 −ε = √
φ −γ)
)  3h cos(cos   2 +  0  (12)
T = T0 −  +   !  (14)
 2 2 cos  cosγ C p cos(1 − cos
 )sin
(2φ−γ) 3 
ε= √ + (13)
where FX is the measured cutting force (φ − γ) sin φalong
3 coscomponent 2 the 2Xcos γ
direction, FY is the measured cutting
γ Φ is the
force components along the Y "direction, # shear angle,
1 cos(γ 2φis−the
γ) tool rakecos angle, 2τ + τ0 h is the primary
! 
shear zone thickness,T h= uc T −
is0 uncut
2
+chip thickness,
2 cos γ h is the chip thickness,
ρCp cos(φ − γ) sin φ v3s is the cutting speed, (14)α is
the proportion of the main shear zone, σ is the flow stress, ε is the effective strain, ̇ is the effective
where FX is τthe
strain rate, measured
is the cutting
shear stress in force component
the shear plane, τalong the X direction, FY is main
0 is the shear stress in the
the measured
shear zone cutting
inlet
force components along the Y direction, γ is the tool rake angle, Φ is the shear
CD, T is the temperature on the shear plane, T0 is room temperature, ρ is the density of material, and angle, h is the primary
shear zone
Cp is the specific heat. hThe
thickness, uc isother
uncut chip thickness,
parameters have theh is same
the chip thickness,
definition withvsthe is the cuttinginspeed,
JC model α is
Equation
.
the proportion of the main shear zone, σ is the flow stress, ε is the effective
(3). Then, these quantities are applied to determine the material constants in the JC model by the strain, ε is the effective
strain
following τ is the shear
rate,Equation (15) stress
using in the shear
a genetic plane, τ0 is the shear stress in the main shear zone inlet CD,
algorithm:
T is the temperature on the shear plane, T0 is room temperature, ρ is the density of material, and Cp is

the specific heat. The other parameters have
       T − Tr  
the same definition with the m JC model  in Equation (3).
 A + B  n

Then, these
f ( A,quantities ) = applied
B, C , m, nare min  to determine 1 + C    constants
thelnmaterial 1−  in the JC −model
1  by the following (15)
 3        T − T   
Equation (15) using a genetic algorithm:
 0 m r   
. !#"
ε
Bεnmodel are obtained Tr m the FEM simulation
( "  # )
A +JC T −matching

Finally, the material constants
f (A, B, C, m, n) = minof the
√ 1 + C ln . 1− by −1 (15)
with the orthogonal cutting experiment under 3|τ| the sameε0cutting condition.
Tm − Tr The obtained
∞ material
constants are shown in the Table 3.

Chip

E hc
τ
Cutting tool
τ0 B
C
vs
huc αh F
ϕ h
A
Y

D
Workpiece X

Figure 6. The diagram illustration of orthogonal cutting experiment.

Finally, the material

The comparison constants
between theofexperiment
the JC model are and
data obtained by matching
predicted date bythe
theFEM
JC simulation
model from with
an
the orthogonal cutting experiment under the same cutting condition. The obtained material
orthogonal cutting experiment is shown in Figure 7. The correlation coefficient (R) and average constants
are shown
absolute in the
error Table
(∆ave 3. JC model from the cutting experiment are 78.35% and 9.23%, respectively.
) of the
Table 3. The material constant of JC model obtained by orthogonal cutting experiment [29].

A B C m n
630 1127 0.004 2.4 0.972

The comparison between the experiment data and predicted date by the JC model from an
orthogonal cutting experiment is shown in Figure 7. The correlation coefficient (R) and average
absolute error (∆ave ) of the JC model from the cutting experiment are 78.35% and 9.23%, respectively.
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 9 of 15
Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

800 800

True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model 20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
200 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 200 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200℃ Exp 200℃ Model 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain

(c) 1000 (d) 1000

800 800
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model 20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200 200 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model
200℃ Exp 200℃ Model

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain

Comparisonbetween
Figure 7. Comparison
Figure betweenexperiment
experimentresult
resultand
and the
the predicted
predicted flow
flow stress
stress by by JC
JC model
model for for
orthogonal cutting experiment at different strain rate of (a) 0.001 s −1 , (b)1000 s −1 , (c) 3000 s −1 , and (d)
orthogonal different strain rate of (a) 0.001 s , (b)1000 s
−1 −1 −1 , and (d)
−1
5000 s . .
5000 −1

4.3. Khan–Liu Constitutive Model

Table 3. The material constant of JC model obtained by orthogonal cutting experiment [29].
The Khan–Liu (KL) constitutive model [9] is expressed as follows:
A B C m n
.  . 
" 630−C3 1127
.ε Tm − 0.004
Tr m3 2.4
 #
C10.972
.ε Tm − Tr
m2
σ = A + Be ε0 εn0 e ε0 (16)
Tm − T Tm − T
4.3. Khan–Liu Constitutive Model
. .
where ε and ε0 are the current strain rate and reference strain rate. A, B, C3 , m3 , n0 , C1 , m2 are material
The Khan–Liu (KL) constitutive model [9] is expressed as follows:
constants, and the other parameters have the same definition with the JC constitutive model. The steps
  m3
 C1 are
 m2
 0  Tm in−T KL model  0  described
Tm − Tr  briefly below and the details
on the determination of material − C3
constants the
 =  [10]:
A + Be 
r
  e 
n0
 (16)
can be found in reference T −T  m T −T    m 
(1) The material constant A can be determined from the yield stress
A, B,when
C3, m3the
, n0, current strain rate
where . 𝜀̇ and
. 𝜀0̇ are the current strain rate and reference strain rate. C1, m2 are material
ε = ε , current temperature T =
constants, rand the other parameters have T r and plastic strain ε = 0.
the same definition with the JC constitutive model. The
(2) By using the experimental result at
steps on the determination of material constants a reference
in the temperature
KL model areand ε = 0, briefly
described the yield stress
below andσYthe
at
different conditions can be obtained.
details can be found in reference [10]: Equation (16) reduces to:

C1 .εyield stress when the current strain rate 

.
(1) The material constant A can be determined from the
σY = Ae ε0 (17)
=  r , current temperature T = Tr and plastic strain ε = 0.
.
σ
(2) By using the experimental result at a reference ε
temperature and ε = 0, the yield stress σY at
ln Y = C1 . (18)
A ε
different conditions can be obtained. Equation (16) reduces0 to:

C1 .
 0 the slope of ln σY ε
 = Ae
The material constant C1 can be evaluated from
Y A versus . .
ε0
(17)
. .
(3) By using the yield stress σY of the experiment result when the strain rate ε = ε0 , Equation (16)
reduces to:  
ln Y = C1 Tm − Tr m2 (18)
σY = A  0
A (19)
Tm − T
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 10 of 15

σ Tm − Tr
 
ln Y = m2 ln( ) (20)
A Tm − T

σ
 
The material constant m2 can be determined from relationship between ln( AY ) and ln TTmm−T −T
r
using the yield stress at different temperature.
(4) By using the experiment result at reference strain rate and temperature, Equation (16) reduces to:

σ = A + Bεn (21)

ln(σ − A) = ln B + n ln ε (22)

The material constant A can be obtained from the yield stress when plastic strain ε = 0. By the
stress data at different plastic strains, B and n can be determined from the intercept and slope of
the ln(σ−A) versus lnε fitting line, respectively.
.
(5) When strain rate ε = 1, Equation (16) reduces to:

Tm − T m3 n Tm − T m2
"   # 
σ = A+B ε (23)
Tm − Tr Tm − Tr
 
σ Tm − T
   
ln  m2 − A = ln(Bεn0 ) + m3 ln (24)
 
 Tm −T  Tm − Tr
Tm −Tr

Then the material constant m3 can be determined from the above relationship by the stress–strain
data at various temperatures and plastic strains.
(6) When the current temperature T = Tr , Equation (16) reduces to:
. .
−C3 .ε C1 .ε
n0
σ = (A + Be ε0
ε )e ε0
(25)
 σ.
 C1 .ε − A 

.
 e ε0  ε
ln  = −C3 . (26)

 

 Bεn0  ε0

Then the material constant C3 can be determined from the above relationship by the stress–strain
date at different strain rate and plastic strain.

Finally, in order to obtain the globally optimal solution, a least-squared-based optimization

program is used for the calculation. The seven-material constants from the above steps are set as
initial values in the optimization program. The optimized values obtained by the program are listed
in Table 4. The comparison between experimental data and predicted data by KL model is shown in
Figure 8. The correlation coefficient (R) and average absolute error (∆ave ) of KL model are 97.68% and
2.61%, respectively.

Table 4. The optimized material constants of KL model.

A B C1 C3 n0 m2 m3
602.6 235.5599 4.188 × 10−8 −4.2151 × 10−8 0.2211 0.6102 −1.2285
Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

in Table 4. The comparison between experimental data and predicted data by KL model is shown in
Figure 8. The correlation coefficient (R) and average absolute error (∆ave) of KL model are 97.68% and
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 11 of 15
2.61%, respectively.

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

800 800
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model 20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model 200 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model

0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain

(c) 1000 (d) 1000

800 800

True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

600 600

400 400
20℃ Exp 20℃ Model 20℃ Exp 20℃ Model
100℃ Exp 100℃ Model 100℃ Exp 100℃ Model
200 200 200℃ Exp 200℃ Model
200℃ Exp 200℃ Model
Materials 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Plastic strain Plastic strain
For the JC model from cutting, the prediction error is much larger than the other two. The
Figure
prediction 8. Comparison
8.
Figure result of the JCbetween
Comparison modelexperiment
between from result
cutting
experiment in and the predicted
Figure
result and 7the
shows flow stress
a nearly
predicted by
flowlinear KLrelationship
stress model
by KLatmodel
different
between
at
strain rate of (a) 0.001 s−1 , (b)1000 s−1 , (c) 3000 s−1 , and (d) 5000 s−1 .
stressdifferent
and strain
strainwithout
rate of (a)obvious
0.001 s ,yield
−1 (b)1000stages.
s , (c)The
−1 3000relationship
s , and (d) 5000
−1 is not
s . in accordance with the real
−1

physical
5. deformation
Comparison of the process.
Constitutive This is due to the fact that the calculation theory of constitutive model
Models
from orthogonal cutting is Table
based 4. The optimized
on many material constants
assumptions, such as of KL model.
plane strain conditions, sharp cutting
The comparisons of correlation coefficient (R) and
edge, and constant thickness of primary shear zone and so on. In addition, average absolute error (∆theave ) of differentshape
geometrical modelsof
in the prediction Aof experimental
B data C1are shown inCFigure3
9. It n0 be seen
can m2 that the m3KL mode has the
the cutting tool has significant effect on−8 the cutting process, which induces different material
lowest 602.6error
prediction 235.5599
and 4.188correlation
highest × 10 −4.2151 × 10−8 for0.2211 0.6102 −1.2285 data. This is
constants combinations. Although the material coefficient
constants determined fitting the experimental
from the orthogonal cutting
due to the fact
experiment canthat
be the
used KLformodel has prediction
accurate shown good ofperformance
the cutting force in characterizing thermal softening
and chip morphology, of
the result
5. Comparison
materials at a of the
high Constitutive
strain rate. Models
cannot describe the flow stress during material deformation exactly.
The comparisons of correlation coefficient (R) and average absolute error (∆ave) of different
models in the prediction14 of experimental data are shown in ∆ Figure 9. It can be seen that the KL mode
has the lowest prediction error and highest correlation coefficient
ave 100
for fitting the experimental data.
R
This is due to the fact that 12 the KL model has shown good performance in characterizing thermal
softening of materials at10 a high strain rate.
80
The JC model has been widely used in a number of commercial simulation software for
∆ave(%)

predicting the flow stress8behavior of different materials. However, the performance 60

R(%)

of the JC model
for predicting the flow stress 6 behavior of TiB 2/7050 Al composites is worse than the KL model. From

Figure 5, the prediction results of the JC model only agree well with the experiment 40 data under the
4
reference strain and reference temperature conditions. The phenomenon is consistent with the
research by Lin et al. [33]2while testing quasi tensile behavior of alloy steel20 and Song et al. [18] while
testing dynamic tensile behavior of TiCp/Ti composites. They both found that the prediction error of
the JC model becomes larger 0 with 0 far away from reference
JC the testJCstrainfromrate
cutting and temperature
KL
conditions. The result is due to the fact that the JC model multiplied the strain hardening effect, strain
Figure 9.9. Comparison
Figure
rate hardening effect andofof
Comparison correlation
softening
correlationcoefficient
effect (R) and
together
coefficient average
(R)without
and averageabsolute error (∆
considering
absolute the ) of
(∆different
ave coupled
error models
ave) ofeffect among
different
in prediction
them.models
However, of experiment
the coupled
in prediction data.
effect hasdata.
of experiment been demonstrated by many researchers in different materials
[8].
The JC model has been widely used in a number of commercial simulation software for predicting
The comparison of the temperature effect by the JC and KL models at plastic strain of 0.03 for
the flow stress behavior of different materials. However, the performance of the JC model for predicting
the strain of 0.001 s−1 and 5000 s−1 is shown in Figure 10. When the strain rate is 0.001 s−1, the JC model
the flow stress behavior of TiB2 /7050 Al composites is worse than the KL model. From Figure 5, the
predicts the true stress exactly at the reference temperature of 20 °C, but the KL model predicts a
prediction results of the JC model only agree well with the experiment data under the reference strain
higher value at this temperature. At the temperatures of 100 °C and 200 °C, both the JC and KL models
overestimate the true stress at a 0.001 s−1 strain rate. For 5000 s−1 in Figure 7b, it can be seen clearly
that the KL model shows good correlation with the experiment result. The JC model gives a lower
prediction value at 5000 s−1.
physical deformation process. This is due to the fact that the calculation theory of constitutive model
from orthogonal cutting is based on many assumptions, such as plane strain conditions, sharp cutting
edge, and constant thickness of primary shear zone and so on. In addition, the geometrical shape of
the cutting tool has significant effect on the cutting process, which induces different material
constants combinations.
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 Although the material constants determined from the orthogonal cutting 12 of 15
experiment can be used for accurate prediction of the cutting force and chip morphology, the result
cannot describe the flow stress during material deformation exactly.
and reference temperature conditions. The phenomenon is consistent with the research by Lin et al. [33]
while testing quasi tensile behavior of alloy steel and Song et al. [18] while testing dynamic tensile
14 ∆ave 100
behavior of TiCp /Ti composites. They both found that the prediction R error of the JC model becomes
larger with the test strain 12rate and temperature far away from reference conditions. The result is due
to the fact that the JC model multiplied the strain hardening effect, strain80rate hardening effect and
10
softening effect together without considering the coupled effect among them. However, the coupled
effect has been demonstrated 8 ∆ave(%)
by many researchers in different materials [8]. 60

R(%)
For the JC model from cutting, the prediction error is much larger than the other two. The
6 40 relationship between
prediction result of the JC model from cutting in Figure 7 shows a nearly linear
stress and strain without4 obvious yield stages. The relationship is not in accordance with the real
physical deformation process. This is due to the fact that the calculation theory 20 of constitutive model
2
from orthogonal cutting is based on many assumptions, such as plane strain conditions, sharp cutting
edge, and constant thickness 0 of primary shear zone and so on. In addition, 0 the geometrical shape of
JC JC from cutting KL
the cutting tool has significant effect on the cutting process, which induces different material constants
combinations. Although the
Figure 9. Comparison material constants
of correlation coefficientdetermined from absolute
(R) and average the orthogonal
error (∆cutting experiment
ave) of different
can be used in
models forprediction
accurate of prediction
experimentof the
data.cutting force and chip morphology, the result cannot describe
the flow stress during material deformation exactly.
The comparison
comparison of of the
the temperature
temperature effect effect by the JC and KL models at plastic strain of 0.03 for
−1 −1
strain of
the strain of0.001
0.001ss and
−1 and 5000
5000 s sis shown
−1 is shown in Figure
in Figure 10. When
10. When the strain
the strain rate israte s−1, thes−1
is 0.001
0.001 JC, model
the JC
model predicts thestress
true stress exactly ◦
predicts the true exactly at theatreference
the reference temperature
temperature of 20of°C,
20 butC, but
thethe
KLKL model
model predicts
predicts a
a higher value at this temperature. Attemperatures
the temperatures ◦ ◦
higher value at this temperature. At the of 100of°C100andC200 and°C,200
bothC,theboth the KL
JC and JC and
modelsKL
models overestimate
overestimate the truethe trueatstress
stress a 0.001at as−10.001 s−1rate.
strain strainForrate.
5000Fors−1 5000 s−1 in7b,
in Figure Figure
it can7b,beitseen
can be seen
clearly
clearly
that thethat
KL the
modelKL shows
model good
showscorrelation
good correlation
with the with the experiment
experiment result. result.
The JC ThemodelJC model
gives agives
lowera
lower prediction value −1
prediction value at 5000ats 5000
−1. s .

(a) 800 (b) 1000

KL model
JC model KL model
Experiment 900 JC model
700 Experiment
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

800
600
700

500
600

400 500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (℃) Temperature (℃)

Figure 10.
Figure Comparison of
10. Comparison of temperature
temperature effect
effect by
by JC
JC and
and KL
KL model
model at
at plastic
plastic strain
strain 0.03
0.03 for
for different
different
strain rate: (a) 0.001 s−1 , and (b) 5000 s−1 .
strain rate: (a) 0.001 s , and (b) 5000 s .
−1 −1

Figure 11 illustrates the strain effect described by the JC and KL model at a plastic strain of 0.06,
Figure 11 illustrates the strain effect described by the JC and KL model at a plastic strain of 0.06,
for the temperature of 20 ◦ C and 200 ◦ C. As the quasi-static compressive test was conducted only at
for the temperature −3of 20 °C and 200 °C. As the quasi-static compressive test was conducted only at
the strain rate of 10 , the experimental data at a quasi-static rage is limited. It is evident that the
the strain rate of 10−3, the experimental data at a quasi-static rage is limited. It is evident that the
description ability of the strain rate effect by the KL model is better than the JC model.
description ability of the strain rate effect by the KL model is better than the JC model.
coupled effect of strain rate and temperature is considered, which is in agreement with the
experimental result. Clearly, in a quasi-static state, the effect of strain rate on the true stress is
inconspicuous. However, for the strain rate that is larger than 1000 s−1, the growth trend of true stress
is significant with higher strain rate. The strain rate effect under ultra-high strain rate needs to be
demonstrated
Materials 2019, 12,in a future study. Therefore, in the studied conditions, the KL model presents a 13
1212 better
of 15
performance for characterizing the thermo–mechanical behavior of TiB2/7050 Al composites.

(a) 1000 (b) 1000

KL model KL model
JC model JC model
900 Experiment 900 Experiment

True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

800 800

700 700

600 600

500 -4 -3 500 -4 -3
10 10 10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 -110 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 10 10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5
Strain rate (s ) Strain rate (s-1)

Comparisonof
Figure 11. Comparison
Figure ofstrain
strainrate
rateeffect
effect by
by JC
JC and
and KL
KL model
model at
at plastic
plastic strain
strain 0.06
0.06 for
for different
different
temperature: (a)
(a) 20 ◦ C, and (b) 200 ◦ C.
20 °C,
temperature: and (b) 200 °C.

Under different temperatures in Figure 11, the strain rate effect described by the JC model is
6. Conclusions
nearly a linear relationship, which is not consistent with the practice. This is due to the defect of the JC
The thermo–mechanical behavior of TiB2/7050 Al composites is investigated over temperatures
model by describing a linear increase of flow stress with log strain rate. For the KL model, the coupled
ranging from 20 °C to 200 °C and strain rates ranging from 10−3 s−1 to 5000 s−1 in this study. The JC and
effect of strain rate and temperature is considered, which is in agreement with the experimental result.
KL constitutive models are used to predict the flow stress behavior. The JC model obtained from the
Clearly, in a quasi-static state, the effect of strain rate on the true stress is inconspicuous. However, for
orthogonal cutting experiment in our previous research is referenced for comparison. Correlation
the strain rate that is larger than 1000 s−1 , the growth trend of true stress is significant with higher
coefficient and average absolute error are calculated to evaluate the prediction ability of these three
strain rate. The strain rate effect under ultra-high strain rate needs to be demonstrated in a future study.
models. The capabilities of the JC and KL constitutive models in a characterizing temperature effect
Therefore, in the studied conditions, the KL model presents a better performance for characterizing the
and strain effect of TiB2/7050 Al composites are also discussed. The main conclusions are drawn as
thermo–mechanical behavior of TiB2 /7050 Al composites.
follows:
6. Conclusions
(1) The strain rate and temperature have profound effects on the flow stress behavior of TiB2/7050
Al
The composites. As the increase
thermo–mechanical behavior of TiB2 /7050 the
of temperature, flow stress decreases
Al composites at a specified
is investigated strain rate
over temperatures
due from
ranging ◦
to the20soften ◦
C to effect.
200 COn andthe other
strain hand,
rates the flow
ranging fromstress−3 −1
10 increases
s to 5000 with −1
s the larger
in this strain
study. The rate
JC
and KLfor constitutive
a specified temperature.
models are used to predict the flow stress behavior. The JC model obtained from
(2) Due to the cutting
the orthogonal mismatch of thermal
experiment in expansion
our previous coefficient
research and elastic modulus
is referenced of aluminum
for comparison. matrix
Correlation
and TiB
coefficient 2 reinforcement
and average absolute particle, geometrically
error are calculated todislocation
evaluate the occurs around
prediction the particles
ability and
of these three
contributes to the work hardening effect of TiB /7050 Al composites. The
models. The capabilities of the JC and KL constitutive models in a characterizing temperature effect
2 strength of TiB 2 /7050
Al composites
and strain effect of is
TiB 2 /7050
much larger than the aluminum
Al composites matrix. The main conclusions are drawn as
are also discussed.
(3) Compared with the JC constitutive model, the KL constitutive model performs better to predict
follows:
the stress strain behavior of TiB2/7050 Al composites as it has a lower average absolute error
(1) (2.61%)
The strain
andrate and temperature
higher have profound
correlation coefficient effects
(97.68%) on the
with the experiment
flow stress behavior TiB2 /7050the
result. Inofaddition, Al
composites. As the increase of temperature, the flow stress decreases at
KL model has shown better performance in characterizing the temperature effect and strain a specified strain rate due
to thethan
effect softenJC effect.
model.On the other hand, the flow stress increases with the larger strain rate for a
specified temperature.
(4) Although the JC model from an orthogonal experiment can be used to simulate the cutting
(2) process,
Due to the mismatch
it cannot of thermal
describe expansion
the flow stress coefficient
exactly duringand elastic modulus
material of aluminum
deformation. For an matrix and
accurate
TiB reinforcement particle, geometrically dislocation occurs around the particles
constitutive model of a material, the basic tensile or compression test is deemed necessary.
2 and contributes
to the work hardening effect of TiB2 /7050 Al composites. The strength of TiB2 /7050 Al composites
Author Contributions: Investigation, K.L. and Y.X.; Methodology, K.L., W.W. and R.J.; Writing—review and
is much larger than the aluminum matrix.
editing, K.L. and C.S.
(3) Compared with the JC constitutive model, the KL constitutive model performs better to predict
the stress strain behavior of TiB2 /7050 Al composites as it has a lower average absolute error
(2.61%) and higher correlation coefficient (97.68%) with the experiment result. In addition, the KL
model has shown better performance in characterizing the temperature effect and strain effect
than JC model.
(4) Although the JC model from an orthogonal experiment can be used to simulate the cutting
process, it cannot describe the flow stress exactly during material deformation. For an accurate
constitutive model of a material, the basic tensile or compression test is deemed necessary.
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 14 of 15

Author Contributions: Investigation, K.L. and Y.X.; Methodology, K.L., W.W. and R.J.; Writing—review and
editing, K.L. and C.S.
Funding: This work was sponsored by Innovation Foundation for Doctor Dissertation of Northwestern
Polytechnical University (Grant No. CX201829), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51775443), and the 111 Project (Grant No. B13044).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to appreciate Professor Weiguo Guo and his students form
Northwestern Polytechnical University for the technical support on the experiments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ibrahim, I.; Mohamed, F.; Lavernia, E. Particulate reinforced metal matrix composites—A review. J. Mater.
Sci. 1991, 26, 1137–1156. [CrossRef]
2. Dandekar, C.R.; Shin, Y.C. Modeling of machining of composite materials: A review. Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 2012, 57, 102–121. [CrossRef]
3. Geng, J.; Liu, G.; Wang, F.; Hong, T.; Dai, J.; Wang, M.; Chen, D.; Ma, N.; Wang, H. Microstructural correlated
damage mechanisms of the high-Cycle fatigued in-situ TiB2 /Al-Cu-Mg composite. Mater. Des. 2017, 135,
423–438. [CrossRef]
4. Przestacki, D.; Szymanski, P.; Wojciechowski, S. Formation of surface layer in metal matrix composite
A359/20SiCP during laser assisted turning. Compos. Pt. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 91, 370–379. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, T.; Zou, C.; Chen, Z.; Li, M.; Wang, W.; Li, R.; Kang, H. In situ synthesis of TiB2 particulate reinforced
copper matrix composite with a rotating magnetic field. Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 2015, 65, 280–288. [CrossRef]
6. Nemati, N.; Emamy, M.; Penkov, O.V.; Kim, J.; Kim, D.-E. Mechanical and high temperature wear properties of
extruded Al composite reinforced with Al13Fe4 CMA nanoparticles. Mater. Des. 2016, 90, 532–544. [CrossRef]
7. Shen, Y.; Li, X.; Hong, T.; Geng, J.; Wang, H. Effects of TiB2 particles on microstructure and mechanical
properties of an in-situ TiB2 -Al-Cu-Li matrix composite. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 655, 265–268. [CrossRef]
8. Lin, Y.C.; Chen, X.-M. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive descriptions for metals and
alloys in hot working. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1733–1759. [CrossRef]
9. Khan, A.S.; Liu, H. Variable strain rate sensitivity in an aluminum alloy: Response and constitutive modeling.
Int. J. Plast. 2012, 36, 1–14. [CrossRef]
10. Gao, C.; Lu, W.; Chen, L.; Li, X.; Ke, Y. A physically-based plastic constitutive model considering nanoparticle
cluster effect for metal matrix nanocomposites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2015, 641, 172–180. [CrossRef]
11. Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain
rates and high temperatures. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, Hague,
The Netherlands, 19–21 April 1983; pp. 541–547.
12. Hoff, N. Approximate analysis of structures in the presence of moderately large creep deformations. Q. Appl.
Math. 1954, 12, 49–55. [CrossRef]
13. Norton, F.H. The Creep of Steel at High Temperatures; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1929.
14. Zerilli, F.J.; Armstrong, R.W. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics
calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 61, 1816–1825. [CrossRef]
15. Khan, A.S.; Liang, R. Behaviors of three BCC metal over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures:
Experiments and modeling. Int. J. Plast. 1999, 15, 1089–1109. [CrossRef]
16. Pramanik, A.; Zhang, L.C.; Arsecularatne, J.A. An FEM investigation into the behavior of metal matrix
composites: Tool-particle interaction during orthogonal cutting. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2007, 47, 1497–1506.
[CrossRef]
17. Zhou, L.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Z.Y.; Yu, X.L. Finite element and experimental studies of the formation mechanism of
edge defects during machining of SiCp/Al composites. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2014, 84, 9–16. [CrossRef]
18. Song, W.; Ning, J.; Mao, X.; Tang, H. A modified Johnson-Cook model for titanium matrix composites
reinforced with titanium carbide particles at elevated temperatures. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2013, 576, 280–289.
[CrossRef]
19. Rudra, A.; Das, S.; Dasgupta, R. Constitutive Modeling for Hot Deformation Behavior of Al-5083 + SiC
Composite. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2019, 28, 87–99. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 1212 15 of 15

20. Huang, S.; Khan, A.S. Modeling the mechanical behaviour of 1100-0 aluminum at different strain rates by the
bodner-partom model. Int. J. Plast. 1992, 8, 501–517. [CrossRef]
21. Liang, R.; Khan, A.S. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive models for BCC and FCC
metals over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. Int. J. Plast. 1999, 15, 963–980. [CrossRef]
22. Khan, A.S.; Sung Suh, Y.; Kazmi, R. Quasi-static and dynamic loading responses and constitutive modeling
of titanium alloys. Int. J. Plast. 2004, 20, 2233–2248. [CrossRef]
23. Khan, A.S.; Kazmi, R.; Farrokh, B. Multiaxial and non-proportional loading responses, anisotropy and
modeling of Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy over wide ranges of strain rates and temperatures. Int. J. Plast. 2007,
23, 931–950. [CrossRef]
24. Xu, Z.; Huang, F. Thermomechanical behavior and constitutive modeling of tungsten-based composite over
wide temperature and strain rate ranges. Int. J. Plast. 2013, 40, 163–184. [CrossRef]
25. Tounsi, N.; Vincenti, J.; Otho, A.; Elbestawi, M.A. From the basic mechanics of orthogonal metal cutting
toward the identification of the constitutive equation. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2002, 42, 1373–1383. [CrossRef]
26. Umbrello, D.; M’Saoubi, R.; Outeiro, J.C. The influence of Johnson-Cook material constants on finite element
simulation of machining of AISI 316L steel. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2007, 47, 462–470. [CrossRef]
27. Ducobu, F.; Rivière-Lorphèvre, E.; Filippi, E. On the importance of the choice of the parameters of the
Johnson-Cook constitutive model and their influence on the results of a Ti6Al4V orthogonal cutting model.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2017, 122, 143–155. [CrossRef]
28. Daoud, M.; Chatelain, J.F.; Bouzid, A. Effect of rake angle-based Johnson-Cook material constants on the
prediction of residual stresses and temperatures induced in Al2024-T3 machining. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2017, 122,
392–404. [CrossRef]
29. Xiong, Y.; Wang, W.; Jiang, R.; Lin, K.; Shao, M. Mechanisms and FEM Simulation of Chip Formation in
Orthogonal Cutting In-Situ TiB2 /7050Al MMC. Materials 2018, 11, 606. [CrossRef]
30. Geng, J.; Hong, T.; Ma, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, D.; Ma, N.; Wang, H. The solution treatment of in-situ sub-micron
TiB2 /2024 Al composite. Mater. Des. 2016, 98, 186–193. [CrossRef]
31. Tang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Borbély, A.; Ji, G.; Zhong, S.Y.; Schryvers, D.; Ji, V.; Wang, H.W. Quantitative study of
particle size distribution in an in-situ grown Al-TiB2 composite by synchrotron X-ray diffraction and electron
microscopy. Mater. Charact. 2015, 102, 131–136. [CrossRef]
32. El Mehtedi, M.; Musharavati, F.; Spigarelli, S. Modelling of the flow behaviour of wrought aluminium
alloys at elevated temperatures by a new constitutive equation. Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 2014, 54, 869–873.
[CrossRef]
33. Lin, Y.C.; Chen, X.-M.; Liu, G. A modified Johnson-Cook model for tensile behaviors of typical high-strength
alloy steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2010, 527, 6980–6986. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).