IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content
- Quality assurance of absorbed energy in
Modeling and simulation of Charpy impact test of Charpy impact test
C L F Rocha, D A K Fabricio, V M Costa et
maraging steel 300 using Abaqus al.
- Magnetic system for the quality control of
specimens for Charpy impact test
To cite this article: D Madhusudhan et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 330 012013 R V Martin and M A P Castanho
- Ion-nitriding of Maraging steel (250 Grade)
for Aeronautical application
K Shetty, S Kumar and P R Rao
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 157.44.129.112 on 14/01/2020 at 05:55
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
Modeling and simulation of Charpy impact test of maraging
steel 300 using Abaqus
Madhusudhan D, Suresh Chand*, Ganesh S and Saibhargavi U
Dept. of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, RGUKT IIIT Nuzvid, A. P, India
Abstract. This work emphasizes the modeling and simulation of Charpy impact test to evaluate
fracture energy at different pendulum velocities of armor maraging steel 300 using ABAQUS. To
evaluate the fracture energy, V-notch specimen is fractured using the Johnson and Cook Damage
model. The Charpy impact tests are of great importance related to fracture properties of steels. The
objective of this work is to present absorbed energy variation at pendulum velocities of 5 m/sec, 6
m/sec, 7 m/sec and 9 m/sec in addition to stress distribution at v-notch. Finite Element Method of
modeling for three dimensional specimens is used for simulation in commercial software of
ABAQUS.
1. Introduction
The Charpy impact test is the standard test to determine the fracture toughness of materials and the ductile
materials absorb more energy at higher test temperatures while at lower test temperature this energy is
found lower. For the steels, as the temperature lowers, they lose ductility and failure occurs by cleavage
resulting lower absorbed energy. The absorbed energy in the Charpy test is considered as fracture
toughness of the materials. The shifting of the energy absorption curve from lower shelf to upper shelf
indicates transition from ductile to cleavage failure. Norris et al investigated the dynamics of Charpy V-
notch test on uniformly hardened solid [1]. The changes in the flow strength and strain rate are observed to
be main factors for energy absorption. Mathur et al conducted tests on V-notch specimens with impact
loading and after investigation they found that stress and strain are strongly influenced by surface. The
plane strain condition is found in good agreement on the regions close to specimen centre [2]. The impact
loadings are frequently encountered in high speed projectile in defense and automotive applications. This
work presents the finite element modeling and simulation of V-notch Charpy impact test over the range of
the velocities according Johnson and Cook (J-C) model using Abaqus software. Johnson and Cook have
developed an empirical relationship which is used to find the strain rate sensitivity of metallic materials.
Johnson-Cook constitutive model is famous for metals [3]. This model is most widely used to solve the
problems of sudden loading [4-8]. Since, the Johnson-Cook equations are simple and easy to find out the
required constants, hence this model is extremely popular. The V-notch in the Charpy specimen acts as
pre-existing crack which enhances the possibility of the brittle failure of the metals [9]. Small quantity of
alloying elements is added to amour steel. This steel is hardened followed by tempering to produce
tempered martensite in the microstructure. The tempered martensite gives the optimum desired properties
in the steel. Hence, this steel is utilized to manufacture the preventive sheets of tanks used for battle and
also used in armour vehicles. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the reliability of armour 300 steel
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
under the range of impact velocities. The armour steel 603 is investigated by Xu et al in the range of strain
rate and temperature 0.0001 to 4500 per second and 288 K to 873 K respectively. They observed that
thermal softening is playing important role over the strain rates and work hardening [10]. The damage
evolution of armour homogeneous steel was analyzed by Whittington [11].
2. Theory of the model
The specimens for the study of impact behavior were modeled in Abaqus Explicit software. The
dimensions of the specimens are taken according to ASTM E23 standard. Johnson and cook constitutive
models are used to simulate the impact behavior.
Figure 1. Schematic of Charpy impact of specimen [15].
The ductile failure and viscous plastic deformation is studied simultaneously by Johnson – Cook model.
The results of this model are observed close to results produced in analytical method by Hopperstad [12].
This model is best suited for the deformation at higher strain rates. According to Johnson – Cook model,
the equivalent stress is expressed by the following expression
eq P Q p 1 R ln * 1 T *
n m
(1)
Where, εp is build up plastic strain, n, m, P, Q and R are constants and ε* = ε/εo .
2
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
The relationship between strain and stress triaxiality, temperature and strain rate is given below (Johnson-
Cook model).
f S1 S 2
exp( S 3
* ) 1 S 4 ln( *p ) 1 S 5
T *
(2)
Where
ϵf is failure strain, σ* = σm/σeq indicates ratio of stress triaxiality and S1 - S5 denote material dependent
constants and σm indicate average stress. The first term in the equation (2) predicts that the strain decreases
by increasing equivalent stress. The second term shows the influence of strain rate on the ductility of the
material. The last term in the equation represents influence of temperature on the ductility of the material.
In this model, the failure is considered due to strain concentration in the plastic region and the fracture
occurs after reaching to a particular value of the stress. The values of the constants S1-S5 are determined
using tensile tests [12, 16-18].
3. Finite Element mesh
Figure 1 shows the schematic of Charpy Impact Test inculding the specimen and striker.
Figure 2. Abaqus image of Charpy specimen model meshed with hexagonal finite elements.
The span length is maintained 40 mm as per standards of Charpy test. The striker was modeled as discrete
rigid body with mass of 30 kg and the specimen is considered to be deformable. Fine mesh was generated
at the notch region and coarse mesh in the remaining part of specimen. The whole model is divided into
small elements and finite element technique is used for analysis .The 3D model was meshed with
Hexagonal elements. The global sizes of elements were kept at 0.3 and 1 with the curvature control of 0.1.
The shapes of elements were taken hexagonal with free technique in the mesh control. The process of
analysis of 3D stress is selected explicit. In the Element type tab of mesh module (ABAQUS) hourglass
elements were selected. The whole model was meshed with 128667 elements. The mesh density is
3
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
maintained more around the notch region with global size of element of 0.3 and 1 global element size is
used for remaining part of model. The model exhibit 91641 elements in the length of 20 mm around the
notch only. The convergence test is also carried out before selecting the mesh.
Boundary conditions: Two boundary conditions were created which are as follows:
Boundary Condition 1. The striker and specimen were modeled as a line contact. The nodes are free to
move in the x and z-directions but are restricted in the y-direction. (Ux = Uz = URx = URy = URz ≠ 0, Uy =
0).
Boundary Condition 2. The Striker is allowed to move only in the vertical direction (Ux = Uz = URx = URy
= URz = 0, Uy ≠ 0).
4. Simulation conditions
The Crack propagation after impact was simulated using the Johnson – Cook material model and Johnson-
Cook failure model. Element deletion was done using the Johnson – Cook failure model. This simulation
was utilizing Abaqus explicit time integration and the runtime of 2 milli seconds was taken for analysis.
The four impactor velocities of 5, 6, 7, and 9 m/s are taken to fracture the Charpy specimen. The notch
depth is also varied from 2.0 mm to 2.30 mm. The damage constants are used from the literature. The
density (7999.429 Kg/m3), young’s modulus (192 GPa) and poison’s ratio (0.283) are used from ASM
handbook [12].
5. Results and discussions
The variation of absorbed energy with time for impactor velocities 5, 6, 7 and 9 m/s are shown in the
Figure 3. It is observed that the lower shelf of impactor velocity of 6 m/s (red curve) is above the lower
shelf of impactor velocity of 5 m/s (black curve) while the upper shelf of impactor velocity of 6 m/s (red
curve) is below the lower shelf of impactor velocity of 5 m/s (black curve). Similarly, the lower shelf of
impactor velocity of 7 m/s (blue curve) is above the lower shelf of impactor velocity of 6 m/s (red curve).
The same type of shifting of lower shelf and upper shelf is observed for the impactor velocity of 9 m/s.
Therefore, it is observed that by increasing velocities of impactor the lower shelf shift towards the higher
absorbed energy and smaller time of interval while the upper shelf shift to the lower absorbed energy. The
portions (turning region) of the energy versus time plots between the upper and lower is called transition
region. The transition region indicates transition of the ductile to cleavage failure of metal. Due to
transition of failure mode from ductile to cleavage, the absorbed energies are lowered for higher impactor
velocities. Hence, it is clear that the higher impactor velocities promote the quick transition of the failure
mode from ductile to cleavage.
4
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
Figure 3. Absorbed energy vs time plot of Charpy impact test of maraging steel 300.
The dynamic stress concentration factors are calculated by the ratio of maximum stress to nominal stress
and the data is tabulated in table 1. The values of stress, displacement and impact energy with the varying
velocities of maraging steel 300 are shown in the table 3.
Table 1. Dynamic stress concentration factor and velocities.
Velocity (m/s) Dynamic stress concentration factor
5 1.329
6 1.499
7 1.571
9 1.707
Table 2. Parameter of Johnson and Cook constitutive model for maraging steel 300.
Johnson Cook plasticity model, Parameter [13] Johnson Cook failure model, Parameter [14]
A 758.423 MPa D1 -0.09
5
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
B 172.147 MPa D2 0.27
n 0.2258 D3 0.48
C 0.0522 D4 0.014
m 0.7799 D5 3.87
Table 3. Variations of stress, displacement and impact energy with the velocities of maraging steel 300.
Velocities
Max Von Mises stress (MPa) Max Displacement (mm) Impact energy absorbed (kJ)
(m/s)
5 1513 9.6 40.2
6 1556 11.66 39.4
7 1498 13.7 38.7
9 1588 17.77 37.75
Figure 4. The variation of stress with impactor velocities of maraging steel 300 in the Charpy impact test.
(A) 5, (B) 6, (C) 7 and (D) 9 m/s.
6
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
Figure 5. The legends showing the values of stress with varying impactor velocities of maraging steel 300
in the Charpy impact test. (A) 5, (B) 6, (C) 7 and (D) 9 m/s.
Figure 6. The legends showing the values of magnitude of displacement with varying impactor velocities
of maraging steel 300 in the Charpy impact test. (A) 5, (B) 6, (C) 7 and (D) 9 m/s.
The distribution of stress is shown in figure 4. The variation of stress with the impactor velocity of 5 m/s
is presented in figure 4 (A). The stress field is found extended by increasing velocity of impactor to 6 m/s
as shown in the figure 4 (B). The similar extension of stress field is observed for the increased velocities
of 7 m/s and 9 m/s which are revealed in figure 4 (C) and (D). The maximum stress values are shown in
the figure5 (A), (B), (C) and (D) for the impactor velocities of 5, 6, 7 and 9 m/s. The figure 5 represents
that the maximum values of stresses and these values decrease by increasing velocity of the impactor. The
magnitude of displacement in the x-direction at different velocities is presented in the figure 7. The
displacement distribution is found extended as shown in the figure 7 (B) in comparison of figure 7 (A) for
the impactor velocities of 6 and 5 m/s respectively. The similar nature of extension of displacement is
observed in the figure 7 (C) and (D) for the impactor velocities of 7 and 9 m/s. The magnitudes of
displacements are shown in the figure 6 (A), (B), (C) and (D) for the impactor velocities of 5, 6, 7 and 9
m/s. The maximum values of displacements are observed increasing by increasing the impactor velocities
as shown in the figure 6.
7
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
The displacements versus time plots are shown in the figure 8 for the different impactor velocities. The
plot (black curve) of displacement versus time for the 5 m/s is below the displacement curve (red curve)
for the impactor velocity of 6 m/s. While the displacement curve (pink curve) for the impactor velocity of
9 is above the blue curve which is drawn for the impactor speed of 7 m/s. It summarizes from the figure 8
that the displacement versus time curve shifts towards the larger displacements for the higher values of
impactor velocities. And these higher values of the impactor velocities enhance early failures of metal.
The initial part of the displacement vs time curve is parallel to the time axis but later lifts sharply towards
the displacement axis to reach to the maximum value. This parallel portion of the curve represents the
incubation time in which material does not fracture but it becomes ready to start the crack propagation.
The end of displacement vs time plot indicates the completion of the fracture.
Figure 7. The variation of displacement with impactor velocities of maraging steel 300 in the Charpy
impact test. (A) 5, (B) 6, (C) 7 and (D) 9 m/s.
While the portion of the displacement vs time plot from the end of incubation time to the just before the
end point represents the continuation of the fracture of the steel. The incubation period is found smaller
for the higher impactor velocities. The figure 9 represents the plot of energy absorbed versus time for the
varying notch-depth of Charpy impact test. The black, red and blue colored plots are of notch depth 2.0
mm 2.15 mm and 2.30 mm respectively. As the energy versus time plot (black) of 2.0 mm notch depth is
above the plot (red) of 2.15 mm notch depth and plot (red) of 2.15 mm notch depth is above plot (blue) of
8
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
Figure 8. The variation of displacement with time for varying impactor velocities of
maraging steel 300 in the Charpy impact test.
2.30 mm. It indicates that the absorbed energy lowers by increasing notch depth. This lowering in
absorbed energy is possibly due to lowering in state of triaxiality.
The variation of Charpy energy with the displacement of element in x-direction is shown in the figure 10.
The Charpy energy plot vs displacement of impactor velocity of 9 m/s is below of Charpy energy plots of
impactor velocities of 5, 6 and 7 m/s which are shown in the figure 10. Therefore, it is observed that the
Charpy energy vs displacement plots shift towards the lower observed energy and larger displacement for
the higher values of impactor velocities.
9
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
Figure 9. Charpy energy vs time plot of maraging steel 300 for varying
notch-depth.
Figure 10. Absorbed energy vs displacement plot of Charpy impact test of
maraging steel 300 for varying impactor velocities.
10
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
6. Conclusions
1) It is found that absorbed energy increases by increasing impactor velocities in lower shelf region
while it is found lowered in the upper shelf region of energy versus time plot.
2) The absorbed energies are lower in the upper shelf due transition of the failure mode from ductile to
cleavage.
3) The maximum values of displacements are observed increasing by increasing the impactor velocities
as shown in the figure 6.
4) The figure 5 represents that the maximum values of stresses decrease by increasing velocity of
impactor
5) The stress fields are found extended by increasing impactor velocities.
6) The displacement vs time plots rise sharply for higher impactor velocities.
7) The incubation time lowers for the higher velocities as shown in the displacement vs time plot as
shown in the figure 8.
References
[1] Norris D M 1979 Engineering fracture Mechanics. 11 2 261-274.
[2] Mathur K K, Needleman A and Tvergaanl V 1993a Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1 467
[3] Johnson G R and Cook W H 1983 Proc. of the Seventh Int. Symp. on Ballistics Netherlands 541-
547
[4] Johnson G R and Cook W H 1985 Eng. Fract. Mech. 21-1 31–48
[5] Macdougall D A S and Harding J A 1999 J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 47 1157–1185
[6] Meyer Jr. H W and Kleponis D S 2001 Int. J. Impact Eng. 26 509–521
[7] Tham C Y, Tan V B C and Lee H P 2008 Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 304–318
[8] Peirs J, Verleysen P, VanPaepegem W and Degrieck J 2011 Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 406–415
[9] Ghaith F A and Khan F A 2013 Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 4 377–386
[10] Huang Fenglei and XuZejian 2012 Acta Mech. SolidaSin. 25 598–608
[11] Whittington W R, Oppedal A L, Turnage S, Hammi Y, Rhee H, Allison P G, Crane C K and
Horstemeyer M F 2014 Mater. Sci. Eng. A 594 82–88
[12] 2000 Mechanical testing and evaluation Handbook of ASM (ASM International) 8
[13] Ioannis Polyzois 2010 MS graduate thesis department of mechanical and manufacturing
Engineering (University of Monitoba, Canada)
[14] Toby E I and Bestawi E L 2004 International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45
1337-1346.
[15] http.//me.aut.ac.ir/staff/solidmechanics/alizadeh/Impact
[16] Iqbal M, Chakrabarti A, Beniwal S and Gupta N 2010 3D numerical simulations of sharp nosed
11
ICRAMMCE 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 (2018) 012013 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012013
1234567890‘’“”
projectile impact on ductile targets Int. J. Impact Eng. 185-195
[17] Liu Z, Swaddiwudhipong S and Islam M 2012 Perforation of steel and aluminum targets using a
modified Johnson-cook material model Nuclear Eng. and Design 108-115
[18] Borvik T, Langseth M, Hoperstad O S and Malo K A 2002 Perforation of 12 mm thick steel
plates by 20mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses Part I.
experimental study. Int. J. Impact Eng. 27 19-35
12
