Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Experimental determination of Johnson–Cook strength and failure model constants for AA1100H14 aluminum alloy and validation through ballistic impact testing
This study presents the experimental determination of Johnson–Cook (JC) strength and failure model constants for AA1100H14 aluminum alloy and their validation through ballistic impact testing. A series of mechanical testing has been performed using an INSTRON UTM for low and a SHPB under high strain-rate conditions, covering a range of strain rates (10−4 to 190 s−1) and temperatures (25°C to 300°C). The derived JC parameters, capturing alloy's strain hardening, strain-rate sensitivity, and thermal softening behavior, are incorporated in ANSYS/AUTODYN software for simulations. Simulations modeled ballistic impact scenarios with three different nose shapes of projectiles: blunt, conical and ogive, made of 4340 steel impacting AA1100H14 targets under conditions matching experimental testing. The predicted residual velocities and damage mode, such as shear plugging for blunt projectiles and petalling for conical and ogive projectiles, are compared with the outcomes of ballistic tests. The close agreement between simulated and experimental results confirms the accuracy of the experimentally determined JC model parameters, exhibiting their relevance in forecasting the dynamic behavior of AA1100H14 under ballistic impact.
JohnsonGRCookWH. A constitutive modeling and data for metals subjected to large strain rates and high temperatures. Proc 7th Int Symp Ballist1983; 21: 541–547.
2.
LiYQGaoXLHallsVA, et al.A new constitutive model for ballistic Roma Plastilina no. 1 clay. Mech Adv Mater Struct2020; 27: 2027–2034.
3.
SlimaneSASlimaneAGuelailiaA, et al.Hypervelocity impact on honeycomb structure reinforced with bi-layer ceramic/aluminum facesheets used for spacecraft shielding. Mech Adv Mater Struct2022; 29: 4487–4505.
4.
YuYWuYWangB, et al.Review of the penetration resistance performance of lightweight ceramic composite armor under high-speed impact. Mech Adv Mater Struct2024; 32: 2056–2078.
5.
QiCYuCYangS, et al.Numerical investigation on dynamic damage behavior of a novel N-shaped perforated armor plate under ballistic impact. Mech Adv Mater Struct2024; 31: 12069–12082.
6.
SinghDKBanerjeeADattaD. Ballistic resistance of ceramic and metal target plates impacted against different projectile’s nose shape: a numerical investigation. Mech Adv Mater Struct2024; 32: 4065–4077.
7.
YangLChenZDongY, et al.Ballistic performance of composite armor with dual layer piecewise ceramic tiles under sequential impact of two projectiles. Mech Adv Mater Struct2022; 29: 1–14.
8.
SinghNKCadoniESinghaMK, et al.Quasi-static and dynamic tensile behavior of CP800 steel. Mech Adv Mater Struct2014; 21: 531–537.
9.
DengYZhaoXLuM. Research on the impact resistance of aluminum alloy circular corrugated sandwich plates against different nose shape projectiles. Mech Adv Mater Struct2023; 31: 4940–4954.
10.
BørvikTOlovssonLDeyS, et al.Normal and oblique impact of small arms bullets on AA6082-T4 aluminium protective plates. Int J Impact Eng2011; 38: 577–589.
11.
ChiRSerjoueiASridharI, et al.Ballistic impact on bi-layer alumina/aluminium armor: a semi-analytical approach. Int J Impact Eng2013; 52: 37–46.
12.
SenthilKIqbalMA. Prediction of superior target layer configuration of armour steel, mild steel and aluminium 7075-T651 alloy against 7.62 AP projectile. Structures2021; 29: 2106–2119.
13.
SerjoueiAChiRZhangZ, et al.Experimental validation of BLV model on bi-layer ceramic-metal armor. Int J Impact Eng2015; 77: 30–41.
14.
SinghDKBanerjeeADattaD. Numerical investigation of ballistic impact on multilayered ceramic/metal target plate with or without air gap. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl2023; 237: 1416–1428.
15.
HetheringtonJGLemieuxPF. The effect of obliquity on the ballistic performance of two component composite armours. Int J Impact Eng1994; 15: 131–137.
16.
IqbalMAKhanMK. Failure pattern in ceramic metallic target under ballistic impact. Def Technol2024; 40: 173–190.
17.
IslamMRIZhengJQBatraRC. Ballistic performance of ceramic and ceramic-metal composite plates with JH1, JH2 and JHB material models. Int J Impact Eng2020; 137: 103469.
18.
IqbalMAGuptaGGuptaNK. 3D Numerical simulations of ductile targets subjected to oblique impact by sharp nosed projectiles. Int J Solids Struct2010; 47: 224–237.
19.
JohnsonGRCookWH. A computational constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strain, high strain rates and high pressures. Proc 7th Int Symp Ballist1983: 541–547.
20.
BørvikTForrestalMJWarrenTL. Perforation of 5083-H116 aluminum armor plates with ogive-nose rods and 7.62mm APM2 bullets. Exp Mech2010; 50: 969–978.
21.
GunesRHakanMApalakMK, et al.Numerical investigation on normal and oblique ballistic impact behavior of functionally graded plates. Mech Adv Mater Struct2021; 28: 2114–2130.
22.
BørvikTHopperstadOSPedersenKO. Quasi-brittle fracture during structural impact of AA7075-T651 aluminium plates. Int J Impact Eng2010; 37: 537–551.
23.
GursonAL. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: part I—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile Media. J Eng Mater Technol1977; 99: 2–15.
24.
TvergaardVNeedlemanA. Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall1984; 32: 157–169.
25.
WierzbickiTBaoYLeeY-W, et al.Calibration and evaluation of seven fracture models. Int J Mech Sci2005; 47: 719–743.
26.
LouYHuhHLimS, et al.New ductile fracture criterion for prediction of fracture forming limit diagrams of sheet metals. Int J Solids Struct2012; 49: 3605–3615.
27.
PanovV. Modelling of behaviour of metals at high strain rates. PhD Thesis2006; 209.
28.
BanerjeeADharSAcharyyaS, et al.Determination of johnson cook material and failure model constants and numerical modelling of charpy impact test of armour steel. Mater Sci Eng A2015; 640: 200–209.
29.
SharmaPChandelPBhardwajV, et al.Ballistic impact response of high strength aluminium alloy 2014-T652 subjected to rigid and deformable projectiles. Thin-Walled Struct2018; 126: 205–219.
30.
MurugesanMJungDW. Johnson cook material and failure model parameters estimation of AISI-1045 medium carbon steel for metal forming applications. Materials (Basel)2019; 12: 609.
31.
RajputDSinghAKumarS. Evaluation of Johnson-Cook material model parameters of AA6063-T6. Int Res J Eng Technol2020; 7: 1476–1481.
32.
GopinathKNarayanamurthyVKhaderiSN, et al.Determination of parameters for Johnson-cook dynamic constitutive and damage models for E250 structural steel and experimental validations. J Mater Eng Perform2023; 33: 10940–10960.
33.
KhareSKumarKChoudharyS, et al.Material characterization of armor steel and investigation of its ballistic performance. J Mater Eng Perform2023; 32: 6833–6849.
34.
GangwarVAcharyyaSKBanerjeeA. Calibration of tensile tests in drop-weight impact machine and implementation in simulation of Charpy impact tests. Procedia Struct Integr2024; 60: 123–135.
35.
AnandGSardarSSahS, et al.Surface and subsurface characteristics of wire-electrical discharge machined Al-alloy and composite: a fundamental study on the role of machining variables. J Mater Res Technol2025; 36: 9432–9461.
36.
ArunachalamSRDormanSEGBuckley et al.Effect of electrical discharge machining on corrosion and corrosion fatigue behavior of aluminum alloys. Int J Fatigue2018; 111: 44–53.
37.
Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials. Astm E8-042004; i: 1–24.
38.
GowdaDMaheshVMaheshV, et al.Experimentation on dynamic compressive response of bio-inspired helicoidal structured Basalt/Hemp/polyurethane rubber sandwich composites. Mater Today Commun2024; 38: 108343.
39.
BackmanMEGoldsmithW. The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets. Int J Eng Sci1978; 16: 1–99.
40.
Rodríguez-MillánMVaz-RomeroARusinekA, et al.Experimental study on the perforation process of 5754-H111 and 6082-T6 aluminium plates subjected to normal impact by conical, hemispherical and blunt projectiles. Exp Mech2014; 54: 729–742.
41.
TiwariGKhaireNIqbalMA, et al.Ballistic response of double layered 1100-H12 aluminium hemispherical shell structure. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 148: 106619.
42.
DeySBørvikTTengX, et al.On the ballistic resistance of double-layered steel plates: an experimental and numerical investigation. Int J Solids Struct2007; 44: 6701–6723.
43.
AriasARodríguez-MartínezJARusinekA. Numerical simulations of impact behaviour of thin steel plates subjected to cylindrical, conical and hemispherical non-deformable projectiles. Eng Fract Mech2008; 75: 1635–1656.
44.
GuptaNKIqbalMASekhonGS. Effect of projectile nose shape, impact velocity and target thickness on deformation behavior of aluminum plates. Int J Solids Struct2007; 44: 3411–3439.
45.
Rodriguez-MillanMGarcia-GonzalezDRusinekA, et al. Perforation mechanics of 2024 aluminium protective plates subjected to impact by different nose shapes of projectiles. Thin-Walled Struct2018; 123: 1–10.
