Abaqus doesn’t require rate dependence and shows plastic strain without it too. But, as I said, this model is really new in CalculiX so it may still have some bugs and limitations. Might be best to report it here: GitHub · Where software is built
According to the manual :
"In the input deck the Johnson-Cook model is activated by the HARDEN-
ING=JOHNSON COOK parameter on the *PLASTIC card. Underneath this
card the rate-independent terms are defined, i.e. the parameters A, B, n, m, Tm
and T0. If Tm = T0 no temperature dependence is taken into account.
The rate dependence has to be defined using a *RATE DEPENDENT card with the parameter TYPE=JOHNSON COOK, listing underneath the parameters C and ǫ˙0.
The name of a material with Johnson-Cook hardening is not allowed to contain more than 69 characters."
From my point of view that suggets all parameters “has be defined”.
If no rate dependency is required C=0.
If no temperature dependency is required Tm = T0.
Regards
Abaqus requires the transition temperature to be lower than the melting temperature. But temperature dependency can be ignored by specifying a zero value or omitting the m constant. It also doesn’t allow C=0 but, as I said before, rate dependence is optional in Abaqus.
I see, you are right, rate dependency has to be specified, although it can be zero. A bit awkward, but now we know why it didn’t work. Maybe a Calculix warning would be useful here. Thank you, Andrea
And by the way the sentence
may be interpreted as saying that rate dependence has to be defined through the tag *RATE DEPENDENT, not necessarily meaning that it has to be defined anyway, even if not relevant. This is at least my linguistical interpretation.
Andrea
There are a few cases when CalculiX silently fails or skips some calculations due to its limitations. I agree that more warnings should be provided or the documentation should be extended (not necessarily in this case though). Please report it on GitHub if you can and I may mention it next time when I contact Guido Dhondt by e-mail (I collect issues to send him because he rarely takes care of them if we don’t ask him to do that).
Yeah, sometimes it’s more or less a matter of interpretation. But the same happens from time to time with Abaqus docs and testing or asking devs is the only way 
Indeed, but I shall present the case to Guido according to your suggestion with the aim to help the project, to reduce the amount of interpretation and straight matters clearly. A little rephrasing in the manual may do some good. Have a nice day, Andrea
You could be right.
I’m not English speaker and those differences are difficult to me. Could, Shall, Must, Have,…..(Has often sounds strong to me. Kind of mandatory)
I tend to mix those terms which makes me sound rude sometimes. Some people comment to me about that when it wasn’t my intention. (Not always, at least).
Has to or needs to is like must - obligation/necessity. Shall normally (when used in statements) also means a mandatory requirement (something that must be done in the future). This is often used in legal documents including engineering codes/regulations. Only should is not so strict - it’s just a recommendation. Could is a bit different - it indicates a possibility.
But here it’s a different confusion - this sentence may have two meanings - that rate dependence must be defined in general or that it must be defined with *RATE DEPENDENT card. In my opinion, it sounds more like the latter. I would rephrase it to something like:
The rate dependence has to be defined (using a *RATE DEPENDENT card).
or:
The rate dependence (*RATE DEPENDENT) has to be defined.
Precisely. Let’s see what Guido makes of this. Andrea