© All Rights Reserved

4 visualizações

© All Rights Reserved

- As 3880-1991 Bin Flow Properties of Coal
- API St 6X-2019
- Stress Classes
- Limit Analysis And Limit Equilibrium analysis in Soil mechanics
- Finite Element Analysis of Circular Concrete Filled Tube Connections
- Section 4
- Lee Wagoner IJP 2008.pdf
- Orthodontic Wires -Properties / orthodontic courses by Indian dental academy
- Aspects of Simulating the Dynamic Compaction of a Granular Ceramic
- Lect.03
- Dynamic Compaction Analysis
- Jardine Et All (1986)
- chapter 1 JJ310.ppt
- Elastic It 1
- Yeild Stress
- yan2015.pdf
- Constitutive Model for Full-Range Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Structural Steels With Yield Plateau (Hu, Et Al. 2016)
- Tutorial 03 Supportforma Herradura
- 330764926
- lab manual for UTM

Você está na página 1de 12

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejmsol

evolution in bcc sheet steels

T. Clausmeyer a, b, *, B. Svendsen c, d

a

Institute of Forming Technology and Lightweight Construction, TU Dortmund University, Baroper Strae 303, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany

c

Material Mechanics, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstrae 2, D-52062 Aachen, Germany

d

Microstructure Physics and Alloy Design, Max-Planck-Institut fr Eisenforschung GmbH, Max-Planck Strae 1, D-40237 Dsseldorf, Germany

b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 23 June 2014

Accepted 29 May 2015

Available online 9 June 2015

The purpose of the current work is the investigation and comparison of aspects of the material behavior

predicted by two models for anisotropic, and in particular cross, hardening in bcc sheet steels subject to

non-proportional loading. The rst model is the modied form (Wang et al., 2008) of that due to Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998). In this (modied) Teodosiu-Hu model (THM), cross hardening is assumed to

affect the yield stress and the saturation value of the back stress. The second model is due to Levkovitch

and Svendsen (2007) and Noman et al. (2010). In the Levkovitch-Svendsen model (LSM), cross hardening

is assumed to affect the ow anisotropy. As clearly demonstrated in a number of works applying the THM

(e.g., Boers et al., 2010; Bouvier et al., 2005, 2003; Hiwatashi et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al.,

2010; Wang et al., 2008) and the LSM (e.g., Clausmeyer et al., 2014, 2011b; Noman et al., 2010), both of

these are capable of predicting the effect of cross hardening on the stress-deformation behavior observed

experimentally in sheet steels. As shown in the current work, however, these two models differ

signicantly in other aspects, in particular with respect to the development of the yield stress, the back

stress, and the yield surface. For example, the THM predicts no change in the shape of the yield surface

upon change of loading path, in contrast to the LSM and crystal plasticity modeling of bcc sheet steels

(Peeters et al., 2002). On the other hand, the LSM predicts no hardening stagnation after cross hardening

as observed in experiments, in contrast to the THM. Examples are given.

2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Material modeling

Cross hardening

Yield surface

1. Introduction

Finite-element-based modeling and simulation of the material

and structural behavior of sheet metal parts in various stages of

design and manufacture is today standard. In general, one aim of

this is to benet from the predictive capability of such simulations

(Zienkiewicz et al., 2010). In this regard, Wagoner et al. (2013)

emphasize the importance of improving material models to account for the loading path-dependent behavior of metals during

sheet metal forming. When subject to complex non-proportional

loading processes such as those found in many technological applications, a number of metals exhibit hardening behavior which is

more complex than isotropic and kinematic hardening alone.

Construction, TU Dortmund University, Baroper Strae 303, D-44227 Dortmund,

Germany. Tel.: 49 231 755 8429; fax: 49 231 755 2489.

E-mail address: till.clausmeyer@iul.tu-dortmund.de (T. Clausmeyer).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2015.05.016

0997-7538/ 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Observed effects in this regard include cross hardening and hardening stagnation during orthogonal loading (e.g., tension to shear).

Cross hardening is observed to occur for example in a number of

steels such as austenitic fcc tube steels (e.g., SUS304: Ishikawa,

1997; Wu, 2003), ferritic bcc tube steels (e.g., S355: Kowalewski

and Sliwowski, 1997), multi-phase tube steels (e.g., X100:

Shinohara et al., 2010), or ferritic bcc sheet steels (e.g., LH800:

Ghosh and Backofen, 1973; Noman et al., 2010). Systematic studies

(Bouvier et al., 2005, 2006a, 2003) of interstitial free (IF), highstrength low-alloyed (HSLA), transformation-induced plasticity

(TRIP), and dual-phase (DP), sheet steels, found signicant kinematic hardening, hardening stagnation, as well as cross hardening,

the latter especially in IF sheet steels. In these investigations, the

material was subjected to monotonic shear, reverse shear, as well as

orthogonal tension-shear, loading. Clausmeyer et al. (2012); van

Riel and van den Boogaard (2007); Wang et al. (2008) have documented these effects in the IF sheet steel DC06 with the help of

monotonic tension, reverse shear, and orthogonal tension-shear,

tests, all under plane-strain conditions. In particular, cross hardening occurs during discontinuous (e.g., tension-shear: Bouvier

et al., 2005, 2006a, 2003) and continuous (e.g., tension-shear:

Noman et al., 2010; van Riel and van den Boogaard, 2007; Wang

et al., 2008) orthogonal tension-shear tests. Similar results were

obtained by Verma et al. (2011) in a series of tension and

compression tests on ultra-low carbon IF sheet steel in which the

tension or compression direction changed from rolling to transverse. In these tests, cross hardening was correlated with a change

of the tension axis. As attested to in particular by the continuous

orthogonal tension-shear test results (Noman et al., 2010; van Riel

and van den Boogaard, 2007; Wang et al., 2008), cross hardening is

transient and strongly depends on the rate of transition. Its

occurrence and strength are strongly inuenced by the particular

path taken in stress space in changing from one loading direction to

another.

Generally speaking, anisotropic hardening in sheet steels may

be inuenced by the grain and dislocation (micro)structures. In

particular, the former is related to the grain orientation distribution

(texture). The inuence of texture on the hardening behavior of IF

sheet steel was investigated by Bacroix and Hu (1995) and

Nesterova et al. (2001a,b) using two-stage loading tests (e.g., shear

to reverse shear, tension to shear). In particular, Bacroix and Hu

(1995) concluded that, at least up to moderate strains, the inuence of texture evolution on hardening in the specimens investigated was small compared to that of dislocation structure

evolution. This conclusion was substantiated by later crystal plasticity modeling (e.g., Peeters et al., 2002). Related to this are more

recent EBSD investigations on DC06 (Boers et al., 2010; Clausmeyer

et al., 2012), which imply that the rolling-induced texture in this

steel does not change considerably for strains lower than 35% in

simple tension. This may be the case in other ferritic steels (e.g.,

LH800: Clausmeyer et al., 2012; Noman et al., 2010) as well. These

results imply that it is sufcient to account for the effect of the

initial (e.g., rolling) texture on the anisotropic hardening and ow

behavior in the material model.

Although texture evolution in this sense may be secondary,

grain orientation (i.e., glide-system orientation) in relation to

loading direction certainly inuences dislocation structure development. The development of certain characteristic dislocation

structures related to cross hardening have been observed during

quasi-static loading of mild steels such as DC06 at room temperature (e.g., Rauch and Schmitt, 1989; Rauch and Thuillier, 1993;

Thuillier and Rauch, 1994). These include for example dense

dislocation wall structures. The morphology and orientation of such

walls depends for example on grain orientation, the type of loading,

and the loading direction in relation to the grain orientation (e.g.,

Clausmeyer et al., 2012; Nesterova et al., 2001a,b; Thuillier and

Rauch, 1994). A change in loading direction or type activates new

glide systems for which existing walls act initially as obstacles,

resulting in cross hardening.

One of the rst phenomenological models accounting in

particular for cross hardening is the Teodosiu-Hu model (THM: e.g.,

Hu et al., 1992; Teodosiu and Hu, 1995, 1998). In the THM, cross

hardening is assumed to affect the yield stress sY in the yield

function fY. The THM has been employed in a number of works

(e.g., Bouvier et al., 2005, 2003; Haddadi et al., 2006; Hiwatashi

et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al., 2010) to model anisotropic ow and hardening behavior in sheet metals. This has

motivated similar work on models for anisotropic hardening in the

continuum (Barlat et al., 2013; Butuc et al., 2011; Carvalho Resende

et al., 2013; Clausmeyer et al., 2014; Pietryga et al., 2012; Shi and

Mosler, 2012; Tarigopula et al., 2008, 2009) and crystal plastic

(Peeters et al., 2002; Viatkina et al., 2007) contexts. More recently,

the THM has been modied, extended and generalized to deal with

121

modied version of the THM is that considered in the current work.

A second model for cross hardening was introduced by

Levkovitch and Svendsen (2007) and Noman et al. (2010). This

model has been referred to by Shi and Mosler (2012) as the LevkovitcheSvendsen model (LSM), who discussed related models for

distortional hardening and the strength differential effect in magnesium alloys. In the LSM, cross hardening is assumed to inuence

the ow anisotropy through the corresponding tensor A determining fY. Common to both the THM and the LSM is the constitutive form

fY

p

M X$A M X sY

(1)

M is the Mandel stress (e.g., Mandel, 1971, 1974), and X is the back

stress. To be more precise, in the THM, sY is assumed to depend on

both isotropic and cross hardening, and A is assumed constant. On

the other hand, in the LSM, cross hardening is assumed to inuence

the evolution of A , and sY is assumed to depend only on isotropic

hardening. As shown in the previous works discussed above, both

models are capable of quantitatively predicting experimentally

observed cross hardening. The question arises as to how the THM

and the LSM compare in other respects. To this end, in the current

work, a direct comparison of these two has been carried out. To this

end, both models have been identied from the same data set for

the ferritic sheet steel DC06 (for comparison, the ferritic-pearlitic

steel LH800 is also briey discussed). As the current comparison

of the THM and the LSM shows, the two models are not equivalent

in other respects. Among these, the prediction of yield surface

evolution is perhaps the most prominent.

The current work begins with a brief review of the formulation

of the two models in Section 2. This is carried out within the

framework of the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation

gradient and the assumption of small elastic strain relevant to

metal inelasticity. Again, for a meaningful comparison, the two

models are identied in Section 3 using the same test data sets for

the ferritic bcc sheet steel DC06. The identied THM and LSM are

then compared on the basis of their respective predictions for yield

and back stress evolution in Section 4 as well as yield surface

development in Section 5. The latter results are also compared

qualitatively with analogous results from the crystal plasticity

model of Peeters et al. (2002) for IF steel. Lastly, these two models

are compared in the context of their application to the modeling of

sheet metal forming during non-proportional loading in Section 6.

The work ends with a summary and discussion in Section 7.

2. Model formulation

2.1. Notation

In this work, Euclidean vectors (i.e., rst-order Euclidean tensors) are represented by lower-case bold italic characters a,b,; in

particular, let i1,i2,i3 represent the Cartesian basis vectors. Likewise,

upper-case bold italic characters A,B, represent second-order

Euclidean tensors; in particular, let I represent the second-order

identity tensor. Such tensors are dened in this work as linear

mappings between (three-dimensional) Euclidean vectors. In other

words, Ab is a vector for all A and all b. Let I,A and dev A A(I,A)

I/3 represent the trace and deviatoric part, respectively, of any A.

Likewise, let sym A:(A AT)/2 and skw A:(A AT)/2 represent

the symmetric and skew-symmetric parts, respectively, of any A.

Fourth-order tensors are represented by upper-case calligraphic

characters A ; B ; , in this work. Interpreting these as linear

mappings between second order tensors, A B represents a second

122

order tensor for all A and all B. The dyadic product C A5B of

any A and any B is a fourth-order tensor with Cartesian components

Cijkl AijBkl. The scalar product of two tensors A and B of any order

is represented by A,B AijBij via the summation convention.

The (Euclidean) norm of any A is dened by jAj:(A,A)1/2.

2.2. Relations common to both models

The formulation of both models for cross hardening and yield

surface evolution under consideration in this work is carried out in

the framework of the standard multiplicative decomposition

F FEFP

(2)

inelastic FP parts, respectively. Note that such a decomposition

arises naturally in the context of the modeling of FP as a change of

local reference conguration (Svendsen, 2001). More precisely, the

current formulation is based on evolution relations derived from

(2) and the right polar decomposition FE REUE of FE in the context

of small elastic strain as follows. To begin, note that the time derivative of F E FF 1

P RE U E results in the relation

R_ E U E RE U_ E RE U E LP LRE U E

(3)

part LP : F_ P F 1

.

Multiplying

(3)

on

the

right by U 1

P

E and on the left

by RTE R1

,

we

obtain

E

1

T

RTE R_ E U_ E U 1

E U E LP U E RE LRE :

(4)

as gauged or measured by (the magnitude of) the right logarithmic

stretch ln UE, i.e., jln UEj1. In this case,

2

U 1

E Iln U E O ln U E ;

(5)

and so

U E LP U 1

E LP Ojln U E j;

_

U_ E U 1

E ln U E Ojln U E j;

(6)

on all jAjm for m n. Substituting (6) into (4), rearrangement yields

_

RTE R_ E ln U E LP RTE LRE Ojln U E j:

(7)

_

Lastly, since RTE RE I implies RTE RE 2 sym RTE R_ E 0, the

symmetric and skew-symmetric parts of (7) then imply the (smallelastic-strain-based) evolution relations

_

ln U E RTE DRE DP ;

(8a)

R_ E WRE RE W P ;

(8b)

to O(jln UEj) for ln UE and the elastic rotation RE, respectively. Here,

D sym L is the continuum rate of deformation, DP sym LP its

inelastic counterpart, W skw L the continuum spin, and

WP skw LP the plastic spin. In particular, the usual associated ow

rule

DP a_ P

vfY

vM

from (1), with aP the equivalent inelastic deformation. Since various

investigations (e.g., Bacroix and Hu, 1995; Boers et al., 2010) suggest

that the inuence of grain orientation evolution on hardening in

ferritic bcc sheet steels such as DC06 is not signicant in the range

of deformation relevant to the forming processes considered in this

work, WP is neglected here for simplicity. Consequently, the evolution relation (8b) for RE depends only on the continuum spin W,

and as such is purely kinematic. In addition, attention is restricted

here to forming below the forming limit, and damage or any other

process resulting in inelastic volume changes are assumed negligible. In this case, plastic incompressibility I,DP 0 pertains, and

DP dev DP is purely deviatoric as usual.

Since the elastic range and elastic strain are small, the effect of

any elastic anisotropy on the material behavior is assumed negligible here. In this case, the isotropic form

M kI$E E I 2 m dev E E

(10)

holds for the Mandel stress to lowest order in the small elastic

strain measure EE:ln UE from (5), with k the bulk modulus, and m

the shear modulus. Likewise in the context of small elastic strain,

K RE MRTE

(11)

note that the trace I,K I,M is independent of RE. Lastly, both

models are based on common saturation-based forms

r_ cr sr ra_ P ;

(12a)

X_ cx sx N P Xa_ P ;

(12b)

Here, r represent the contribution of isotropic hardening to sY. In

addition, cr and cx represent the respective growth rates, sr and sx

are the respective saturation values, and NP:DP/jDPj is the direction of inelastic ow.

Since the THM (e.g., Hu et al., 1992; Teodosiu and Hu, 1995, 1998;

Wang et al., 2008) and the original version (e.g. Levkovitch and

Svendsen, 2007; Noman et al., 2010) of the LSM1 are limited to

rate-independence, the current model comparison is carried out on

this basis. To this end, attention is restricted in this work to quasistatic loading rates at which the rate-dependent behavior of the

steels in question is small. As is well-known, the rate-independent

formulation is based in particular on the concepts of an elastic

range, yield surface and yield conditions, resulting in the so-called

KaresheKuhneTucker conditions: f_ Y 0, fY 0, fY a_ P 0. In this

context, aP is determined as usual by the consistency condition:

f_ Y 0 when fY 0. For the case of rate-dependence, of course, the

yield condition generalizes to an activation condition, and the

consistency condition no longer applies.

Besides the common ones just discussed, the THM (Teodosiu

and Hu, 1995, 1998; Wang et al., 2008) is based in particular on

the constitutive relations

sY sY0 r f jS j;

(13a)

(9)

1

A A 0;

(13b)

appearing in (1). In (13b), A 0 is the initial value2 of A determined

by the initial grain structure (i.e., rolling texture). As discussed in

the introduction, for the current case of ferritic bcc sheet metals,

the grain (orientation) structure is not observed to vary signicantly in the loading range of interest, resulting in (13b). In (13a),

sY0 is the initial (i.e., aP 0) yield stress, and f is a material constant

determining the fraction of oriented dislocation structures

contributing to isotropic hardening. In addition, S is a (symmetric

traceless) fourth-order structure tensor, the magnitude of which

represents the effective strength of (persistent) oriented dislocation structures and their effect on the level of yield. The evolution of

S as a standard internal variable3 is modeled by the relation

S_ cd hp ss N

hp hx S d a_ P cl jS l =ss jnl S l a_ P

(14)

the strength of the dislocation structures (e.g., walls) associated

with the currently active slip systems, and S l S S d is that

associated with the latent (i.e., currently inactive) slip systems.

Note that cd (hp hx) determines the effective saturation rate, and

hp ss/(hp hx) the effective saturation magnitude, associated with

S d . By analogy, cl jS l =ss jnl is the effective saturation rate. These

quantities contain the material constants cd, cl, ss, and nl. hp represents a further material function depending on S d , the direction

NP, a further material constant np, and the symmetric traceless

second-order tensor-valued internal variable P with constitutive

relation

P_ cp N P Pa_ P

(15)

hardening (Teodosiu and Hu, 1998; Wang et al., 2008). cp is the

corresponding saturation rate. The effect of hardening stagnation is

accounted for via material function hx depending in particular on

NP and X (Teodosiu and Hu, 1998; Wang et al., 2008). Lastly, the

saturation magnitude sx of X is given by the constitutive relation

q

sx x0 1 f jS d j2 mjS l j2

(16)

Here, x0 represents the initial (i.e., jS d j 0 jS l j) value of sx. The

parameter m determines the inuence of latent as opposed to

current dislocation structures on the saturation magnitude sx of the

back stress X.

This model contains 21 material parameters. These include the

elastic bulk k and shear m moduli, the initial yield stress sY0, the six

parameters F, G, H, L, M, and N determining the initial ow

anisotropy tensor A 0, the ve saturation rates cr, cx, cd, cl and cp, the

three saturation values sr, x0, and ss, the two exponents nl and np, as

well as f and m.

2

A 0 is often assumed to be of the type due to Hill (1948). Other choices (such as

in Cazacu and Barlat, 2004; Shi and Mosler, 2012) for the representation of the

initial ow anisotropy in non-bcc metals can be combined with the presented

approaches for anisotropic hardening.

3

In the original form of the THM due to Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998), S is not

modeled as such a variable. To this end, and for the purpose of modeling continuous

loading path changes, the model was reformulated by Wang et al. (2008), resulting

in (14) for S_ .

123

As just discussed, the effect of cross hardening on the material

behavior is accounted for in the THM and (13) by the dependence of

the yield stress sY on S . Instead of this, the effect of cross hardening

on the material behavior is accounted for in the LSM by a dependence of the ow anisotropy tensor A on a structure tensor H

formally analogous to S . Instead of (13), then, the LSM for cross

hardening is based on the constitutive relations

sY sY0 r;

A A

(17a)

H;

(17b)

Since the effect of cross hardening on the material behavior is then

accounted for in the modeling (17b) of A here, that (17a) of sY

accounts only for dislocation processes resulting in isotropic

hardening. As discussed in detail elsewhere (Levkovitch and

Svendsen, 2007; Noman et al., 2010), the form

H_ cd hd N

(18)

in the LSM is motivated by that (14) for S in the THM. Here, I dev

I 13 I5I is the fourth-order deviatoric identity. Further,

H d N P $H N P is the part of H parallel, and H l H H d that

perpendicular, to N P . The idea here is that currently active dislocation structures oriented parallel to NP persist after an orthogonal

loading-path in inactive form (e.g., as cell-block boundaries). This

strengthens existing obstacles to glide-system activation in the

new loading direction.

Comparison of (13) and (17) shows clearly the qualitative difference between the two models in regards to the assumed effect of

cross hardening on the material behavior. In addition, note that

isotropic and kinematic hardening are coupled to cross hardening

in the THM, but basically decoupled from each other in the LSM. As

it turns out, the LSM is an example of the class of models distinguished by a yield function of the general form introduced in Baltov

and Sawczuk (1965). As will be shown in detail in what follows, one

result of this is that cross hardening results in a change in shape of

the yield surface in the LSM. This is completely analogous to the

association of isotropic hardening with a change in size, and kinematic hardening with a change in center, of this surface. Before

delving into this, however, we rst summarize briey the identication of the above models upon which their subsequent comparison is based.

3. Parameter identication

For completeness, the results of the model parameter identication are briey summarized and discussed in this section. For this

study, DC06 steel sheets (DIN EN 10130) of 1.0 mm thickness supplied by ThyssenKrupp Steel were tested in uniaxial tension, planestrain tension, monotonic shear, shear to reverse-shear, and planestrain tension to shear. The advantage of shear tests is that larger

strains can be achieved with common testing facilities (Bouvier

et al., 2006b; Klepaczko et al., 1999; Miyauchi, 1987) than generally possible in uniaxial tension tests. The steel DC06 is often used

in auto-body parts4 due to its high ductility and formability. The

mechanical tests involving shear and plane-strain deformation

4

For example,

Tiefziehstaehle.pdf.

see

http://incar.thyssenkrupp.com/download/Broschueren/

124

investigated in more detail in the next section, another difference

between the two models regards the yield surface evolution predicted by each, to which we turn after a more detailed analysis of

the contribution of isotropic as well as kinematic hardening.

were carried out using the biaxial testing facility at the Faculty of

Engineering Technology, University Twente, The Netherlands. Details of the mechanical testing procedure are given elsewhere (e.g.,

Clausmeyer et al., 2011b; Noman et al., 2010; van Riel and van den

Boogaard, 2007). The region of the specimen subject to deformation is initially 45.0 mm wide and 3.0 mm high. The strain eld is

homogeneous in the range of deformation investigated. As an unambiguous and transparent measure of the state of deformation,

the deformation gradient F is used here; let Fij ii,Fij represent its

Cartesian components. For the tests, the tension/rolling direction is

oriented in the i2 direction, and the shear/transverse direction in

the i1 direction. Consequently, in the case of plane-strain testing,

F22 is the deformation component for tension, and F12 the deformation component for shear. Given plastic incompressibility and

small elastic strain, the Cauchy stress T K/detF is wellapproximated by the Kirchhoff stress K; let Kij ii,Kij represent

its Cartesian components in what follows.

Among the material parameters, note that k, m, sY0, F, G, H, L, M,

N, cr, sr, cx, and x0 are common to both models. The Hill parameters

F, G, H, L, M, N are computed from average r-values (see Clausmeyer

et al., 2011b). The r-values are obtained from uniaxial tension tests

performed at 0 , 45 and 90 with respect to the rolling direction. In

particular, for DC06 at room temperature, we have k151 GPa,

m69.6 GPa, sY0 132 MPa, F 0.252, G 0.302, H 0.698,

N 1.36, L 1.5, and M 1.5. The remaining parameters values

identied for all models are shown in Table 1. The hardening parameters cr, sr, cx, and x0 are identied from uniaxial tension, planestrain tension, shear-reverse shear, and plane-strain tension to

simple shear, tests (Haddadi et al., 2006; Noman et al., 2010; Wang

et al., 2008). Since for example the modeling of kinematic hardening is different in the two models, note that the corresponding

material parameter values in Table 1 are different. In particular, sx is

constant in the LSM and variable in the THM.

The identied models for DC06 are compared with experimental data for the case of plane-strain tension to simple shear

loading in Fig. 1 (left). To document the applicability of the THM and

the LSM to steels other than DC06, and for comparison, analogous

results for the ferritic-pearlitic steel LH800 (thickness 0.7 mm)

from Noman et al. (2010) and Noman (2010) are also shown in Fig. 1

(right). Clearly, for both DC06 and LH800, cross hardening is

captured well by both models; this hardening is particularly pronounced in the former material (i.e., more than 50 MPa; Fig. 1, left).

Also more pronounced in DC06 than in LH800 is hardening stagnation after cross hardening and change of loading direction (e.g.,

from tension to shear). Such stagnation is accounted for in the THM

(via (15) and (16)) but not in the LSM. This is the reason why, after

loading path change and cross hardening, the THM-based result

(red dashed curve, in the web version) in Fig. 1 (left) lies below the

LSM-based one (green dashed curve, in the web version) and closer

to the data (crosses). In any case, this difference between the two

modeling

As discussed in Section 2, the relations (13a) and (17a) for sY in

the THM and the LSM, respectively, differ in the assumed inuence

of cross hardening via S on the former. Note that sY0 and the

evolution relation (12a) for r are the same in both models. As well,

the evolution relation (12b) for X is of exactly the same form in both

the THM and the LSM. On the other hand, the saturation magnitude

sx in (12b) is treated differently in the two models, i.e., dependent

on S and variable in the THM via (16), and constant in the LSM.

As an example of the consequences of these model differences,

consider the orthogonal loading of DC06 in discontinuous tensionshear. In particular, this loading path consists of (i) loading in tension to F22 1 0.1, (ii) unloading, and (iii) reloading in shear to

F22 1 F12 0.5. Consider rst the results for aP and sY for this

loading case displayed in Fig. 2. Although the relation (12a) for the

evolution of r is the same in both models, the coupled nature of

model identication results in different values for the same material coefcients in Table 1. For example, note that cr is a factor of 3

smaller, and sr is an order of magnitude larger, in the LSM than in

the THM. This is the reason why, as shown in Fig. 2 (right), isotropic

hardening saturates much more quickly in the THM than in the

LSM. The much lower level of r in the THM is due of course to the

additional contribution from S to isotropic hardening not assumed

in the LSM. Given the coupled nature of model identication, from a

quantitative point of view, the contribution of X to fY in (1) will also

inuence the level of isotropic hardening in both models.

Consider next the development of the components of the back

b : RE XRT in the current conguration during tensionstress X

E

shear loading displayed in Fig. 3. During the tension stage, the

b , X

b and X

b is qualitaevolution of the normal components X

11

22

33

tively similar for both models. The reduction in these components

predicted by both models during shear (re)loading after tension

(pre)loading evident in Fig. 3 is due to the fact that the corresponding components of NP vanish in the shear stage, resulting in a

zero saturation level for the evolution of these components as

determined by (12b). As is the case for DC06 in Fig. 3, due to the

increase of jS j (i.e., jS d j; jS l j) and its contribution to sx via (16), the

level of kinematic hardening predicted by the THM will generally

be higher than that of the LSM, in which sx is assumed constant.

This together with the effect of hardening stagnation on S is also

b 12 in Fig. 3

the reason for qualitative differences in the results for X

in the shear stage of discontinuous tension-shear loading. Indeed,

Table 1

Material parameter values for DC06 determined for the THM (above) and the LSM (below) from room-temperature uniaxial tension, monotonic shear, cyclic shear, and

orthogonal tension-shear, test data (Clausmeyer et al., 2011b). See text for details.

THM

parameter

cr

sr

units

value

cx

MPa

20.1

x0

cd

ss

MPa

20.8

499.0

8.1

cl

nl

cp

np

4.1

1.0

4.0

90.0

0.2

1.6

MPa

8.4

221.0

LSM

parameter

cr

sr

6.64

192.0

units

value

cx

sx

33.1

56.0

MPa

cd

hd

cl

hl

23.9

0.0

87.3

-0.447

MPa

125

Fig. 1. Comparison of model and experimental results for shear stress as a function of deformation in DC06 (left) and LH800 (right: Noman et al., 2010; Noman, 2010). Both

materials were subject to plane-strain tension in the rolling direction (up to 10% in DC06 and 13% in LH800) followed by an orthogonal loading path change to simple shear in the

transverse direction. See text for discussion and web version for color.

Fig. 2. Development of aP (left) and isotropic hardening (right) predicted by the THM and the LSM during discontinuous tension-shear loading. This loading path consists of (i)

loading in tension to F22 1 0.1, (ii) unloading, and (iii) reloading in shear to F22 1 F12 0.5. See text for details.

Fig. 3. Back stress evolution predicted by the THM (left) and the LSM (right) during discontinuous tension-shear loading. Here, the material is (i) loaded in tension to F22 1 0.1,

(ii) unloaded, and (iii) reloaded in shear to F22 1 F12 0.5. See text for details and web version for color.

b from the LSM has the

Table 1). Consequently, the result for X

12

typical Voce-based growth-saturation form as expected from (12b).

In contrast, as shown in Fig. 3 (left), the coupling of the evolution of

X to S via sx in the THM results in qualitative deviations of the

b

result for X

12 from ideal Voce form. In particular, the effect of

hardening stagnation and the increase of sx are evident in Fig. 3

(left). As well, in the case of DC06 at least, the much larger value

b in

of cx for the THM in Table 1 results in much faster growth of X

12

the THM (Fig. 3, left) than in the LSM (Fig. 3, right). Note the simb in Fig. 3 (left) and K12 in Fig. 1 (left).

ilarity of X

12

5. Comparison of yield surface modeling

In this section, the THM and the LSM identied for DC06 via the

model parameter values in Table 1 are used to model yield surface

126

for the yield function fY, the yield surface represents the boundary

fY 0 in stress space of the so-called elastic range of the material,

i.e., those stress states for which fY < 0 holds at xed inelastic

microstructure. In the current phenomenological context, (the effect of) such microstructure (on the material behavior) is modeled

by (evolution of) the internal variables. In particular, given the

relation (11) between the Kirchhoff K and Mandel M stresses, fY

from (1) can be expressed as a function f(K,I)fY of K and a modeldependent set I of internal variables; in particular,

ITHM fRE ; r; X; S g via (13) and ILSM fRE ; r; X; H g via (17). The

yield condition f(K,I)fY 0 then represents an implicit relation

for K as a function of I. In a given loading test along the yield surface, the initial value of I evolves to a new value depending in

general on loading path. For simplicity, attention is restricted to

biaxial monotonic and cyclic loading paths involving tension,

compression, and shear (or different combination of these) in the

(K12,K11) or (K12,K22) planes. These loading paths are analogous to

those used in the identication procedure. In what follows, nondimensional stress components

K ij : Kij sY0 i j;

K ij :

p .

3Kij sY0 isj;

(19)

Consider again discontinuous tension-shear loading. The corresponding yield surface development predicted by the two models

is shown in Fig. 4. In particular, as shown in Fig. 4 (left), the yield

surface development predicted by the THM in the tension-shear

case is characterized by a change in size and a change in center,

now in both the tension and shear directions, but no change in

shape. Again, this is directly related to (13b). With increasing shear

loading, the yield surface saturates towards the one (THM3) given

for the forward shear case in Fig. 4 (left). On the other hand, on the

basis of (17b), the LSM predicts a change in shape as well due to

cross hardening, now in both the tension and shear directions.

Indeed, as shown in Fig. 4 (right), this change is in K12 direction

during the tension part, and in the K22 direction during the shear

part, of the tension-shear loading path.

Lastly, yield surface results from the THM and the LSM are

compared with those of the more sophisticated Peeters et al. (2002)

model (PM) based on crystal plasticity. Application to an IF steel

subject to simple tension, simple shear, and tension-shear, loading

observed isotropic and cross hardening, as well as the Bauschinger

effect and hardening stagnation, in this material. The PM accounts

for the hardening due to interactions of currently active dislocations with persistent dislocation structures. The single crystal

model was combined with a full constraints Taylor model for the

polycrystalline IF steel. The initial texture of the IF steel was

determined by x-ray diffraction. A set of 250 orientations was used

to model the behavior of the polycrystalline IF steel. Modeling of

yield surface development in Peeters et al. (2002) was based in

particular on texture simulation and the critical resolved shear

stresses on each slip system in each grain. Their results imply that,

for the IF steel they considered, the effects of texture development

on the yield surface were minimal in comparison to that of the

dislocation structures such as (dislocation) cell block boundaries.

As it turns out, the IF steel investigated by Peeters et al. (2002)

exhibits very similar hardening behavior in monotonic shear to

the DC06 material investigated in this study.

This is also implied by the comparison in Fig. 5 of yield surface

results for DC06 from the THM and the LSM with those for IF steel

from the PM in the cases of simple tension loading (left) and simple

shear loading (right).

As shown by these results, in contrast to the THM and the PM,

very good qualitative agreement exists between the LSM and the

PM. In particular, with respect to the curvature and the widening of

the yield surfaces in directions orthogonal to the current loading

directions, the agreement is even quantitatively very good. On the

other hand, as shown in Fig. 5, the LSM and the PM differ in regards

to the predicted translation of the yield surface. As well, in directions which correspond to a loading reversal, there are differences in the level of yield stress predicted by the LSM and the PM.

simulation

Generally speaking, during sheet metal forming, different parts

of the workpiece experience different loading and deformation

histories. In particular, this results in a heterogeneous distribution

of strength, hardening and residual stress states in the formed

workpiece which can have a strong inuence on its subsequent

behavior. In this regard, cross hardening for example was shown to

have a signicant inuence on the springback behavior of hat

Fig. 4. Yield surface evolution during discontinuous tension-shear loading predicted by the THM (left) and by the LSM (right). The surfaces THM1 and LSM1 are those at the end of

the tension stage at F22 1 0.1. THM2 and LSM2 represent the mixed state at F22 1 F12 0.14, while THM3 and LSM3 are at the end of shear loading at F22 1 F12 0.5.

127

Fig. 5. Comparison of yield surface development in K 12 ; K 11 space predicted by the THM and the LSM for DC06, and by the PM for IF steel, after uniaxial tension in the rolling

direction (left) and simple shear in the rolling direction (right), up to 10% von Mises equivalent strain. As done for the results from the THM and the LSM via (19), those for K from

the PM were normalized using the initial yield stress of the material as determined by Peeters et al. (2002). See text for details and web version for color.

split rings from a drawn cup (consisting of DC06: Wang et al., 2008),

or even more complex parts (e.g., channel die and S-rail consisting

of DC06: Clausmeyer et al., 2014). Depending on factors such as the

geometry of the workpiece, different types of loading path changes

occur locally in the structure.

For example, in the case of deep drawing with a cross-shaped

die, nite-element (FE) simulations (e.g., Clausmeyer et al., 2011a)

show that, during this process, certain regions in the sides of the

workpiece structure experience a loading path change from planestrain tension to uniaxial tension. Stress-deformation results for

DC06 subject to such loading are shown in Fig. 6. As shown, both

models predict a moderate increase of cross hardening with

increasing (pre)tension. In particular, after 10% (pre)tension (Fig. 6,

right), the level of cross hardening predicted by the THM is larger

than predicted by the LSM. This is in contrast to the tension-shear

case in Fig. 1. Although less pronounced than in the tension-shear

case, cross hardening in the tensionetension case is also transient

and tends to disappear with increasing loading after the loading

path change. Consequently, for this case as well, dislocation structures responsible for cross hardening appear to break down and

disappear after change of loading path, i.e., as along as the loading

path direction remains constant. The results in Fig. 6 imply that the

level of (pre)deformation during the rst stage of a multi-stage

loading path inuences the amount of resulting cross hardening.

concomitant yield surface development. As before, the cross

hardening evident in stress-deformation results like those in Fig. 6

results in the LSM (Fig. 7, right), but not in the THM (Fig. 7, left), in a

change in shape (and orientation) of the yield surface. In particular,

as evident in Fig. 7 (right), the LSM predicts a rotation of the major

axes of the (in the K 11 ; K 22 plane) elliptic yield surface away from

the equibiaxial tension orientation towards K22 with increasing

deformation.

Compared to the case of plane-strain tension followed by simple

shear (Fig. 1), the amount of cross hardening in the case of planestrain tension in the rolling direction followed by uniaxial tension

(Fig. 6) is generally much smaller (e.g., Clausmeyer et al., 2011a).

This is correlated with the degree of orthogonality of the loadingpath change. According to Schmitt et al. (1994), a two-stage

loading path is characterized in this regard by the angle

q arccos(NP1,NP2) determined by the direction of the rate of inelastic ow NPi during the rst (i 1) and second (i 2) stages of

the two-stage path. In terms of this angle, plane-strain tension to

simple shear is characterized by q 90 , and plane-strain tension to

uniaxial tension by q 30 . As has been discussed elsewhere (e.g.,

Wang et al., 2008), this angle can be used to characterize the expected degree of orthogonal loading-path change and similarly

represent the strength of possible cross hardening as a function of

position in sheet metal parts subject to forming operations like

Fig. 6. Development of K11 in DC06 during loading in plane-strain tension (in the rolling direction) to 5% (left) and 10% (right) deformation followed by unloading and reloading in

uniaxial tension (again in the rolling direction) predicted by the THM and the LSM. For comparison, experimental and model results are also shown for monotonic uniaxial tension

(Clausmeyer et al., 2011a) and web version for color.

128

Fig. 7. Yield surface development in the K 11 ; K 22 plane from the THM (left) and the LSM (right) due to plane-strain tension in the rolling direction to different levels of deformation.

The symbols x, and * mark stress states on the yield surface at F11 1 0.05, F11 1 0.10, and F11 1 0.15, respectively.

cross hardening indicator (Clausmeyer et al., 2014) which considers

the degree of loading-path change and the material specic tendency to exhibit cross hardening.

As mentioned above and shown in Fig. 6 (right), more cross

hardening is predicted by the THM than the LSM after 10% pretension. To examine this in more detail, different contributions to

the general hardening level are displayed in Fig. 8. As evident, the

THM predicts a transient increase in X11 (Fig. 8, left) not predicted

by the LSM (Fig. 8, right) resulting from the coupling of sx in (16) to

S . For this loading path change, note that the change in the shape

of the yield surface predicted by the LSM in the tensionetension

case (Fig. 7, right) is not as pronounced as for the tension-shear case

(Fig. 4, right).

Lastly, consider the FE-based simulation of the tension-bending

of a DC06 sheet metal workpiece. For this purpose, the THM and the

LSM were implemented into LS-DYNA (LSTC, 2012) via the user

material interface. Implicit global time integration was used for the

solution of the initial boundary value problem. The specimen of

dimension 10 mm 10 mm 1 mm was discretized with a regular

mesh of 2000 (20 20 5) tri-linear hexahedral nite elements

(see Fig. 9) with reduced integration and hourglass control (LSTC,

2012). Two tension-bending cases are considered: (i) plane strain

tension in e1 (rolling direction), and (ii) equibiaxial tension in e1

and e2 , both followed by bending in the e2 direction (see Fig. 11

below). After predeformation in tension, a bending moment is

applied on the lower right hand edge of the specimen, and the left

simulations.

edge is xed. The sheet is bent until a bending angle of 90 is obtained. Bending moment-angle results are shown in Fig. 10; the

deformed sheet and nal spatial stress distribution are displayed in

Fig. 11.

As evident in Fig. 10, bending-moment results based on the THM

and the LSM are qualitatively similar for both loading cases.

Consideration of hardening stagnation in the THM results in faster

saturation of the bending moment after about 60 in particular for

the equibiaxial (pre)tension. The expected trend in stress state and

Fig. 8. Development of r and X11 predicted by the THM (left) and the LSM (right) during loading in plane-strain tension (in the rolling direction to 10%) to uniaxial tension (Fig. 6).

129

Fig. 10. Bending moment as a function of bending angle during tension-bending of DC06 predicted by FE simulations based on the THM and the LSM. Left: plane-strain (pre)tension

to F11 1.2. Right: equibiaxial (pre)tension to F11 F22 1.1. See text for details.

Fig. 11. Deformed sheet geometry (bending angle 90 ) after equibiaxial-tension-bending and spatial distribution of the rst principle component KI of the Kirchhoff stress predicted

by the THM (left) and the LSM (right). Refer to the web version for color.

midplane of the workpiece is clearly predicted by both models. Inplane inhomogeneity of the stress eld perpendicular to this is

related to the nite dimensions of the specimen. As indicated by the

bending moment results in Fig. 10, the THM predicts more hardening in the specimen than the LSM for both plane-strain tension

and equibiaxial tension followed by bending. This is consistent with

the results for KI shown in Fig. 11, i.e., the stress level predicted by

the THM is higher than that predicted by the LSM. Since bending

results in a transition from tension to compression, the above observations for plane strain tension to uniaxial tension loading can

be transferred to the bending case. Up to a bending angle of about

8 bending of the sheet is mainly governed by elastic deformation

because the release of the displacement constraints in the e1 - and

e2 directions is only partly compensated by the incipient straining

in the e1 -direction due to bending. Similar to the plane strain

tension to uniaxial tension case, a transient hardening regime follows. Due to the inhomogeneous nature of the bending deformation, the duration of this regime (in terms of the bending angle) is

larger compared to the homogeneous plane strain tension to uniaxial tension case. However, the same tendencies are observed. The

level of stress predicted by the THM is larger compared to the LSM.

Consequently, the resulting bending moment is also larger. For

larger bending angles, the differences between the two models

become smaller. Note, that the transition between the elastic

regime and the plastic transient hardening regime is sharper for the

LSM compared to the THM. This is in agreement with the results for

plane strain tension to uniaxial tension.

7. Summary and discussion

In the current work, two models for anisotropic, and in particular cross, hardening in bcc sheet steels subject to non-proportional

loading have been compared with each other in detail. The rst

model is the modied form (Wang et al., 2008) of that due to

Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998). In this (modied) Teodosiu-Hu

model (THM), cross hardening is assumed to affect (i) the yield

stress and (ii) the saturation value of the back stress. The second

model is due to Levkovitch and Svendsen (2007) and Noman et al.

(2010). In this Levkovitch-Svendsen model (LSM), cross hardening

is assumed to affect the ow anisotropy. As attested to by numerous

applications of the THM (e.g., Boers et al., 2010; Bouvier et al., 2005,

2003; Hiwatashi et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al., 2010;

Wang et al., 2008) and the LSM (e.g., Barthel et al., 2013;

Clausmeyer et al., 2014, 2011b; Noman et al., 2010), both models

are able to account for the observed effect of cross hardening on

experimental stress-deformation data. As investigated and documented in the current work, there are otherwise a number of differences between the two. For example, in contrast to the THM, the

LSM predicts no hardening stagnation after cross hardening as

observed in experiments. On the other hand, in contrast to the LSM,

the THM predicts no change in yield surface shape during nonproportional loading. As documented in the current work, this is

in contrast to experimental results (for ferritic tube steel:

Kowalewski and Sliwowski, 1997) as well as to predictions of more

sophisticated micromechanical models (e.g., Holmedal et al., 2008;

Peeters et al., 2002).

As discussed in many previous works as well as here, in the

context of a yield function fY of the form (1), the (ow) anisotropy

tensor A determines the shape of the yield surface. In the THM, this

shape is attributed to the effect of an (initial) rolling texture, i.e., the

grain (orientation) structure, on the ow behavior. On the other

hand, in the LSM, A is associated with both the grain orientation

and dislocation structures, i.e., A A gra H . In the yield surface

context and model form (1) for fY, then, (13) and (17) imply the

correspondence

130

q

p

S$ A gra H S S$A gra S f S

(20)

coupling between the state of stress M on the yield surface and the

cross hardening tensor S is linear and scalar. As in the case of

standard isotropic hardening itself, then, it is not surprising that

this model decouples any change in form of the yield surface from

cross hardening effects. This is in contrast to the LSM, which couples M and the contribution H from cross hardening to the ow

anisotropy tensor non-linearly and tensorially. In this case, a

directional dependence is generic and inherent. As implied by the

comparisons in Section 5 and Fig. 5, micromechanically based

models like the PM (Peeters et al., 2001b,a; 2002) appear to support

the idea of a change in yield surface shape due to cross hardening as

assumed in the LSM. Being physically based, the PM provides at

least indirect physical evidence for the LSM, since it directly incorporates the physical knowledge of the contribution of dislocation interaction to the evolution of the yield surface.

With respect to the hardening modeling in general, note that

isotropic, kinematic, and cross, hardening are decoupled in the

LSM, but coupled in the THM. From the point of view of the geometry and morphology of the yield surface, then, only in the LSM

are isotropic, kinematic, and cross, hardening uniquely related to

the size, center, and shape, respectively, of the yield surface. As

implied by the current comparison, however, to account for processes such as hardening stagnation, coupling of hardening types

such as that assumed in the THM may be necessary. Indeed, as

implied by the results of the current work as well, except in the case

of the coupling of yield surface morphology and development to

anisotropic hardening in the sense of a change of yield surface

shape, however, the THM is more sophisticated and micromechanical in nature.

The authors are not aware of comprehensive experimental

evidence which shows the evolution of the yield surface of DC06

for larger (pre)strains (z10%). Experiments on tubular specimens

have shown that there is an evolution of the yield surface (Phillips

et al., 1974). In the case of other steels (e.g., SUS304: Ishikawa,

1997), experimentally observed changes in the yield surface

shape during tension-torsion loading are accounted for by the

modeling of cross hardening in the LSM as based on H and related

to dislocation structure evolution. Kuwabara et al. (2000) and

Kuwabara (2007) investigated the effect of uniaxial, plane strain

and biaxial tension on the yield surface of IF steel up to 1.0% strain.

This work focused on the initial yield surface alone. In any case,

more experimental work on sheet steels along these lines is

clearly needed and required, and will hopefully be available in the

future.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the reviewers of the rst version of this work

for their constructive criticism and comments which have lead to

major improvement. The authors would like to thank Ton van den

Boogaard from the Faculty of Engineering Technology, University

Twente, The Netherlands, for providing the opportunity to use the

biaxial tester, and Alper Gner from the Institute of Forming Technology and Lightweight Construction, TU Dortmund University,

Dortmund, Germany, for providing the uniaxial tension test data.

Partial nancial support from the German Research Foundation

(DFG) under contract PAK 250 Identikation und Modellierung der

Werkstoffcharakteristik fr die Finite-Element-Analyse von Blechumformprozessen - TP4 is gratefully acknowledged. The material

investigated was provided by ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG.

References

Bacroix, B., Hu, Z., 1995. Texture evolution induced by strain path changes in low

carbon steel sheets. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 26 (3), 601e613.

Baltov, A., Sawczuk, A., 1965. A rule of anisotropic hardening. Acta Mech. I (2),

81e92.

cio, J.J., Lee, M.-G., Rauch, E.F., Vincze, G., 2013. Extension of

Barlat, F., Ha, J., Gra

homogeneous anisotropic hardening model to cross-loading with latent effects.

Int. J. Plast. 46, 130e142.

Barthel, C., Klusemann, B., Denzer, R., Svendsen, B., 2013. Modeling of a thermomechanical process chain for sheet steels. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 74, 46e54.

Boers, S.H.A., Schreurs, P.J.G., Geers, M.G.D., Levkovitch, V., Wang, J., Svendsen, B.,

2010. Experimental characterization and model identication of directional

hardening effects in metals for complex strain path changes. Int. J. Solids Struct.

47 (10), 1361e1374.

Bouvier, S., Alves, J., Oliveira, M., Menezes, L., 2005. Modelling of anisotropic workhardening behaviour of metallic materials subjected to strain-path changes.

Comput. Mater. Sci. 32, 301e315.

Bouvier, S., Gardey, B., Haddadi, H., Teodosiu, C., 2006a. Characterization of the

strain-induced plastic anisotropy of rolled sheets by using sequences of simple

shear and uniaxial tensile tests. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 174 (1e3), 115e126.

e, P., Teodosiu, C., 2006b. Simple shear tests: experiBouvier, S., Haddadi, H., Leve

mental techniques and characterization of the plastic anisotropy of rolled

sheets at large strains. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 172, 96e103.

Bouvier, S., Teodosiu, C., Haddadi, H., Tabacaru, V., 2003. Anisotropic workhardening behaviour of structural steels and aluminium alloys at large

strains. J. Phys. IV Fr. 105, 215e222.

Butuc, M.C., Teodosiu, C., Barlat, F., Gracio, J.J., 2011. Analysis of sheet metal formability through isotropic and kinematic hardening models. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids

30 (4), 532e546.

Carvalho Resende, T., Bouvier, S., Abed-Meraim, F., Balan, T., Sablin, S.S., 2013.

Dislocation-based model for the prediction of the behavior of b.c.c. materials e

grain size and strain path effects. Int. J. Plast. 47, 29e48.

Cazacu, O., Barlat, F., 2004. A criterion for description of anisotropy and yield differential effects in pressure-insensitive metals. Int. J. Plast. 20 (11), 2027e2045.

Clausmeyer, T., Bargmann, B., Gershteyn, G., Schaper, M., Svendsen, B., 2011a. Finiteelement Simulation of the Evolution of Plastic Anisotropy. Steel Research International ICTP 2011 Special Issue, pp. 836e841.

Clausmeyer, T., Gerstein, G., Bargmann, S., Svendsen, B., van den Boogaard, A.,

Zillmann, B., 2012. Experimental characterization of microstructure development during loading path changes in bcc sheet steels. J. Mater. Sci. 48 (2),

674e689.

Clausmeyer, T., Gner, A., Tekkaya, A.E., Levkovitch, V., Svendsen, B., 2014. Modeling

and nite element simulation of loading-path-dependent hardening in sheet

metals during forming. Int. J. Plast. 63, 64e93.

Clausmeyer, T., van den Boogaard, A.H., Noman, M., Gershteyn, G., Schaper, M.,

Svendsen, B., Bargmann, S., 2011b. Phenomenological modeling of anisotropy

induced by evolution of the dislocation structure on the macroscopic and

microscopic scale. Int. J. Mater. Form. 4 (2), 141e154.

Ghosh, A.K., Backofen, W.A., 1973. Strain-hardening and instability in biaxially

stretched sheets. Metall. Trans. 4, 1113e1123.

Haddadi, H., Bouvier, S., Banu, M., Maier, C., Teodosiu, C., 2006. Towards an accurate

description of the anisotropic behaviour of sheet metals under large plastic

deformations: modelling, numerical analysis and identication. Int. J. Plast. 22

(12), 2226e2271.

Haddag, B., Balan, T., Abed-Meraim, F., 2007. Investigation of advanced strain-path

dependent material models for sheet metal forming simulations. Int. J. Plast. 23

(6), 951e979.

Hill, R., 1948. A theory of the yielding and plastic ow of anisotropic metals. Proc. R.

Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 193 (1033), 281e297.

Hiwatashi, S., van Bael, A., van Houtte, P., Teodosiu, C., 1997. Modelling of plastic

anisotropy based on texture and dislocation structure. Comput. Mater. Sci. 9,

274e284.

Holmedal, B., van Houtte, P., An, Y., 2008. A crystal plasticity model for strain-path

changes in metals. Int. J. Plast. 24 (8), 1360e1379.

Hu, Z., Rauch, E.F., Teodosiu, C., 1992. Work-hardening behavior of mild steel under

stress reversal at large strains. Int. J. Plast. 8 (7), 839e856.

Ishikawa, H., 1997. Subsequent yield surface probed from its current center. Int. J.

Plast. 13 (6e7), 533e549.

Klepaczko, J.R., Nguyen, H.V., Nowacki, W.K., 1999. Quasi-static and dynamic

shearing of sheet metals. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 18 (2), 271e289.

Kowalewski, Z.L., Sliwowski, M., 1997. Effect of cyclic loading on the yield surface

evolution of 18G2A low-alloy steel. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 39 (1), 51e68.

Kuwabara, T., 2007. Advances in experiments on metal sheets and tubes in support

of constitutive modeling and forming simulations. Int. J. Plast. 23 (3), 385e419.

Kuwabara, T., Kuroda, M., Tvergaard, V., Nomura, K., 2000. Use of abrupt strain path

change for determining subsequent yield surface: experimental study with

metal sheets. Acta Mater. 48 (9), 2071e2079.

Lee, E., 1969. Elastic-plastic deformation at nite strains. J. Appl. Mech. 36, 1e6.

Levkovitch, V., Svendsen, B., 2007. Accurate hardening modeling as basis for the

realistic simulation of sheet forming processes with complex strain-path

change. In: Cesar de Sa, J.M.A. (Ed.), 9th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes (NUMIFORM 2007), AIP Conference Proceedings, Porto, Portugal, vol. 2, pp. 1331e1336.

Li, S., Hoferlin, E., van Bael, A., van Houtte, P., Teodosiu, C., 2003. Finite element

modeling of plastic anisotropy induced by texture and strain-path change. Int. J.

Plast. 19, 647e674.

LSTC, 2012. LS-DYNA. Keyword User's Manual, vol. I. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, USA.

Classique et Viscoplasticite

. CISM Course Lecture Notes

Mandel, J., 1971. Plasticite

97. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Mandel, J., 1974. Thermodynamics and Plasticity. In: Foundations of Continuum

Thermodynamics Delgado Domingos. MacMillan.

Miyauchi, K., 1987. On the simple shear deformation. Sci. Pap. Inst. Phys. Chem. Res.

81, 57e67.

Nesterova, E.V., Bacroix, B., Teodosiu, C., 2001a. Experimental observation of

microstructure evolution under strain-path changes in low-carbon IF steel.

Mater. Sci. Eng. A309e310, 495e499.

Nesterova, E.V., Bacroix, B., Teodosiu, C., 2001b. Microstructure and texture evolution under strain-path changes in low-carbon interstitial-free steel. Metall.

Mater. Trans. 32A, 2527e2538.

Noman, M., 2010. Characterization and model identication for the simulation of

t Maschinenbau, TU

the forming behavior of ferritic steels (Ph.D. thesis). Fakulta

Dortmund University.

tink, J., van Riel, M., 2010.

Noman, M., Clausmeyer, T., Barthel, C., Svendsen, B., Hue

Experimental characterization and modeling of the hardening behavior of the

sheet steel LH800. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (10e11), 2515e2526.

Peeters, B., Bacroix, B., Teodosiu, C., van Houtte, P., Aernoudt, E., 2001a. Workhardening/softening behaviour of b.c.c. polycrystals during changing strain:

part i. an integrated model based on substrucure and texture evolution, and its

prediction of the stress-strain behaviour of an IF steel during two-stage strain

paths. Acta Mater. 49 (9), 1607e1619.

Peeters, B., Kalidindi, S.R., Teodosiu, C., van Houtte, P., Aernoudt, E., 2002. A theoretical

investigation of the inuence of dislocation sheets on evolution of yield surfaces

in single-phase b.c.c. polycrystals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 50 (4), 783e807.

Peeters, B., Seefeldt, M., van Houtte, P., Aernoudt, E., 2001b. Taylor ambiguity in bcc

polycrystals: a non-problem if substructural anisotropy is considered. Scr.

Mater. 45 (12), 1349e1356.

Phillips, A., Tang, J.L., Ricciuti, M., 1974. Some new observations on yield surfaces.

Acta Mech. 20 (1), 23e39.

Pietryga, M.P., Vladimirov, I.N., Reese, S., 2012. A nite deformation model for

evolving ow anisotropy with distortional hardening including experimental

validation. Mech. Mater. 44, 163e173.

Rauch, E.F., Schmitt, J.H., 1989. Dislocation substructures in mild steel deformed in

simple shear. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 113, 441e448.

Rauch, E.F., Thuillier, S., 1993. Rheological behaviour of mild steel under monotonic

loading conditions and cross-loading. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 164, 255e259.

Schmitt, J.H., Shen, E.L., Raphanel, J.L., 1994. A parameter for measuring the

magnitude of a change of strain path: validation and comparison with experiments on low carbon steel. Int. J. Plast. 10 (5), 535e551.

131

Shi, B., Mosler, J., 2012. On the macroscopic description of yield surface evolution by

means of distortional hardening models: application to magnesium. Int. J. Plast. 44,

1e22.

Shinohara, Y., Madi, Y., Besson, J., 2010. A combined phenomenological model for

the representation of anisotropic hardening behavior in high strength steel line

pipes. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 29 (6), 917e927.

Svendsen, B., 2001. On the modeling of anisotropic elastic and inelastic material

behaviour at large deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct. 38, 9579e9599.

Tarigopula, V., Hopperstad, O.S., Langseth, M., Clausen, A.H., 2008. Elastic-plastic

behaviour of dual-phase, high-strength steel under strain-path changes. Eur. J.

Mech. A/Solids 27 (5), 764e782.

Tarigopula, V., Hopperstad, O.S., Langseth, M., Clausen, A.H., 2009. An evaluation of a

combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model for representation of complex

strain-path changes in dual-phase steel. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 28 (4), 792e805.

Teodosiu, C., Hu, Z., 1995. Evolution of the intragranular microstructure at moderate

and large strains: modelling and computational signicance. In: Shen, S.F.,

Dawson, P.R. (Eds.), Simulation of Materials Processing: Theory, Methods and

Applications. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 173e182.

Teodosiu, C., Hu, Z., 1998. Microstructure in the continuum modelling of plastic

anisotropy. In: Proceedings of 19th Ris International Symposium on Material's

Science: Modelling of Structure and Mechanics of Materials from Microscale to

Product. Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 149e168.

Thuillier, S., Manach, P.Y., Menezes, L.F., 2010. Occurrence of strain path changes in a

two-stage deep drawing process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2), 226e232.

Thuillier, S., Rauch, E.F., 1994. Development of microbands in mild steel during cross

loading. Acta Metall. Mater. 42, 1973e1983.

van Riel, M., van den Boogaard, A.H., 2007. Stress-strain responses for continuous

orthogonal strain path changes with increasing sharpness. Scr. Mater. 57 (5),

381e384.

Verma, R.K., Kuwabara, T., Chung, K., Haldar, A., 2011. Experimental evaluation and

constitutive modeling of non-proportional deformation for asymmetric steels.

Int. J. Plast. 27 (1), 82e101.

Viatkina, E.M., Brekelmans, W.A.M., Geers, M.G.D., 2007. Modelling of the internal

stress in dislocation cell structures. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 26 (6), 982e998.

Wagoner, R.H., Lim, H., Lee, M.-G., 2013. Advanced issues in springback. Int. J. Plast.

45, 3e20.

tink, J., van Riel, M., 2008. On

Wang, J., Levkovitch, V., Reusch, F., Svendsen, B., Hue

the modeling of hardening in metals during non-proportional loading. Int. J.

Plast. 24 (6), 1039e1070.

Wu, H.-C., 2003. Effect of loading-path on the evolution of yield surface for

anisotropic metals subjected to large pre-strain. Int. J. Plast. 19 (10), 1773e1800.

Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., Zhu, J.Z., 2010. The Finite Element Method e its Basis

& Fundamentals, sixth ed. Elsevier e Butterworth Heinemann, Amsterdam.

- As 3880-1991 Bin Flow Properties of CoalEnviado porSAI Global - APAC
- API St 6X-2019Enviado porArash Abbasi
- Stress ClassesEnviado porRushiraj Jaiswal
- Limit Analysis And Limit Equilibrium analysis in Soil mechanicsEnviado porSathyamoorthy Venkatesh
- Finite Element Analysis of Circular Concrete Filled Tube ConnectionsEnviado porMaha Hassan
- Section 4Enviado porHAFIZ IMRAN AKHTER
- Lee Wagoner IJP 2008.pdfEnviado porChandra Clark
- Orthodontic Wires -Properties / orthodontic courses by Indian dental academyEnviado porindian dental academy
- Aspects of Simulating the Dynamic Compaction of a Granular CeramicEnviado porGeoffrey Armstrong
- Lect.03Enviado porZiaullah
- Dynamic Compaction AnalysisEnviado porroy anant
- Jardine Et All (1986)Enviado porJiménez Jorge
- chapter 1 JJ310.pptEnviado porarief
- Elastic It 1Enviado porrizal123
- Yeild StressEnviado porBala
- yan2015.pdfEnviado porAmine Khalfallah
- Constitutive Model for Full-Range Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Structural Steels With Yield Plateau (Hu, Et Al. 2016)Enviado porJose Manuel
- Tutorial 03 Supportforma HerraduraEnviado porsamuel
- 330764926Enviado porTeuku Kamaruzzaman
- lab manual for UTMEnviado porDesmond Tong
- 7th IAHR 1984 Hamburg Vol 1Enviado porAnonymous ZO1piE3V
- local_173106Enviado porLinh Tran
- 10246_05092017DMM-1_MID-1_ASSIGNMENT.docEnviado porJeeeva
- 1-s2.0-S1110016811000202-main.pdfEnviado porChester Smith
- ajp-jp4199404C823Enviado porRonaldo Adriano
- Unit IV (b) -Theories of FailureEnviado porSupritha K
- CONTRIBUTION TO LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION IN CLAYEY SOIL-2.pdfEnviado porIsaac Izy
- Dropped Design ReportEnviado porNripendra Mishra
- Step change in the context of comminution.pdfEnviado porMonica Ulloa Lamas
- Dissertation_BasharAlfarah_Advanced Computationally Efficient Modeling of RC Structures Nonlinear Cyclic Behavior.pdfEnviado porferasalkam

- Maxwell_v16_L03_Static_Magnetic_Solvers.pdfEnviado porVahidJam
- Hassan ThesisEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Anisotropic and asymmetrical yielding and its distorted-IJP2016.pdfEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- DEF_STAN_00-970_P1_ISSUE-5_SEC-3Enviado porRamona Neculai
- Crack propagation in AnsysEnviado poragrbovic
- Def Stan 00-970 Part 7-2Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Global Hawk Systems Engineering Case StudyEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Hale FactsheetEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 19880001820-wing 445.6Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 2005FatemiPlasiedKhosrovanehTannerIJFVol27P1040Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 19690025326Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- e4man.pdfEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 2-Time Series Analysis 22-02-07 RevisedEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Allan AlShakarchi1977Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Allan AlShakarchi1976Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Structured Priors for Multivariate Time SeriesEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 1-s2.0-S0950705110001899-mainEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 1-s2.0-S0950705112000858-mainEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- The Problem of Processing Time Series ExtendingEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Non-parametric Estimation of Non-linearity in a CascadeEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- AERO-STRUCTURAL WING DESIGN OPTIMIZATION USING HIGH-FIDELITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Adm 2010 Errata 2Enviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- 20160323010627-C45E (Ck45) - C45R (Cm45) .pdfEnviado porNikolat84
- Performance analysis of 3D hydrofoil under free surfaceEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat
- Technology Identification, Evaluation, And Selection for Commercial Transport AircraftEnviado porrokhgireh_hojjat

- Modeling the Hysteretic Response of Mechanical Connections for Wood StructuresEnviado porSheff_student
- Reliability of inserts in sandwich composite panelsEnviado porcedemo
- Hydrotest Exemption AST Repairs Per API 653 OGJ_20000131Enviado porkappanjk7584
- Stability Loss of Thin-walled Cylindrical Tubes, Subjected to Longitudinal Compressive Forces and External CorrosionEnviado porjperdigon9634
- A Review on Design and Analysis of Oil Expeller SparesEnviado porTANKO BAKO
- Edge Simulation Procedure_13.9Enviado porkelsiu1
- CSIxRevit Manual.pdfEnviado porRicardo Antonio Zapata Saavedra
- Surface WearEnviado porEdgar Ojeda Castillo
- Inventor Simulation Detail BrochureEnviado porgurugovindan
- 2016 Decreasing Thermal Stresses in Steam Generator Collector Weld’s AreaEnviado porBill Erick Castillo
- Very Basic GSAEnviado porTim Chong
- Optimization Methods Applied to Automotive Connecting RodEnviado poranmol6237
- A comparative study on theoretical and experimental strengths of padeyes under in-plane loadsEnviado porFabio Okamoto
- 206 Dragload-Downdrag DiscussionEnviado porPTchong
- FFC Presentation Template FinalEnviado porazeezsadiq
- Intrnal Ersion in Embankment Dams-H.mattssionEnviado porwjzabala
- EngineeringMethodforCalculationofShort-Circuit.pdfEnviado porHong
- Design of Flexible PavementEnviado porAnonymous UncXDPRy
- FEM - 8 Stiffness MatrixEnviado porwiyorejesend22u.info
- Changing Coordinate Systems and Mohr’s CircleEnviado porJairo Martínez Escobar
- EnR-Steel Technical ReferenceEnviado porOswaldo Suárez
- Bridge Abutment Pier Design as Per IRCEnviado porjibendra mishra
- MotorAnalysis v2.2 Manual EngEnviado porTd Kishore
- 06b Settlement in Sand & Bearing CapacityEnviado porSoftkiller
- Mechanical Engineering Subjects Full ListEnviado porabhigoyal1989
- Hinnant ASME Plant Engineering PresentationEnviado porkkozak99
- Aiits 2016 Hct Vii Jeem Jeea Advanced Paper-2 Questions PaperEnviado porAnshul
- 9781351085304_previewEnviado poralberickmime
- 1169-010Enviado porSumeet Kumar Sinha
- Drillship Hull structure design and analysisEnviado porBinh Pham

## Muito mais do que documentos

Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.

Cancele quando quiser.