Professional Documents
Culture Documents
= =
2
and
1 2 3 1
1 1 1
( ) ( )
3 3 3
m x y z
I = + + = + + = . Since
m
is the same in all
directions, it can be considered to act as a hydrostatic stress.
From experimental observations of metal alloys, it is shown that the mean,
hydrostatic, or spherical pressure on the process of shape changing is negligible.
Therefore, in plastic flow considerations, one considers only the difference between the
stress tensor and the spherical stress tensor. This is termed the stress deviator tensor,
given by
ij
S , where
x m xy xz
ij ij ij ij m ij yx y m yz
zx zy z m
S P
= = =
Since plasticity is the study of materials under stresses exceeding the yielding point, one
needs to understand the concept of yield surface for a more expanded view of the
subject.
The yield surface is defined in the stress space as the separator convex surface
between elastic and plastic regions. Any point within the region will cause no
permanent deformation upon unloading. No points are considered outside the surface,
but inside and on it only.
When a point is considered on the surface, three different conditions are possible
to occur: unloading, neutral loading, and loading. If unloading, the state of stress will go
back into the surface again, causing it to move back to the elastic domain. In this
condition, plasticity will not occur. If neutral loading occurs, the state of stress will
move on the yield surface, causing no plasticity to occur. We are mainly concentrating
on hardening plasticity models in this work.
3
If loading occurs, the state of stress moves outwards from the yield surface and
plasticity occurs. In this case, after plasticity occurs, two kinds of hardening types might
occur: isotropic and kinematic hardening.
The isotropic hardening accounts for the change in size of the yield surface. For
instance, if one loads a specimen in uniaxial tension beyond the yield stress (see figures
1.1 and 1.2), then unloads and reloads it in uniaxial compression, the new yield stress in
compression will be equal in magnitude to the new yield stress in tension, that is, the
yield surface has expanded.
The kinematic hardening, on the other hand, accounts for the translation of the
yield surface in the deviatoric stress space (see figures 1.3 and 1.4). For instance, if one
loads a specimen beyond the yield stress in uniaxial tension, then unloads and reloads it
in uniaxial compression, the new yield stress point in compression is going to be
smaller in magnitude than the original one. This is known as Bauschinger effect. This
type of hardening causes plastic anisotropy in the material behavior.
The definition of ratcheting is imperative to the definition of isotropic and
kinematic hardening. Ratcheting is the accumulation of the plastic strain cycle-by-cycle
for some stress amplitude with a non-zero mean stress. As loading is repeated, each
consecutive hysteresis loop will displace forward in a demanding rate due to the failure
of complete closure of each loop.
With the understanding of the above-mentioned definitions, one is capable to
also understand the modeling schemes discussed and presented in this work, for which
motivation and objectives are presented in the next chapter.
4
Fig 1.1: Stress-Strain Curve for Uniaxial Loading
Unloading and
Reloading Path
Elastic
Region
Nonlinear behavior
p
A
B
C
D
d
d
5
Fig 1.2: Isotropic Hardening - Same Shape, Different Size
2
Initial Yield
Surface
1
Current Yield
Surface
A B C D
6
Fig. 1.3: Bauschinger Effect for Uniaxial Loading
d
d
7
Fig 1.4: Kinematic Hardening Same Shape, Same Size
1
2
1
X
2
X
8
CHAPTER 2
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The goal of this work is to account for cycle-by-cycle accumulation of
permanent deformation (ratcheting), while illustrating the plastic response of class M
(material like behavior) materials under monotonic and cyclic loadings, by using the
backstress variable.
The uniqueness of this time-independent proposed model is accomplished
through the introduction of a new term to the backstress evolution equation proposed by
Frederick and Armstrong (1966), Phillips and Weng (1975), Chaboche (1979), and
Voyiadjis and Basuroychowdhury (1998). This new term is a function of the stress
increment and is used to define the direction of the yield surface.
Before deriving the equations of the proposed model, this work presents the
definition of some of the most relevant terms encountered in the study of nonlinear
behavior of metals that are directly related to this study. It also briefly discusses, some
of the most distinct hardening models.
Following the discussion of these models, the detailed mathematical formulation
in reference to the proposed model is presented along with the experiments performed
and results obtained. Finally, the work leads to a discussion of the proposed model and
then concludes with its comparison to other models.
9
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING HARDENING MODELS
The proposed model makes a better prediction of the behavior of class M
materials in the plastic domain as compared to the existing models. In order to
appreciate the advantages of the proposed model, it is important to understand some of
the existing models, along with their advantages and shortcomings.
3.1 Prager Rule
Introduced by Prager (1956), this model describes the translation of the yield
surface. According to this model, the simulation of plastic response of materials is
linearly related with the plastic strain. The equation proposed by Prager to describe the
evolution of the back-stress is
ij ij
c = & & , where c is a constant derived from a simple
monotonic uniaxial curve and
ij
& is the rate of effective plastic strain.
3.2 Armstrong and Frederick
Proposed by Armstrong and Frederick (1966), this model simulates the
multiaxial Bauschinger effect (movement of the yield surface in the stress space). When
compared to the previously existing models, this one predicts Bauschinger effect where
intuitively one would be expected, for example, the uniaxial cyclic loading test.
When compared to experimental results, Armstrong Frederick predictions were
more accurate than Pragers and Mises models for cyclic axial loading and torsion-
tension of a thin tube tests on annealed copper.
This model also proposed some advancement in terms of simplicity for
computer programs. Although the subroutine for calculating strain increments from
10
stress and stress increments were more complex than the ones for Prager Model,
however, there was improvement in results and better correlation with experiments.
Armstrong and Frederick model (1966) is based on the assumption that the most
recent part of the strain history of a material dictates the mechanical behavior. Its
kinematic hardening rule was predicted by the expression
1 2
2
3
ij ij ij
C C p = & & &
where p& is the accumulated plastic strain rate given as
2
3
ij ij
p = & & & . The constants
1
C
and
2
C are determined from uniaxial tests.
3.3 Wang and Ohno
Proposed by Wang and Ohno (1991), this model is based on the non-linear
kinematic hardening rule of Armstrong and Frederick (1966). It demonstrates the effect
of two terms, temperature rate and reliable translation, on two forms of non-linear
kinematic hardening, multisurface and multicomponent. The study shows that in the
case of multisurface form, the omission of the temperature rate terms leads to unstable
deformation. This unstable deformation occurs due to intersection of the surfaces. The
relative translation term is the Mroz type (1967) supplemented with the temperature rate
term. The omission of this term may also lead to the intersection of surfaces, even if the
temperature rate term is considered. The effects of ignoring these terms are, however,
small.
Similarly, the omission of the temperature rate term in the multicomponent form
leads to unstable deformation. However, in this case, the deformation is due to the
breaking down of the bounding condition
j
, where
j
are the components of the
11
backstress. The effect of the relative translation term on the multi-component form was
not discussed in this model.
The omission of the temperature rate term results in shifting of the hysterisis
loop along the stress axis in both the forms. The omission of the relative translation
term has little or no influence on the two forms.
This model can predict much lesser accumulation of uniaxial and multiaxial
ratcheting than the Armstrong and Frederick (1966).
Ohno and Wang (1993) also proposed a kinematic hardening model based on the
critical state of dynamic recovery. In this work, the kinematic hardening variables are
decomposed into components to examine the relation for the ratcheting behavior. Each
component is assumed to have a critical state, after which its dynamic recovery is fully
activated. The two models are described below.
In model I, the dynamic recovery of
i
is assumed to be fully activated when its
magnitude reaches a critical value. This critical state of dynamic recovery by a surface
is represented by
2 2
0
i i i
f r = =
where
i
&
& &
12
When
i i
r = , then one obtains
2
( )
3
i
i ij i i
i
h H f
r
=
&
& , resulting 0
i
= & .
In model II, the dynamic recovery term gets activated as the magnitude of
backstress,
i
, approaches the material parameter,
i
r . This gives rise to a nonlinear
evolution of
i
.
In the case of multiaxial loading, models I and II express stronger resistance in
ratcheting deformation as compared to the Armstrong and Frederick (1966) model.
The above comparisons suggest that models I and II predict much lesser
accumulation of uniaxial and multiaxial ratcheting strains that the A-F model. Models I
and II are also compared to the multilayer and multisurface models. Model I is found to
be similar to the multilayer model. When the two models are transformed to
multisurface forms, they are found to be different from the Mroz model (1967). The two
models are later verified by applying them to simulate uniaxial and multiaxial ratcheting
experiments performed by Tanaka et al. (1991) and by Lamba and Sidebottom (1978),
where consistent results were obtained.
3.4 Chaboche
Proposed by Chaboche and his co-workers (1979, 1991), this model is based on
a decomposition of non-linear kinematic hardening rule proposed by Armstrong and
Frederick. This decomposition is mainly significant in better describing the three critical
segments of a stable hysterisis curve. These three segments are:
1. the initial modulus when yielding starts,
13
2. the nonlinear transition of the hysterisis curve after yielding starts until
the curve becomes linear again,
3. the linear segment of the curve in the range of higher strain.
To improve the ratcheting prediction in the hysterisis loop, Chaboche et al.
(1979), initially proposed three decompositions of the kinematic hardening rule,
corresponding to the above three segments of the hysterisis curve. Using this
decomposition, the ratcheting prediction improved as compared to the A-F model.
In the same work, Chaboche (1986) analyzed three models to describe kinematic
hardening behavior. The first model that was studied uses independent multiyield
surfaces as proposed by Mroz (1967). This model is useful in generalizing the linear
kinematic hardening rule. It also enables the description of:
! the nonlinearity of stress-strain loops, under cyclically stable conditions,
! the Bauschinger effect, and
! the cyclic hardening and softening of materials with asymptotic plastic
shakedown.
The shortcoming of this model is its inability to describe ratcheting under asymmetric
loading conditions.
The second type of models used only two surfaces, namely the yield and the
bounding surfaces, to describe the material. The Dafalias-Popov (1976) model was
chosen under this category, as it shows the following differences against the Mroz
(1967) model:
! It uses two surfaces whereas Mroz (1967) uses a large number of
surfaces
14
! In terms of the general transition rule for the yield surface, the Mroz
formulation had an advantage over this model
! This model gives a function to describe a continuous variation of the
plastic models, thus enabling description of a smooth elastic-plastic
transition.
In the Mroz (1967) model, the number of variables needed for the description of
ratcheting is very high and for cyclic stabilized conditions no ratcheting occurs. In the
two-surface model, the updating procedure to describe a smooth elastic-plastic
transition and simulate ratcheting effects leads to inconsistencies under complex loading
conditions.
The nonlinear kinematic hardening rule is an intermediate approach of the
models that uses differential equations that govern the kinematic variables. The varying
hardening modulus can be derived directly based on these equations, whereas in the
case of the Mroz (1967) model, non-linearity of kinematic hardening was introduced by
the field of hardening moduli associated with several concentric surfaces. In the case of
the Dafalias and Popov (1976) model, it was done by continuously varying the
hardening modulus, from which the translation rule of the yield surface is deduced.
It was later found that this model tends to greatly over-predict ratcheting in the
case of normal monotonic and reverse cyclic conditions. To overcome these pitfalls,
Chaboche (1991) introduced a fourth decomposition of the kinematic hardening rule
based on a threshold. This fourth rule simulates a constant linear hardening with in a
threshold value and becomes nonlinear beyond this value. With the use of this fourth
decomposition, the over-prediction of ratcheting is reduced and there is an improvement
15
in the hysterisis curve. This is because, with in the threshold, the recall term is ignored
and linear hardening occurs as it did without the fourth rule. Beyond the threshold the
recall term makes the hardening non-linear again and reduces the ratcheting at a higher
rate to avoid over-prediction.
3.5 Voyiadjis and Kattan
Voyiadjis and Kattan (1990) proposed a cyclic theory of plasticity for finite
deformation in the Eulerian reference system. A new kinematic hardening rule is
proposed, based on the experimental observations made by Phillips et al. (1973, 1974,
11979, 1985). This model is shown to be more in line with experimental observations
than the Tseng-Lee model (1983), which is obtained as a special case.
Voyiadjis and Kattan model uses the minimum distance between the yield
surface and the bounding surface as a key parameter. Once this distance reaches a
critical value, the direction of motion of the yield surface in the vicinity on the bounding
surface is changed and the Tseng-Lee model (1983) is used to ensure tangency of the
two surfaces at the stress point.
This model predicts a curved path for the motion of the yield surface in the
interior of the bounding surface. On the other hand, Tseng-Lee (1983) assumes that the
center of the yield surface moves in a straight line. Voyiadjis and Kattan model has
been proven to give good results that conform to experimental observations.
3.6 Voyiadjis and Sivakumar
A robust kinematic hardening rule is proposed by Voyiadjis and Sivakumar
(1991,1994) to appropriately blend the deviatoric stress rate rule and the Tseng-Lee rule
in order to satisfy both the experimental observations made by Phillips et al. (1974,
16
1975, 1977, 1979, 1985) and the nesting of the yield surface to the limit surface. In this
model, and additional parameter is introduced to reflect the dependency of the plastic
modulus on the angle between the deviatoric stress rate tensor and the direction of the
limit backstress relative to the yield backstress.
This model was tested for uniaxial (or proportional) and non-proportional
(multiaxial) loading conditions. The results obtained were than compared with
experimental results, and their correlation was proven to be very accurate.
3.7 Voyiadjis and Basuroychowdhary
Voyiadjis and Basuroychowdhary (1998) proposed a two-surface plasticity
model using a nonlinear kinematic hardening rule to predict the non-linear behavior of
metals under monotonic and non-proportional loadings. The model is based on
Frederick and Armstrong (1966), Chaboche (1989, 1991), Voyiadjis and Kattan, and
Voyiadjis and Sivakumar (1991, 1994) models. The stress rate is incorporated in the
evaluation equation of back-stress through the addition of a new term. The new term
creates an influence of the stress rate on the movement of the yield surface, as proposed
by Phillips et al. (1974, 1975). The evolution equation of backstress is given as four
components of the type NLK-T (Non-Linear Kinematic with Threshold)
2
3
i i ij i i i
l
C p
m
=
&
&
, and
i
is a material parameter. m is
the cord of the bounding surface along the direction of loading and is the distance
from the stress point on the yield surface to the bounding surface in the direction of the
17
stress rate tensor. However, this equation is not homogeneous in time and creates a
stress rate dependency.
When analyzed for monotonic and cyclic tension loadings on 316 stainless steel,
this model was better correlated with the experimental results than the NLK-T model
proposed by Chaboche (1991).
This proposed model was also tested for non-proportional loading for plastic
strain controlled cyclic tests with a combined axial force and torque for thin-walled
tubular specimens of 60/40 brass. The results obtained were very close to the
experimental values by Shiratori et al. (1979). When tested for proportional and non-
proportional ratcheting, the results were very similar to the experiments, although the
decrease in the strain accumulation does not decrease as fast as in the experimental
results.
18
CHAPTER 4
THEORETICAL FORMULATION
4.1 Introduction
In order to better describe the behavior of a work-hardening material, one needs
to use an initial yielding condition, a flow rule, and a hardening rule. The function of
the initial hardening rule is to specify the state of stress for which plasticity will first
occur. The flow rule is the necessary kinematic assumption postulated for plastic
deformation; it gives the ratio or the relative magnitude of the components of the plastic
strain increment tensor
ij
& and also defines its direction in the strain space. The
hardening rule specifies the modification of the yield condition in the course of plastic
flow.
4.2 Yield Condition
The yield condition is represented by a convex surface in the stress space. A
stress space is established by using stress magnitude as the measure of distance along
the coordinate axis. Every point in this space represents a state of stress, whose position
vector may be decomposed into two components to predict the existence of plasticity.
In the case of perfect plastic materials, this surface will remain unchanged after the
yield stress is reached. However, if the material under consideration strain-hardens, the
yield surface will change in accordance with the hardening rule for values of stress
beyond the initial yield point, where the yield point will rise to the new value of the
stress state in the work-hardened material.
Considering ( )
ij
F as a loading function which represents the load being
applied, k as a yield function which depends on the complete previous stress and strain
19
history of the material and its strain hardening properties, and considering that the yield
occurs whenever F becomes equal to the constant k, we can define the following yield
condition such as
( )
ij
F k = . (2)
Considering that the material for which the relation above is applied strain-hardens,
three cases of behavior of the material can be observed. In all three, the state of stress is
on the yield surface ( ) F k = . The three cases are described below.
Case 1:
This case establishes a loading condition represented by the following equation:
0
ij
ij
F
dF
= >
&
(3)
The condition dF 0 > indicates that the state of stress is moving out from the yield
surface and the plastic domain has been reached. An illustration is given in figure 4.1.
Case 2:
This case establishes a condition represented by the following equation:
0
ij
ij
F
dF
= =
&
(4)
As illustrated in figure 4.2, the condition 0 dF = indicates that the state of stress is
moving on the yield surface, thus characterizing neutral loading.
Case 3:
This case establishes an unloading condition represented by the following
equation:
20
0
ij
ij
F
dF
= <
&
(5)
Fig. 4.1: Loading Condition
1
ij
F
ij
&
X
21
Fig. 4.2: Neutral Loading Condition
1
ij
F
ij
&
X
22
Fig. 4.3: Unloading Condition
1
ij
F
ij
&
X
23
The condition 0 dF < indicates that the state of stress is moving in to the yield
surface, going back to the elastic domain. Figure 4.3 shows an illustration of that.
For perfectly plastic materials, plastic flow occurs when F k = and 0 dF = . The
condition dF 0 > does not exist.
Since it is difficult to determine the exact locus of the yield surface, many yield
criteria have been proposed. The most commonly used type of surfaces is the von Mises
kind, where two state variables are used: the kinematic and the isotropic hardening
variables. The kinematic variable accounts for the translation of the yield surface, while
the isotropic variable accounts for its change in size or expansion. In metals it is more
appropriate to define the von Mises yield surface in the deviatoric stress, whereas the
hydrostatic stress has no effect on the plastic deformation.
In this work, the von Mises type is defined as follows
3
( )( ) 0
2
ij ij ij ij y
f R = =
(6)
where
ij
are the deviatoric components of the stress tensor
ij
,
ij
is the tensor which
defines the center of the yield surface,
y
is the initial yield point, and R is the
isotropic hardening variable.
4.3 Flow Rule
As mentioned before, the flow rule gives the ratio or relative magnitude of the
components of the plastic strain increment tensor
ij
& , as well as defines its
corresponding direction in the strain space.
Since
ij
has unlimited magnitude during flow, one must concentrate on finding
the infinitesimal changes of the strain tensor, or strain increments
ij
& . The total strain
24
increment tensor is assumed to be the sum of the elastic and plastic strain increment
tensors such as
ij ij ij
= + & & & . (7)
Since the relations between changes of stress and elastic strain increments are
easily calculated, the stress-strain relation for a material, which has undergone plastic
deformation, primarily depends on its current state of stress and on the relation between
changes of stress and plastic strain.
The elastic strain can be derived by differentiating the elastic potential function
(or complementary energy density function) with respect to stresses
ij
. Von Mises
(1928) proposed a similar concept of the plastic potential function ( )
ij
g , which is a
scalar function of the stresses. This function defines a surface of plastic potential in a
nine-dimensional stress state. The plastic flow equations can be written as
ij
ij
g
&
& (8)
where
&
is a positive scalar factor of proportionality, which is zero in the elastic
domain. This relation implies that the plastic flow vector
ij
& , if plotted as a free vector
in the stress space, is directed along the normal to the surface of plastic potential. For a
so-called stable plastic material, the function ( )
ij
g exists and is identical to the yield
function. This condition defines an associated flow rule, where f g = , thus called
because the plastic flow is associated with the yield criterion. Thus,
ij
ij
f
&
& (9)
and the plastic flow develops along the normal to the yield surface.
25
4.4 Hardening Rule
After the elastic limit is reached, the state of stress lies on the yield surface. If
loading continues, hardening can be manifested in one of these two forms(or both):
isotropic and kinematic. Isotropic hardening accounts for the expansion of the yield
surface and kinematic hardening accounts for its translation in the deviatoric stress
space.
In this proposed model, the evolution of isotropic hardening is defined as by
Chaboche (1991) by the expression
[ ] R b Q R p =
&
& (10)
where
( )
2
0
Q=Q
q
Q Q e
+ and
2
ij
q
=
&
(11)
4.5 Constitutive Model
In this work, the yield criterion is given by equation (6). The backstress
evolution is predicted by the equation
2
3
ij ij ij ij
c p
(15a)
but
ij ij
f f
=
(15b)
and
1
f
R
(15c)
Substituting equations (15) into equation (14) one obtains
( )
0
ij ij
ij
f
R
&
& &
(16)
Making use of the following elasticity relation
( )
'
ij ijkl kl ijkl kl kl
E E
= =
& & & &
(17)
and substituting in (16) one obtains
( ) ( )
2
0
3
ijkl kl kl ij ij ij
ij
f
E c p b Q R p
+ =
| |(
|
(
\ .
& & & & & &
(18)
where
2 2 2
3 3 3
ij ij
ij ij ij ij
f f f f
p
= = =
& & &
& & &
(19)
Substituting equation (19) into equation (18) one obtains
27
( )
2 2
3 3
2
0
3
ijkl kl ijkl ij ijkl kl
ij kl kl ij ij kl
ab ab
f f f f f f
E E c E
f f
b Q R
+
=
(
| |
(
|
\ . (
& & & &
& &
&
(20)
or
( )
2 2
3 3
2
0
3
ij
ijkl kl ijkl ij
ij kl ij ij ij ij ij
ijkl kl ijkl
ij kl ab ab
f f f f f f f f
E E c
f f f f
E E b Q R
+
=
| |
|
\ .
& & &
&
& &
&
(21)
or
( )
2 2
3 3
2
3
kl ijkl ijkl
ij ij
ijkl ij
ij kl ij ij ij ij ij
ijkl
ij kl ab ab
f f
E E
f f f f f f f
E c
f f f f
E b Q R
=
|
| |
+
|
\ .
\
|
+
|
|
.
&
&
&
(22)
or
( ) ( )
( )
1
2 2
1
3 3
2
3
kl ijkl
ij
ijkl ij
ij kl ij ij ij ij ij
ab ab
f
E
f f f f f f f
E c
f f
b Q R
|
+
\
|
+
|
|
.
&
&
(23)
28
Thus, the constant A is evaluated as shown below
( )
( )
2 2
1
3 3
2
3
ijkl ij
ij kl ij ij ij ab ab
mn mn
f f f f f f f
A E c
f f
b Q R
= +
+
(24)
and
( )
1
1
ijkl kl
ij
f
E
A
&
&
(25)
Substituting equations (9) and (25) into (17) one obtains,
( )
( )
1
1
1
1
ij ijkl kl ijkl kl ijkl kl
kl ij kl
ijkl ijkl ijkl kl
ij kl
f f f
E E E
A
f f
E E E
A
= =
=
| |
| |
|
|
\ .
\ .
| |
|
\ .
&
& & & &
&
(26)
that can be written as
ij ijkl kl
D =
& &
(27)
where the elasto-plastic modulus is defined as
( )
1
1
kl
ijkl ijkl ijkl ijkl
ij
f f
D E E E
A
=
(28)
The derivations above are then used to determine the movement of the yield
surface, here represented by the backstress. The elasto-plastic stiffness tensor (D) is
calculated based on the initial assumption of plastic modulus coupled with its kinematic
29
hardening rule through the yield surface consistency condition as in the classical model
proposed by Prager (1956).
A computer program is developed to compute the model numerically in order to
calculate the backstress. The elasto-plastic stiffness tensor is used in the computer
program for incremental loading. By using increments of load, the total and plastic
strains are calculated for different values of stress. After these results are obtained, the
stress-strain curve for different types of loadings is plotted. The plots obtained from the
proposed model using the developed computer program are then analyzed and
compared with the experimental results and other existing coupled kinematic hardening
models.
30
CHAPTER 5
IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE OF THE MATERIAL
PARAMETERS
5.1- Identification Procedure
A new term is added to the evolution equation of the backstress of Armstrong
and Frederick (1966). This modified model conforms to the experimental observations
by Phillips et al. that show the motion of the center of the yield surface in the stress
space is directed between the gradient to the surface at the stress point and the stress
rate direction at that point. This modified backstress evolution equation is expressed by
equation (12), where C , , and are material constants calibrated using available
experimental data and p& is the accumulated plastic strain rate, as defined by equation
(13).
An associative flow rule is assumed such that the plastic strain rate,
ij
& , is given
by equation (8), where
&
is a consistency multiplier and g is the plastic potential
function defined as
1 2
2 2
ij
ij ij ij
k k
g f
p
= +
&
&
(29)
1
k and
2
k are material constants used to adjust the units of the equation and
ij
is the
Cauchy stress tensor, expressed as
( )
ij ijkl kl ijkl kl kl
E E = = (30)
where
ijkl
E is the forth-order elastic moduli tensor and
kl
is the elastic strain
component.
31
For small deformations the total strain
ij
consists of two parts: the elastic strain
part,
ij
, and the plastic strain part,
ij
; such that
ij ij ij
= + (31)
The yield surface is of a von Mises type as given in equation (6), where
y
is
the initial size of the yield surface,
ij
is the deviatoric part of the Cauchy stress tensor,
and R is the isotropic hardening expressed as
R bp = (32)
where b is a material parameter.
5.2- Identification of Backstress Evolution Equation Constants
Identification of the material constants associated with any proposed material
model is still one of the most challenging issues for researchers to obtain better
representation of their material models. The identification procedure for the material
constants involved in the described backstress evolution equation is based on available
experimental results. If limited test data are available, C , , and can be based on the
stress-strain data obtained from the half cycle of uniaxial tension or compression
experiments. As an example of such test data is shown in Figure 1. This approach is
usually adequate when the simulation involves only a few cycles of loading.
Integration of the backstress evolution law, Eq. (13), over a half cycle of the
stress-strain data (Fig. 5.1), can be obtained by assuming that for each data point (
i
,
i
) a value of is obtained such that
( )
y
R = + (33)
32
y
y
R +
1 1
,
2 2
,
3 3
,
Fig. 5.1: Half Cycle of Stress-Strain Data Representing the Hardening
in the Nonlinear Kinematic Model
2
3
s
C b +
=
33
From which the stress rate can be expressed as
R = +
&
& & (34)
where
R bp =
&
& (35)
Utilizing Eqs. (13), (34) and (35), Eq. (12) can be rewritten as
( )
2
3
d Cd d d bd = + + (36)
Rearranging the above equation and integrating over a half cycle of the stress strain data
yields the following expression
( )
0
( )
1
0
e
= + (37)
where
2
3
C b +
=
(38)
and the state (
0
,
0
) results from the previous flow.
5.3- Determination of C , , and by Nonlinear Regression Analysis
Using a finite set of points in the uniaxial backstress-plastic strain curve (Fig.
5.1) one can approximate the curve of the form shown in Eqs. (37) and (38). We use the
least-squares error approach. That is, we calculate C, , and so that the curve passes
through the data such that the sum of squares of the vertical differences between the
curve and various data points is minimized.
Eqs. (37) and (38) are not directly amenable to a least-squares error fit because
the equation is not that of a straight line. However, we rearrange the equation in the
form
34
( )
0
0
1
ln
| |
=
|
\ .
(39)
With known values of , the least-squares error fit can be used to fit Eq. (39).
Close to the saturation point of the stress,
s
(Fig. 5.1), the backstress increment tend to
zero. Thus, by substituting 0 d = into Eq. (36), is reduced to
2
3
s
C b +
= = =
(40)
Hence, Eq. (39) can be rewritten as
( )
0
0
1
s
s
ln
| |
=
|
\ .
(41)
Note that Eq. (41) is of the form
= y a x (42)
where
0 s
s
y ln
| |
=
|
\ .
,
1
=
a , ( )
0
x = (43)
which is the equation of a straight line. That is, we have performed a linearizing
transformation. Thus, we can now apply a least-squares fit of the transformed variables
in the forgoing form. It may be remarked that here it is not necessary to use a process of
updating the variables: the state (
0
,
0
) results from the previous flow, with the flow
always expressed by the same evolutionary equation.
The value of a for a least-squares fit to the linearized equation is:
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
2
n xy x y
a
n x x
(44)
where n is the number of data points and
35
1 =
=
n
i
i
x x ,
( ) ( )
2
2
1 =
=
n
i
i
x x ,
( )
2
2
1 =
| |
=
|
\ .
n
i
i
x x (45)
Then, we obtain C and from Eqs. (40) and (43) as
( )
3
1
2
s
C b = (
(46)
( ) 1 = a (47)
However, we have not yet determined the value of corresponding to a least-
squares error fit. Actually, we have obtained only a least-squares fit of C and for
specified value of .
To determine , we must minimize the squares of the errors
[ ]
2
2
1
n
i
e
=
=
(48)
where is the backstress value form the actual data at the n data points, and is the
backstress value from Eq. (37). We do not perform this minimization by finding where
the derivative of the error squared is zero. Instead, we search for a value of for which
the error is smallest. That is, we increase in increments from its possible smallest
value to the first data point until the error, which first decreases, begins to increase.
Then, we successively halve the increment size and search the region around the
minimum until we have defined the value of to a desired level of accuracy.
5.4- Other Approaches Used to Determine C , , and
Another approach used to determine C , , and was based on the solution of a
system of three linear equations. Since three constants were unknown, the use of three
equations would be sufficient to determine them. In order to determine which constants
36
would provide the best accordance with the uniaxial experimental results, the first and
last experimental values were fixed. The third experimental values, which provide us
with the third equation, varied from the second to the second last experimental result.
During this variation, for each of the three sets of experimental results, and
respectively for each set of three equations, one set of constants C , , and was
calculated. Then, using the calculated set of constants, the predicted backstress values
were then calculated. After calculating the predicted values of backstress, these values
were investigated against the experimental results. The set of constants that presented
the best approximation compared to the experimental results was then chosen as the
constant values of the proposed model.
Also, trial and error was used to determine the material parameters that would
provide the best fit. In this curve fitting procedure, the stress-strain curve for uniaxial
monotonic experimental observations made by Chaboche (1991) was used.
37
CHAPTER 6
BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED MODEL CONSTANTS
In this chapter, the behavior of the proposed model constants is analyzed against
different types of situations. C , , and are evaluated and discussed independently
and related within each other. Their individual importance and contribution to the
model is highlighted and an illustration is presented in the form of graphs.
Case 1:
In this case, the effect of the constant C on the proposed model is presented in
Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Here, C is equivalent to the constant presented by Prager in his
classical Linear-Kinematic hardening model (1956).
It is observed in this application that an increase in the value of C causes
hardening to the material. As a consequence, the plastic strain is reduced for the same
stress level.
Case 2:
In this case, the contribution of
is a material
dependent dynamic recovery term being initially introduced by Armstrong and
Frederick(1966). Its function is to add nonlinearity to the Prager rule, working as a
recall term. As