You are on page 1of 6

Materials Science Forum Vols. 455-456 (2004) pp.

732-737
online at http://www.scientific.net
© (2004) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
Online available
Citation & since 2004/05/15
Copyright (to be inserted by the publisher )

Springback Evaluation with Several Phenomenological Yield Criteria
J. L. Alves1, M. C. Oliveira2 and L. F. Menezes2
1
Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Un. of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4810 Guimarães, Portugal
2
CEMUC, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Un. of Coimbra, Pinhal de Marrocos, Polo II, 3030
Coimbra, Portugal

Keywords: Sheet metal forming, Phenomenological yield criteria, Plasticity, Anisotropy,
Constitutive models, DD3IMP.

Abstract. In the last decades, several orthotropic phenomenological yield criteria were proposed to
accurately describe the anisotropic behaviour of the rolled metallic sheets that are widely used in
the production of sheet metal formed parts. In this work, the authors evoke the implementation of
several yield criteria in the implicit finite element code DD3IMP, namely the Hill 1948 [1], the
Cazacu & Barlat 2001 [2] and the isotropic Drucker’s yield criterion mixed with a linear
transformation [2]. The Numisheet’2002 benchmark “Unconstrained Cylindrical Bending” was
selected to evaluate the influence of the yield criteria on the springback evaluation. A 6111-T4
aluminium alloy was used. Its mechanical characterization was performed by Alcoa [3]. The results
show that only the Cazacu and Barlat 2001 yield criterion fits very accurately both the uniaxial
tensile yield stresses and the r-values. All the other yield criteria fits rather well the experimental
r-values. Concerning the influence of the yield criteria on springback, only a minor influence was
found. However, the results obtained from the Cazacu and Barlat 2001 yield criterion are clearly the
closest to the experimental ones [4].

Introduction
At the present time, the reliability of finite element method simulations is still a dilemma, which
easily explains the reason of the continuous efforts and developments that have been done by all the
scientific community in the last decades. In sheet metal forming, numerous works have been
published concerning the improvement of both the behaviour laws and the initial yield locus
description. In fact, for computer simulation of sheet metal forming processes, a quantitative
description of plastic anisotropy by the yield locus of the material is required. The accuracy of the
numerical results is obviously correlated with the accuracy of this description.
Several phenomenological yield criteria are implemented in the implicit finite element code
DD3IMP (contraction of ‘Deep Drawing 3-D IMPlicit code’) [5]. DD3IMP is a 3-D elastoplastic
finite element code with an updated Lagrangian formulation, following a full implicit
time integration scheme, large elastoplastic strains and rotations, with several isotropic and
anisotropic constitutive models (8 yield criteria and 7 isotropic/kinematic hardening laws). The
Coulomb’s law models the frictional contact problem, which is treated with an augmented
Lagrangian approach. This code has a 3-D finite element library with different types of elements
and integration schemes. The main goals of this work are to compare the fitting accuracy of the
proposed yield criteria to the experimental results, and to present a comparative study of the
influence of those yield criteria in the evaluation of the springback effects. Numisheet’2002
benchmark “Unconstrained Cylindrical Bending” [4] was select to evaluate the influence of the
yield criteria on springback. A 6111-T4 aluminium alloy was used. The mechanical characterization
was performed by Alcoa [3]. A new methodology (the minimization of a functional) to the
identification of the anisotropy parameters of the yield criteria is also followed and presented.

Corresponding author: luis.menezes@dem.uc.pt
All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
written permission of the publisher: Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland, www.ttp.net. (ID: 86.45.208.114-18/01/08,11:05:44)

. and −3. Materials Science Forum Vols. several yield criteria proposed in the bibliography were implemented. F . CB2001 yield criterion [2]. The CB2001 yield criterion is a generalization of the Drucker’s isotropic yield criterion to orthotropy. (1) where Y is the flow stress. 6 6 2 (4) 1 1 1 J 30 = ( b1 + b2 ) σ xx3 + ( b3 + b4 ) σ yy3 +  2 ( b1 + b4 ) − b2 − b3  σ zz3 27 27 27 1 1 1 − ( b1σ yy + b2σ zz ) σ xx2 − ( b3σ zz + b4σ xx ) σ yy2 − ( b1 − b2 + b4 ) σ xx + ( b1 − b3 + b4 ) σ yy  σ zz2 9 9 9 . 455-456 733 Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher) 733 The Implemented Phenomenological Yield Criteria. These generalized stress invariants were then used to extend the Drucker’s isotropic yield criterion to orthotropy: 1 { σ = 27 ( J 20 ) − c ( J 30 )   3 2  } 6 . Y can also be seen as the size of the yield surface and therefore their evolution law is also the evolution law of the yield surface. H . where X is the backstress tensor.τ xy are the stress components of the deviatoric Cauchy stress tensor. (3) where J 20 and J 30 are the second and third generalized invariants of the effective stress tensor: a1 2 a 2 a J 20 = 6 ( σ xx − σ yy ) + 2 (σ yy − σ zz ) + 3 (σ xx − σ zz ) + a4σ xy2 + a5σ xz2 + a6σ yz2 .. the deviatoric stress tensor ( σ′ ) should be replaced by the effective stress tensor ( σ′ − X ). and furthermore the anisotropic plastic response of the rolled metal sheets. To describe yielding of orthotropic materials.11 ) and c are the anisotropy parameters of the yield criterion. The D~L yield criterion is an extension of Drucker’s isotropic yield criterion to orthotropy using the linear transformation L proposed by [6. the yield criterion proposed by Hill is a generalization of the von Mises’s distortional energy criterion to orthotropy.7]. G .25 is the necessary and sufficient condition for the convexity of the yield surface. Alternatively. and σ xx . Hill 1948 yield criterion [1]. ak and bk reduce to unity for isotropic conditions. and σ is the equivalent stress that “measures” the stress state. a generalization of the second and third invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor were developed. L M and N are the anisotropy parameters of the yield criterion. if the kinematic hardening is taken into account. 6 ). with Σ = L : ( σ '− X ) . which evolution is given by a hardening law.. 2 2 2 2 (2)   where σ is the tensile equivalent stress (a measure of the yield surface). To describe σ . D+L yield criterion [2]. (5) 2 2 σ xz + ( b1 + b4 ) σ xxσ yyσ zz −  2b9σ yy − b8σ zz − ( 2b9 − b8 ) σ xx  9 3  σ xy2 σ yz2 −  2b10σ zz − b5σ yy − ( 2b10 − b5 ) σ xx  − ( b6 + b7 ) σ xx − b6σ yy − b7σ zz  + 2b11σ xyσ yzσ yz 3  3  coefficients ak ( k = 1. The well known and widely used quadratic Hill 1948 yield criterion is given by the expression 1 σ =  F (σ yy − σ zz ) + G (σ zz − σ xx ) + H (σ xx − σ yy ) + 2 Lτ yz2 + 2 M τ zx2 + 2 Nτ xy2  . bk ( k = 1. Basically. A yield surface is generally described by an implicit equation of the form: F = σ −Y = 0.375 ≤ c ≤ 2. The anisotropy conditions are obtained by replacing in the expression of the isotropic yield criterion the stress tensor σ' by Σ .

For this material and following the proposed methodology. Identification of the Anisotropy Parameters.734 Advanced Materials Forum II 734 Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher) The extension of Drucker’s yield criterion to orthotropy using the linear transformation approach is given by the expression 1   1 2 3 1 3   2 6 σ = 27  tr ( Σ )  − c  tr ( Σ )    . rα . to attain a good stability of the minimization solution. c3 . rb ) are the experimental data and the one computed from the constitutive equations. Through the minimization of the functional F ( A) . c4 . such as the experimental results concerning the flow stresses and the r-values of the simple tensile test at several angles to the rolling direction and. However. and the equi-biaxial yield stress ( σb ) and r-value ( rb ) obtained from the equi-biaxial tensile test. given by 2 2 2 2 2  σα   τα   rα   σb   rb  F ( Α ) = ∑  exp − 1 + ∑  exp − 1 + ∑  exp − 1 +  exp − 1 +  exp − 1 . mainly in the CB2001 yield criterion. . rb ) and ( σα . To smooth the evolution of the yield surface during the minimization procedure. (8)  σα   τα   rα   σb   rb  where Α is the set of anisotropy parameters of each yield criterion. τα . c2 . Using any number of experimental values. 15 experimental values were used: 7 uniaxial tensile stresses and corresponding r-values and the equi-biaxial stress. (6)   2  3    where c is an isotropic parameter and the anisotropy parameters. and ( σexp exp exp exp exp α . The identification of the anisotropy parameters requires an appropriate set of experimental data. it is possible to characterize the yield criteria. The anisotropy parameters of each yield criterion should be determined such that the phenomenological yield surface reproduces as accurate as possible the mechanical behaviour identified by the experimental tests: the uniaxial yield stresses ( σα ) and the r-values ( rα ) obtained from the uniaxial tensile tests at several orientations to rolling direction. σ b . In this work a new methodology is proposed to the identification of the anisotropy parameters of each yield criterion. some numerical restrictions must be added to the F ( A) . are introduced through the linear transformation L . c1 . c5 and c6 . the anisotropy parameters of the three yield criteria were calculated. often. σb . the number of experimental values should be higher than. 6111-T4 aluminium alloy. τα . the simple shear test and the equi-biaxial test. or at least equal to the number of anisotropy parameters of the yield criterion to be identified. rα .

91577 1.34679 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c D~L 1.78128 1. Anisotropy of the r-values and of the uniaxial tensile stress for the were also identified 6111-T4 alloy.60813 CB2001 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10 b11 c -.0 1.38115 F G H L M N Hill48 0.0 1.5 1. it is possible to conclude that whilst the differences between the Hill48 and the D~L yield surfaces are generally small. Table 1 shows the calculated anisotropy parameters.54572 .68110 1. From the analyses of the yield surface shapes.46769 1.50776 0.43240 0. Materials Science Forum Vols.0 2.5 1.22645 1.36290 0.0 0.5 1.99051 0. For comparison purposes. Yield Criteria Anisotropy parameters Hill48 F G H L M N (reference) 0. 1 shows the variation of experimental and predicted r-values and uniaxial tensile yield stresses with respect to the rolling direction (to rolling direction). 1.47202 1.48272 1. Table 1.).0 1.0 1.52798 0.97742 1.0 1.5 1. the parameters of the Hill48 yield criterion Fig.97715 1. Anisotropy parameters (6111-T4 alloy).0 -.85234 4. following the classical methodology (Hill 48 Ref.39073 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 b1 b2 b3 0. It should be notice that while all the yield criteria describe quite well the experimental r-values.02027 0.11993 2. the differences to the CB2001 yield surface are larger mainly in the neighbourhood of the equi-biaxial stress state.71964 0.71518 0.0 1. 455-456 735 Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher) 735 Fig. only the CB2001 yield criterion describes very accurately the anisotropy both in the yield and the r-values.

1 52.8 51. the springback predicted with the CB2001 yield criterion is systematically closer to the experimental results than with the other yield criteria. in this case. Fig. Simulations were carried out for specimens cut from three different angles (0.8 53. The springback prediction is also improved with the CB2001 yield criterion. 2.1 52.4 90º RD 53. The differences between the Hill48_Ref.5 53. Table 2. and the Hill48 yield criteria are almost negligible.5 mm. the Voce law without kinematic hardening was selected with the following parameters: Y = 420. . Table 2 summarizes the experimental [4] and numerical springback results.6 45º RD 56. only one quarter of the total specimen was simulated.329 exp(−8.2 53. Only this yield criterion predicts very accurately both the uniaxial tensile yield stresses and the r-values. 2a shows the main tools’ dimensions.1 53. The discrepancy observed for the 45ºRD direction can be associated with the fact that only one quarter of the total specimen was simulated. 45 and 90º).4 53.736 Advanced Materials Forum II 736 Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher) Numerical Case and Discussion The “Unconstrained Cylindrical Bending” benchmark was proposed at the Numisheet’2002 conference in order to investigate the springback phenomenon. A FE mesh of 82 × 30 × 3 8-nodes hexahedron finite elements was used. the material symmetry (necessary to such simplification) does not occur. due to the complex materials usually involved. Indeed. The D+L yield criterion improves the springback results relatively to the Hill48 yield criterion.857 − 233.6 53. Springback can be quantified by the difference between the bending angles after loading and unloading. a) b) Fig. 2b.448ε p ) .9 53. Experimental apparatus and springback. Experimental Hill48_Ref. as shown in Fig.9 56.1 As one can see. The CB2001 yield criterion seems to be definitely an improvement over the other proposed yield criteria.8 51. Experimental and numerical springback. The total punch stroke is of 28. Hill 48 CB2001 D+L 0º RD 55. Conclusions In sheet metal forming. To model the isotropic hardening. constitutive models based on a quadratic yield function and the normality rule are often not accurate enough and is required the use of non quadratic yield criterion and/or more sophisticated yield functions. Due to the geometrical symmetry.

Vol.613.. Cazacu. Siegert Proceedings of the 6th European Mechanics of Materials Conference. Banabic. J. p. References [1] R. F. Boyce: J. D. Barlat. Korea. P. Teodosiu: J. Cescotto (2002). Materials Science Forum Vols. Wagner. p. USA. [6] F. 41(1993). 193 (1948). p265. Materials Processing Technology Vol. S. 6 (2001) p. Mechanics and Physics of Solids Vol.1859. [3] J. Royal Soc. Eng. Karafillis. C. Phys.281. 100. Science. O. Brem. M. [4] Numisheet 2002 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Forming Processes. . London. Menezes. Alcoa Technical Center. of Math. K. Eds. p. [2] O. Brem: International Journal of Plasticity Vol. [7] A. S. Barlat: Material 1 of Numisheet 2002 Conf. Cazacu. Comsa. [5] L. 7 (1991). M. Barlat. Lege. D. S. 97 (2000). Barlat: (2001) Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids Vol. p. C.693. Hill: Proc. J. 455-456 737 Title of Publication (to be inserted by the publisher) 737 Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation and Program POCTI/35945/EME/2000 for financial support. F. A Vol. [8] D.II. C. F. C.