JMEPEG ÓASM International

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-018-3566-5 1059-9495/$19.00

A Simplified Procedure to Determine Post-necking True

Stress–Strain Curve from Uniaxial Tensile Test of Round
Metallic Specimen Using DIC
Surajit Kumar Paul, Satish Roy, S. Sivaprasad, and S. Tarafder

(Submitted July 31, 2017; in revised form July 27, 2018)

Triaxial state of stress is usually generated in the necked zone because of neck geometry, and as a conse-
quence proper correction of true tensile stress–strain curve after necking is mandatory. Various correction
factors like Bridgman, Davidenkov and Spiridonova, Siebel and Schwaigere are available in the published
literature to calculate true stress from mean axial stress. Similarly true strains can be calculated from the
minimum diameters of the round specimen in the necked region for various true stress levels. But exper-
imental determination of correction factors and minimum diameters of the round specimen in the necked
region is a cumbersome task. This investigation shows a simplified procedure to determine true strains and
the correction factors from digital image correlation-based local strain measurement in the necked region.
The present procedure is validated by experimental results of rail steel.

cylindrical specimens will not be identical. Round specimens

Keywords correction factor, digital image correlation, finite
element analysis, necking, true stress–strain curve
1. Introduction
Mechanical properties of materials such as the elastic
modulus, yield strength, tensile strength, uniform elongation
and total elongation are generally obtained through uniaxial
tensile test (Ref 1). The engineering stress–strain curve from
such a test is obtained by measuring force and strain using a
calibrated load cell and an extensometer, respectively. The
engineering stress and strain values in turn can be converted
into their respective true values, and such conversion is valid up
to the uniform elongation of the material. Often, true stress–
strain curve beyond necking is essential for the simulation of
large nonlinear plastic deformation. But, experimental deter-
mination of true stress–strain curve post-necking from uniaxial
tensile experiment is complicated due to alterations in the state
of stress induced by the neck geometry, and appropriate
corrections to account for the triaxial state of stress are therefore
necessary. In this regard, Bridgman (Ref 2, 3) was the first to
propose a simplified procedure based on the neck geometry. He
also introduced a correction factor (CF) based on the neck
geometry to determine true stress–strain response of cylindrical
specimen after necking.
However, in practice, either a cylindrical specimen with
circular cross section is used when the anisotropy of the
material is minimum (Ref 4-7) or a rectangular cross-sectional
specimen is used when the effect of anisotropy is prominent
(Ref 8-15). The necking characteristics of a sheet and
Surajit Kumar Paul, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Patna, Patna 801106, India; Satish Roy,
S. Sivaprasad, and S. Tarafder, Fatigue and Fracture Group, CSIR-
National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur 831007, India. Contact
e-mails: paulsurajit@yahoo.co.in, surajit@iitp.ac.in.
will show a diffused necking characteristic, whereas a rectan-
gular sheet specimen will exhibit a diffused necking followed
by local necking. Once diffused necking sets in, the cross
section loses its initial rectangular shape. As a consequence,
determination of alteration of cross-sectional area post-necking
for sheet specimen is more complex than in round specimen.
Zhang et al. (Ref 8) reported the reduction in cross-sectional
area for sheet specimen as a function of thickness reduction.
Two types of methodologies, direct and indirect methods, have
been proposed in the literature for acquiring true stress–strain
curve over a large range of strains. In the direct method (Ref 4,
12, 14), both the stress and strain of the true stress–strain curve
is measured directly from the experiment. Digital image
correlation (DIC), a non-contact technique for deformation
measurement (Ref 4, 10-12, 16-20), is popularly used for this
purpose. Zhu et al. (Ref 4) used 3D DIC technique to determine
the plastic deformation in cylindrical specimens of low-carbon
steel. They calculated the true stress from the load and the
actual cross-sectional area from strains measured by DIC, but
they neglected the stress triaxiality in the necking region.
Iadicola (Ref 12) measured multi-axial strain and stress state at
neck zone with a combination of 2D DIC and x-ray diffraction
techniques and then converted to equivalent stress and strain
using the yield criteria. Wang and Tang (Ref 15) predicted post-
necking true stress–strain curve from standard flat tension test
coupon by numerical simulation with a multi-linear strain
hardening model. Zhao et al (Ref 13) also presented a method
for obtaining the flow curve of sheet metals over a large range
of strain through a combination of simple tensile test and finite
element analyses.
The second approach is an indirect method in which
experimental measurement is used in combination with analyt-
ical solution or finite element analysis to find out the true
stress–strain curve. This method is also known as an inverse
method (Ref 5-7, 9-11). Kamaya and Kawakubo (Ref 5), Joun
et al. (Ref 6) and Mirone (Ref 7) adopted the inverse method to
find out the true stress–strain curve of uniaxial round tensile

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

specimen. Zhang et al. (Ref 8), Kim et al. (Ref 11) and Tardif a is the radius of the smallest cross section (Fig. 1). Neglect-
and Kyriakides (Ref 10) used such method to obtain the true ing shear stresses, the equivalent stress (req) can be calculated
stress–strain curves for uniaxial tensile specimens with rectan- by
gular cross section. A uniaxial tensile specimen with rectan-
1 h i1=2
gular cross section is more suitable for sheet metals. Tardif and req ¼ pffiffiffi ðra  rr Þ2 þ ðra  rh Þ2 þ ðrh  rr Þ2 ðEq 4Þ
Kyriakides (Ref 10) measured boundary profiles along with the 2
strains of the AL-6011-T6 tensile specimen with rectangular Similarly by neglecting shear strains, the equivalent strain
cross section using the DIC technique. To validate their (eeq) can be calculated by
prediction, the boundary profiles of experiment and finite pffiffiffi h
element simulation are compared. Zhang et al. (Ref 8) 2 i1=2
established a correlation between remaining cross-sectional eeq ¼ ðea  er Þ2 þ ðea  eh Þ2 þ ðeh  er Þ2 ðEq 5Þ
3
area and thickness reduction through extensive finite element
simulations. They utilized this technique to determine the true where ea, er and eh are mean axial, radial and hoop strains,
stress–strain curve of sheet specimen. Kim et al. (Ref 11) used a respectively. From the volume constancy in plastic deforma-
combination of DIC technique and virtual field method to tion, Eq 6 can be obtained.
measure the true stress–strain curve of sheet specimen. ea þ eh þ er ¼ 0 ðEq 6Þ
In this investigation, finite element analysis is performed
using cylindrical specimen geometry with circular cross- For axisymmetric deformation Eq 7 can be obtained.
sectional area to compare the predictive capability of existing ea ¼ 2eh ¼ 2er ðEq 7Þ
models with analytical correction factors. In the next phase,
tensile experiment is simulated using a cylindrical specimen Substituting Eq 7 in Eq 5, we can write,
with circular cross section (rail steel). Local axial strain is
eeq ¼ ea ðEq 8Þ
measured by DIC, and load-engineering strain is measured
from standard uniaxial tensile test. Equivalent strain and true The correction factor (CF) can be defined as the ratio of
axial stress are calculated from local axial strain in the neck equivalent stress (req) to mean axial stress (ram). Bridgman
zone. Appropriate correction factor is introduced to convert true correction factor (Ref 2, 3) (CFB) can be obtained from Eq
axial stress to equivalent stress. Finally the post-necking true 9.
stress–strain curve for round specimen is determined and
req 1
validated with experimental engineering stress–strain curve CFB ¼ ¼    ðEq 9Þ
through comparing with finite element simulation result. ram 1 þ 2R=a ln 1 þ a=2R

1.1 Stress Strain Relationship Usually, the value of Bridgman correction factor (CFB) is less
than 1 after diffused necking. From Eq 9, it can be stated that
Axial load, displacement and engineering strain are obtained
accurate experimental measurement of a/R ratio is required
from tensile experiment. True stress of the material can be
for satisfactory result. However, experimental measurement of
determined from engineering stress and true strain through
a and R is tedious and time consuming. The values of a and
Eq 1 up to necking.
r ¼ See ðEq 1Þ
where S and e are the engineering stress and strain, respec-
tively, while r and e are the corresponding true stress and
strain.
Prior to necking, the stress state in the specimen is uniaxial,
whereas after necking the stress state will become triaxial in
nature. To obtain proper true stress–strain curve in a triaxial
stress state an appropriate correction factor is required.
Bridgman (Ref 2, 3) proposed the following equations to
calculate the stresses (axial, radial and hoop stresses) in the
smallest cross section (neck zone) Radial axis 2a R
2 2 2
3
ram ln a þ2aRr
2aR
rh ¼ rr ¼ 4  5 ðEq 2Þ
ð1 þ 2R=aÞ ln 1 þ a=2R

2 2 3
a þ2aRr2
ram 1 þ ln 2aR
ra ¼  4   5 ðEq 3Þ
2R ln 1 þ a=
1 þ =a 2R

where ram, ra, rr and rh are mean axial stress, axial, radial
and hoop stresses, respectively. Figure 1 schematically repre-
sents the neck geometry. R is the radius of curvature in the
necking zone, r is the radial distance from the centerline, and Fig. 1 Schematic of necking in round tensile specimen

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

R can be measured by periodically capturing the image of the
neck profile and fitting an equation for the corresponding
neck profile.
Leroy et al. (Ref 21) proposed a relationship for calculating
the a/R ratio. This relationship is expressed in terms of the
current axial strain (ea) and the uniform elongation of the
material (eUEL) as follows
a
¼ 1:1ðea  eUEL Þ ðEq 10Þ
R
After Bridgman (Ref 2, 3), Siebel and Schwaigere (Ref 22)
and Davidenkov and Spiridonova (Ref 23) separately reported
different relations for the correction factors as follows
req 1
CFS ¼ ¼  ðEq 11Þ
ram 1 þ a=4R

req 1
CFD ¼ ¼  ðEq 12Þ
ram 1 þ a=2R
By taking consideration of Leroy et al. (Ref 21) and Siebel
and Schwaigere (Ref 22), a simplified correction factor (CFP)
is introduced in this study.
req 1 Fig. 2 (a) Finite element mesh, (b) boundary conditions, and (c) a
CFP ¼ ¼ ðEq 13Þ typical deformation after necking (engineering strain of 0.5758)
ram ð1 þ 0:25ea  0:25eUEL Þ
To calculate this proposed correction factor (CFP), only mean 1400
axial strain (ea) and uniform elongation (eUEL) of the material
are required. Uniform elongation (eUEL) can be easily deter- 1200
mined from uniaxial tensile test, and mean axial strain (ea)
can be determined from DIC-based local strain measurement. 1000
Stress, MPa

For known correction factor (CFP) and mean axial stress

(ram), the equivalent stress (req) can be calculated from Eq 14. 800
req ¼ CFP ram ðEq 14Þ
600

400

2. Experimental 200 Engineering stress-strain, FEM output

Rail steel is selected for this investigation. Round tensile
specimens with a gauge diameter of 7 mm are fabricated from
the head of rail. A constant strain rate of 0.001/s is used for
conducting the tensile test. Experiment is carried out at
laboratory environment in a servo-electric test frame of
100 kN capacity. Tensile experiment is continued until fracture
of the sample. Commercially available DIC system from
LaVision (Ref 26) and strain analysis software from DaVis (Ref
27) are used for local strain measurement. Normally, 200-300
images per test specimen are stored for determination of local
strain components.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Finite Element Simulation
Finite element simulation is conducted on a round specimen
to determine the stress state after necking and to compare the
prediction capabilities of various available correction factors.
Commercial finite element software ABAQUS is used for this
purpose. Round uniaxial tensile specimen is modeled by
axisymmetric model. The details of finite element mesh,
True stress-strain, FEM input
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strain
Fig. 3 Engineering and true stress–strain curve: true stress–strain
curve used as input material property in finite element simulation
and engineering stress–strain curve obtained from finite element sim-
ulation
boundary conditions, and a typical deformation after necking
for engineering strain of 0.5758 are shown in Fig. 2. Isotropic
hardening law and von Mises yield criteria are used in this
work. The input material property (isotropic hardening law) is
supplied in the form of true stress–strain curve which is shown
in Fig. 3.
3.2 Comparison of Prediction Capabilities of Various
Correction Factors
The engineering stress–strain curve obtained from finite
element simulation is depicted in Fig. 3. Decrease in engineer-
ing stress with increase in engineering strain after maximum
load bearing capacity of the material describes necking

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

 1750 0.6

1500
0.5
1250 Stress

Stress triaxiality
σeq (equivalent) 0.4
1000
σa (axial)
Stress, MPa

750 σr (radial) 0.3

σθ (hoop)
500 σrθ (shear)
0.2
250

0 0.1

-250 0.0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
(a) Radius, mm (from center to surface) Radius, mm (from center to surface)
0.7
Fig. 5 Evolution of stress triaxiality with current radius of the
0.6 specimen for engineering strain of 0.5758
Strain
0.5 εeq (equivalent)
0.4 εa (axial) stress and equivalent stress in various average equivalent strain
0.3 εr (radial) levels. A significant difference is noticed between the average
εθ (hoop) axial stress and equivalent stress. This difference dictates the
0.2 requirement of correction factor. The correction factors pro-
εrθ (shear)
Strain

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 1 2 3
(b)
Radius, mm (from center to surface)
Fig. 4 Finite element simulation result in the neck zone for engi-
neering strain of 0.5758 (a) stress evolution with current radius of
the specimen and (b) strain evolution with current radius of the spec-
imen
phenomena. Change in stress and strain states with current
radius (center to surface) of the specimen is shown in Fig. 4.
Clear gradient of stress and strain states can be noticed from
center to surface of the specimen. Similarly, alteration of stress
triaxiality with current radius of the specimen for same
engineering strain level is illustrated in Fig. 5. Higher stress
triaxiality is noticed at the center of the specimen. To find out
correction factors, average stresses and strains are computed at
the lowest cross-sectional region for each engineering strain
levels. Evolution average stresses and strains for each engi-
neering strain levels are shown in Fig. 6. Negligible develop-
ment of shear stress and strain are noticed even after necking of
round specimen. It may be noted that all analytical correction
factors [Bridgman (Ref 2, 3), Siebel and Schwaigere (Ref 22)
and Davidenkov and Spiridonova (Ref 23)] also assume no
shear stress development after necking and thus the assumption
is valid. This essentially means that the average equivalent
strain is equal to average axial strain (Eq 8) since the
development of shear strain is negligible. However, significant
magnitude of radial and hoop stresses are developed after
necking of the specimen. Figure 7 shows the average axial
posed by Bridgman (Ref 2, 3), Siebel and Schwaigere (Ref 22),
Davidenkov and Spiridonova (Ref 23) are calculated from
Eq 9, 11, 12 and 13, respectively. Comparison of predictive
capability of these four correction factors is made with finite
element result. Bridgman (Ref 2, 3) and, Siebel and Schwaigere
(Ref 22) correction factors are found to be matching reasonably
well with finite element simulation result. Figure 8 shows that
proposed correction factor is also matching well with finite
element simulation result.
3.3 Prediction of Post-necking Stress–Strain Curve
In all approximate analytical solution techniques [Bridgman
(Ref 2, 3), Siebel and Schwaigere (Ref 22), and Davidenkov
and Spiridonova (Ref 23)], accurate measurement of a/R ratio is
mandatory to obtain the correct equivalent stress from the
average true axial stress in the neck zone. Ling (Ref 24) and
Joshi et al. (Ref 25) discussed in detail about the difficulty in
measurement of a/R ratio (neck geometry at minimum cross-
sectional area) after necking. To calculate average true axial
stress and axial strain, measurement of cross-sectional area after
necking is essential. Lateral extensometer measurement tech-
nique (traditional method) is not suitable for measurement of
cross-sectional area after necking, because the location of
necking is random and extremely difficult to find out in
advance. In the present work, local axial strain in neck zone is
measured by DIC technique. Average equivalent strain in neck
zone are calculated from Eq 8. Then average axial stress is
calculated from Eq 1.
Engineering stress–strain curve of rail steel is shown in
Fig. 9. Evolution of axial strain (ea) along the gauge length of
the round rail steel specimen for various engineering strain
levels is illustrated in Fig. 10. Initially, uniform local axial
strain is observed throughout the gauge length and it starts to
increase locally once the neck formation sets in. Two distinct
deformation regions inside the neck zone and out side the
neck zone are selected for detailed investigation. Evolutions

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

 1.5 1.0
Average strain in neck
εeq(equivalent)
1.0 εa (axial) 0.9
εθ (hoop)

Correction factor
εr (radial)
0.5 εrθ (shear) 0.8
Strain

0.0 0.7
Correction factors
FEM simulation
-0.5 0.6 Bridgman
Davidenkov
Siebel
-1.0 Proposed
0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) Overall engineering strain
True strain
2500
Average stress in neck Fig. 8 Comparison the predictive capability of various correction
σ eq(equivalent) factors
2000 σ a (axial)
σ θ (hoop)
1000
Stress, MPa

1500 σ r (radial)
σ rθ (shear)
800
1000 Engineering stress, MPa

600
500

400
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(b) Overall engineering strain 200

Rail steel
Fig. 6 Finite element simulation result for various overall engineer- 0
ing strain levels (a) stress and (b) strain 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Engineering strain
2500
2250 In neck region Fig. 9 Engineering stress–strain curve of rail steel
Axial
2000 Equivalent
1750 38
Correction factor 36 17.9%
Stress, MPa

1500 34
32
1250 30
28
1000
26
Axial strain, %

750 24 Increasing overall

22 engineering strain
500 20 13.3%
18 12.1%
250 16
14 11%
0 10%
12
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 10 9%
Strain 8 7%
6 4.6%
4
Fig. 7 Requirement of correction factor 2 2%

0 4 8 12 16 20
Distance along gauge length, mm
of true axial strain in neck zone and outside the neck zone are
plotted in Fig. 11. After necking, true axial strain in outside Fig. 10 Evolution of axial strain (ea) along the gauge length of the
neck zone has been found to remain constant, while true axial round rail steel specimen for various engineering strain levels

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

 0.40 1000
Middle of neck
0.35
Outside neck
800

Engineering stress, MPa

0.30

0.25
600
Strain

0.20

0.15 400

0.10
200
0.05 Experiment
Rail steel FE simulation
Rail steel
0.00 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Overall engineering strain Engineering strain

Fig. 11 Evolution of true axial strain in neck zone and outside of Fig. 13 Comparison of experimental and finite element simulated
neck zone engineering stress–strain curve of rail steel

1.00 1.00
Proposed correction factor

0.98
0.98

Proposed correction factor

0.96
0.94
0.96 0.92
0.90
0.94 0.88
0.86
0.92 0.84
Rail steel 0.82 SA333 steel
0.90
0.80
0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
(a) Overall engineering strain (a) Overall engineering strain
1250
700
Rail steel SA333 steel
1000 600
True stress, MPa

500
True stress, MPa

750
400

500 300

200
250
Experiment
DIC & proposed correction 100 Experiment
DIC & proposed correction
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0
(b) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
True strain (b) True strain
Fig. 12 Rail steel (a) proposed correction factor and (b) true stress–
strain curve after proposed correction Fig. 14 SA333 steel (a) proposed correction factor and (b) true
stress–strain curve after proposed correction

strain in neck zone increased with straining. Calculated The following steps are followed to determine the post-
proposed correction factor (Eq 13) for rail steel is shown in necking true-strain curve from the tensile test of round
Fig. 12(a). specimen. (1) Determination of true average axial strain (ea)

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

in neck zone from DIC-based strain measurement. It is assumed
that the average axial strain is approximately equal to the
surface axial strain. (2) Evaluation of true equivalent strain (eeq)
in neck zone from Eq 8. (iii) Determination of true average/
mean axial stress (ra) in neck zone from Eq 1. True average
axial strain (ea) and engineering stress are required to calculate
mean axial stress in neck region. (4) Calculate correction factor
from Eq 13. (5) Calculation of equivalent stress (req) from
Eq 14. (6) Construction of true stress–strain curve by plotting
equivalent stress (req) versus equivalent strain (eeq).
Figure 12(b) shows the true stress–strain curve of rail steel.
To validate the calculated true stress–strain curve, engineering
stress–strain curve obtained from finite element simulation in
which calculated true stress–strain curve (from proposed
method) supplied as material property is compared against
the experimental engineering stress–strain curve. Figure 13
shows that the simulated engineering stress–strain curve
matches well with experimental curve. Calculated proposed
correction factor (Eq 13) and true stress–strain curves of Rail
steel are shown in Fig. 14(a) and (b), respectively.
4. Conclusions
Finite element simulation study shows that after necking the
radial and hoop stresses start developing, as consequence stress
triaxiality is developed. Equivalent stress in the minimum cross
section of the necked region is lower than the mean axial stress
in the same region. The difference between equivalent stress
and mean axial stress illustrates the necessity of a correction
factor. Prediction capability of existing correction factors are
examined in this work and found that Bridgman, Siebel and
Schwaigere work well for round specimens. In the current
investigation, a correction factor is proposed which can be
determined from the DIC-based local strain measurement. The
proposed correction factor also works well for the round
specimen.
In the present investigation, the local axial strain in the
necked region is experimentally determined from local strain
measurement through DIC. The proposed correction factor is
determined from the components of local strains measured by
DIC and uniform elongation measured from uniaxial tensile
test. The complete true stress–strain curve of the material is
determined from engineering stress–strain curve, local axial
strain measured by DIC and correction factor. Extracted true
stress–strain curve from the proposed method is verified by
matching experimental engineering stress–strain curve with
finite element simulated curve.
References
1. M. Joun, I. Choi, J. Eom, and M. Lee, Finite Element Analysis of
Tensile Testing with Emphasis on Necking, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2007,
41(1), p 63–69
2. P.W. Bridgman, Studies in Large Plastic Flow and Fracture, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1952
3. P.W. Bridgman, The Stress Distribution at the Neck of a Tension
Specimen, Trans. Am. Soc. Met., 1944, 32, p 553–574
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
4. F. Zhu, P. Bai, J. Zhang, D. Lei, and X. He, Measurement of True
Stress–Strain Curves and Evolution of Plastic Zone of Low Carbon
Steel Under Uniaxial Tension Using Digital Image Correlation, Opt.
Lasers Eng., 2015, 65, p 81–88
5. M. Kamaya and M. Kawakubo, A Procedure for Determining the True
Stress–Strain Curve Over a Large Range of Strains Using Digital
Image Correlation and Finite Element Analysis, Mech. Mater., 2011,
43, p 243–253
6. M.S. Joun, J.G. Eom, and M.C. Lee, A New Method for Acquiring True
Stress–Strain Curves Over a Large Range of Strains Using a Tensile Test
and Finite Element Method, Mech. Mater., 2008, 40, p 586–593
7. G. Mirone, A New Model for the Elastoplastic Characterization and the
Stress–Strain Determination on the Necking Section of a Tensile
Specimen, Int. J. Solids Struct., 2004, 41(13), p 3545–3565
8. Z.L. Zhang, M. Hauge, J. Odegard, and C. Thaulow, Determining True
Stress–Strain Curve from Tensile Specimens with Rectangular Cross-
Section, Int. J. Solids Struct., 1999, 36, p 3497–3516
9. A. Nasser, A. Yadav, P. Pathak, and T. Altan, Determination of the
Flow Stress of Five AHSS Sheet Materials (DP 600, DP 780, DP780-
CR, DP 780-HY and TRIP 780) Using the Uniaxial Tensile and the
Biaxial Viscous Pressure Bulge (VPB) Tests, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2010, 210, p 429–436
10. N. Tardif and S. Kyriakides, Determination of Anisotropy and Material
Hardening for Aluminum Sheet Metal, Int. J. Solids Struct., 2012,
49(25), p 3496–3506
11. J.-H. Kim, A. Serpantié, F. Barlat, F. Pierron, and M.-G. Lee,
Characterization of the Post-necking Strain Hardening Behavior Using
the Virtual Fields Method, Int. J. Solids Struct., 2013, 50, p 3829–3842
12. M.A. Iadicola, Validation of Uniaxial Data Beyond Uniform Elonga-
tion, in Proceedings of 8th the International Conference and Workshop
on Numerical Simulation of 3DSheet Metal Forming Processes, AIP
Conf. Proc., 2011, 1383, pp 742–749
13. K. Zhao, L. Wang, Y. Chang, and J. Yan, Identification of Post-necking
Stress–Strain Curve for Sheet Metals by Inverse Method, Mech. Mater.,
2016, 92, p 107–118
14. X. Zhuang, Z. Zhao, H. Li, and H. Xiang, Experimental Methodology
for Obtaining the Flow Curve of Sheet Materials in a Wide Range of
Strains, Steel Res. Int., 2013, 84(2), p 146–154
15. L. Wang and W. Tong, Identification of Post-necking Strain Hardening
Behavior of Thin Sheet Metals from Image-Based Surface Strain Data
in Uniaxial Tension Tests, Int. J. Solids Struct., 2015, 75-76, p 12–31
16. S.K. Paul, S. Roy, S. Sivaprasad, H.N. Bar, and S. Tarafder, Local
Ratcheting Response in Dissimilar Metal Weld Joint: Characterization
Through Digital Image Correlation Technique, J. Mater. Eng. Perform.,
2017, 26(10), p 4953–4963
17. H. Ghadbeigi, C. Pinna, S. Celotto, and J.R. Yates, Local Plastic Strain
Evolution in a High Strength Dual-Phase Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
2010, 527(18–19), p 5026–5032
18. H. Ghadbeigi, C. Pinna, and S. Celotto, Failure Mechanisms in DP600
Steel: Initiation, Evolution and Fracture, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2013, 588,
p 420–431
19. L. Dong, S. Li, and J. He, Ductile Fracture Initiation of Anisotropic
Metal Sheets, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2017, 26(7), p 3285–3298
20. Z. Chen, G. Fang, and J.-Q. Zhao, Formability Evaluation of
Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 Sheet at Room and Elevated Temperatures,
J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2017, 26(9), p 4626–4637
21. G. Leroy, J. Embury, G. Edwards et al., A Model of Ductile Fracture
Based on the Nucleation and Growth of Voids, Acta Metall., 1981, 29,
p 1509–1522
22. E. Siebel and S. Schwaigere, Mechanics of Tensile Test, Arch
Eisenhuttenwes., 1948, 19, p 145–152 (in German)
23. N.N. Davidenkov and N.I. Spiridonova, Mechanical Method of Testing
Analysis of the State of Stress in the Neck of a Tension Test Specimen,
Proc. Am. Soc. Test. Mater., 1947, 46, p 1147–1158
24. Z. Ling, Uniaxial True Stress–Strain After Necking, AMP J. Technol.,
1996, 5, p 37–48
25. R.B. Joshi, A.E. Bayoumi, and H.M. Zbib, The Use of Digital
Processing in Studying Stretch-Forming Sheet Metal, Exp. Mech.,
1992, 32(2), p 117–123
26. http://www.lavision.de/en/products/strainmaster/strainmaster-dic.php
27. http://www.lavision.de/de/products/davis-software/index.php