acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

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

A quadratic yield function with

multi-involved-yield surfaces describing
anisotropic behaviors of sheet metals under
tension/compression

Haibo Wang a,∗, Yu Yan a, Min Wan b, Zhengyang Chen a, Qiang Li a,

Dong He a
a School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China
b School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A quadratic yield function which can describe the anisotropic behaviors of sheet metals
Received 2 December 2016 with tension/compression symmetry and asymmetry is proposed. Five mechanical proper-
Revised 12 October 2017 ties are adopted to determine the coefficients of each part of the yield function. For partic-
Accepted 16 October 2017 ular cases, the proposed yield function can be simplified to Mises or Hill’s quadratic yield
Available online 20 October 2017 function. The anisotropic mechanical properties are expressed by defining an angle between
the current normalized principal stress space and the reference direction with the assump-
Keywords: tion of orthotropic anisotropy. The accuracy of the proposed yield function in describing the
Quadratic yield function anisotropy under tension and compression is demonstrated.
Anisotropic materials © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied
Multi-yield systems Mechanics.

solved with numerical method. Then Hill90 [8] and Hill93

1. Introduction yield functions [9] were proposed, which have higher accu-
racy due to the higher flexibility. Barlat and Lian [10] proposed
Metal forming processes are widely used in the fields of aero-
a yield function which has been widely used until now be-
plane and automobile [1–3]. Yield function plays an important
cause of its simple form, convenience in use and relatively
role in the field of metal forming. As a classical quadratic func-
high accuracy. And then Yld91 was proposed [11], which can
tion, Mises yield function cannot describe the anisotropic de-
be used in the 3D stress space. For the anisotropic behav-
formation behavior of sheet materials. Hill’s quadratic yield
ior of aluminum alloy sheets, more general expressions of
function [4] is also a classical anisotropic yield function, the
Yld94 [12], Yld96 [13], etc. were proposed by Barlat et al. With
parameters of which can be solved with four yield stresses or
the growing demand for the accuracy of the prediction of
three R-values [5,6] for plane stress condition.
sheet metal forming process in modern industrial applica-
For the “anomalous phenomenon” of Hill48 yield func-
tions, some new yield functions with higher accuracy called
tion, Hill [7] proposed another yield function named Hill79
“advanced anisotropic yield criteria” [14] have been proposed
with the exponent of non-integer value which needs to be
since 2000. Yld2000-2d yield function [15] is a typical exam-
ple of the advanced yield functions, which overcomes some
∗ disadvantages of Yld94 [12] and Yld96 [13] yield functions.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wanghaibo@ncut.edu.cn (H. Wang). Yld2000-2d yield function has been widely used to describe

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camss.2017.10.004
0894-9166/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629
the anisotropic behavior and calculate the forming limit of
sheet metals [15–19]. With the methodology of linear trans-
formations, Yld2004 yield function (Yld2004-18p and Yld2004-
13p) were also proposed by Barlat et al. [20], which can be used
for both 3D full stress and plane stress conditions. Yld2004
has high flexibility and can predict six or eight ears in cup
drawing process [21]. Besides the above anisotropy, the ten-
sion/compression asymmetry of sheet metals is another im-
portant problem in the sheet metal forming field especially for
the alloys with HCP (Hexagonal Closed Packed) structure [22–
30]. Cazacu and Barlat [31] proposed a third-order yield func-
tion describing the tension/compression asymmetry behav-
ior. Then Cazacu et al. [32] proposed the CPB06 yield function
which can describe anisotropy under tension and compres-
sion loading paths especially for magnesium and titanium al-
loys. Plunkett et al. [33] proposed a series of yield functions
called CPB06ex2, which can describe both tensile and com-
pressive anisotropy of HCP crystal structure and cubic crystal
structure by extending the CPB06 yield function. Khan et al.
[34] proposed a yield function describing the anisotropic be-
havior and tension/compression asymmetry of the Ti-6Al-4V
alloy well. Yoon et al. [35] proposed a yield function including
the first, second and third stress invariants of the stress ten-
sor, which can predict the SD effect and anisotropic behavior
in tension and compression.
As mentioned above, in order to develop an accurate
anisotropic yield function, an adequate amount of material
parameters should be incorporated to ensure high flexibility.
So if a single equation is adopted to represent a yield function,
it might be very complicated. In order to ensure the describ-
ing accuracy of the anisotropic behavior of sheet metals, the
simplicity of the form, and the convenience of parameter so-
lution, some improvements on Hill’s quadratic yield function
have been performed [36–40].
Vegter and Boogaard [41] proposed an anisotropic plane
stress yield function based on the second-order Bezier curves
interpolation. Due to the high flexibility ensured by a large
number of parameters, this yield function can be very accu-
rate in describing the anisotropic behavior. As for the imple-
mentation into the FEM software, the CPU times of Vegter’s
yield function are comparable with that of the Hill’s quadratic
yield function [41]. Hu [40] proposed a quadratic yield func-
tion, with which the concept of multiple yielding systems
was introduced. Similar to Vegter’s yield function, Hu’s yield
function is also a piecewise function. In Hu’s yield function,
it is difficult to ensure the accuracy of the yield function at
connected points, and sometimes the resulting yield func-
tion is non-convex [40]. Since each part has the same form
of Hill’s quadratic function, Hu’s yield function is also point-
symmetric, so the tension-compression asymmetry cannot be
taken into account.
The motivation of this study is to develop a quadratic func-
tion which is easy to operate but with high accuracy. In this
study, a new quadratic anisotropic yield function on the basis
of Hill’s quadratic yield function is proposed with the above-
mentioned concept of multi-yield-surface. A piecewise func-
tion is adopted to construct the entire yield locus. Besides the
common experimental material properties (such as σ 0 , σ 45 ,
σ 90 , σ b and R0 , R45 , R90 , Rb ), some material properties under
other loading paths are incorporated into the yield function,
619
which ensures the high flexibility of the yield function to de-
scribe the anisotropic behavior of sheet metals accurately. The
anisotropy of tension/compression asymmetry for some sheet
metals can also be considered in the present yield function as
well as that of tension/compression symmetry. The parame-
ters of the proposed yield function can be obtained without
numerical iteration since it is quadratic. The developed yield
function has high flexibility which ensures its accuracy. Al-
though there are certain amount of parameters to be deter-
mined, the solving process of the parameters is very easy with
the help of computer as long as the needed material proper-
ties are obtained. No numerical method is needed because the
function is simple (quadratic). Besides, the number of required
experiments to determine the parameters of the developed
yield function depends on the actual need. For the cases that
there is insufficient experimental property or it is unnecessary
to consider too many properties, the lacked properties can also
be determined with proper assumptions. It is found that the
proposed yield function has higher accuracy than some ex-
isting yield functions in describing the anisotropic properties
and plastic contours of sheet metals.
2. The present yield function for plane stress
condition
2.1. The mathematical model of the yield function
The yield locus in an arbitrary nomalized plane principal
stress space is divided into 6 yield parts (named f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 ,
f5 and f6 , respectively), as shown in Fig. 1, each of which will
be represented by one function. For each part of the yield lo-
cus, there are three reference points to determine the corre-
sponding function. The corresponding ranges of stress states
and the reference points for each part of the yield function
are listed in Table 1. In Fig. 1, σ 1 and σ 2 are the two principal
stresses in the current plane principal stress space, and σ̄ is
the equivalent stress. The common condition of σ 1 ≥ σ 2 is not
adopted here. The new definitions of σ 1 and σ 2 are presented
in Section 3 in detail.
Fig. 1 – The yield surface with corresponding reference
points in the normalized principal stress space.
620 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629

For the materials with tension/compression symmetry,

Table 1 – Six parts of the yield surface with their corre-
only one half of the yield loci, f1 , f2 , and f3 , need to be deter-
sponding stress state ranges and reference points.
mined and other parts, f4 , f5 and f6 , can be obtained by sym-
metry. For the material with tension/compression asymmetry,
Part Stress state ranges Reference points
each part of the yield function, f1 –f6 , should be determined re-
f1 0 ≤ σ 2 /σ 1 ≤ 1, σ 1 >0 A, B and C spectively.
f2 0 ≤ σ 1 /σ 2 ≤ 1, σ 2 >0 C, D and E
In plane principal stress space, Mises yield function is an
f3 σ1 ≤ 0 ≤ σ2 E, F and G
ellipse, the center of which is at the origin and the ratio of the
f4 0 ≤ σ 2 /σ 1 ≤ 1, σ 1 <0 G, H and I
f5 0 ≤ σ 1 /σ 2 ≤ 1, σ 2 <0 I, J and K major and the minor axes is constant, as shown in Eq. (1).
f6 σ2 ≤ 0 ≤ σ1 K, L and A

X 2 − XY + Y 2 = 1 (1)

σ
As shown in Fig. 1, the reference points for each part of where X = σσ̄1 and Y = σ̄2 . σ 1 and σ 2 are the two principal
the yield locus include two endpoints and one internal point. stresses in the plane stress space mentioned above, and σ̄ is
For each part of the yield locus, five values will be used to de- the equivalent stress.
termine the coefficients of the corresponding yield function, Hill48 yield function is established by adding coefficients
which include three yield stresses from the three reference into Mises yield function. In the principal stress space Hill48
points and two strain ratios from the two endpoints, respec- yield function can be expressed as
tively.
In the current principal stress space, the mechanical prop- AX 2 − BXY + CY 2 = 1 (2)
erties of the reference points which will be adopted to deter-
mine the yield function are listed as follows:
A (σ 1 = σuT1 , σ 2 = 0): uniaxial tensile point along the direc- where A, B and C are material parameters determined with
tion of σ 1 and the corresponding yield stress (σuT1 ) and R-value experimental results.
(RT Hill48 is a distortion of Mises yield function. As a homoge-
u1 ) are adopted for f1 and f6.
T , σ = σ1 ): biaxial tensile point, where σ = σ T
B (σ 1 = σ p1 nous quadratic polynomial function, there are three coeffi-
2 2 1 p1
σT cients in Hill48 yield function in plane principal stress space.
and σ 2 = 2p1 . The yield stresses (σ 1 and σ 2 ) are incorporated Therefore, for each part of the yield locus shown in Fig. 1, the
in f1. five values (three yield stresses and two R-values) from three
C (σ1 = σbT , σ2 = σbT ): equi-biaxial tensile point and the cor- reference points cannot be incorporated into Hill48 yield func-
responding yield stress (σbT ) and R-value (RT b
) are incorporated tion simultaneously. So a general form of quadratic function
in f1 and f2. with five coefficients are proposed:
σ σT
D (σ1 = 22 , σ 2 = σ p2 T ): biaxial tensile point, where σ = p1
1 2
T
and σ 2 = σ p2 . The yield stresses (σ 1 and σ 2 ) are incorporated
f (X, Y ) = aX 2 + bY 2 + cX + dY + eXY + 1 = 0 (3)
in f2.
E (σ 1 = 0, σ 2 = σuT2 ): uniaxial tensile point along the direction
of σ 2 and the corresponding yield stress (σuT2 ) and R-value (RT u2 ) where a, b, c, d and e are five material parameters which can
are incorporated in f2 and f3. be determined by five material properties.
F (σ 1 = − σ 2 , σ 2 = σs2 ): biaxial loading point, where σ 1 = − In this study, Eq. (3) will be adopted as the mathemati-
σ s2 , σ 2 = σs2 . The yield stresses (σ 1 and σ 2 ) are incorporated in cal form for each part of the piecewise yield function for de-
f3. scribing the whole yield locus in a given normalized principal
G (σ 1 = σuC1 , σ 2 = 0): uniaxial compression point along the stress space, as shown in Fig. 1. So the yield function presented
direction of σ 1 and the corresponding yield stress (σuC1 ) and R- in this study can be written as
value (RC u1 ) are incorporated in f3 and f4.
H (σ 1 = σ p1 C , σ = σ1 ): biaxial compression point, where
2 2
fi (X, Y ) = ai X 2 + biY 2 + ci X + diY + ei XY + 1 = 0 (4)
σC
C and σ = p1 . The yield stresses (σ and σ ) are in-
σ 1 = σ p1 2 2 1 2
corporated in f4.
where i ∼ 1–6 corresponding to f1 –f6, respectively.
I (σ1 = σbC , σ2 = σbC ): equi-biaxial compression point and the
From Eqs. (3) and (1), it can be obtained that the present
corresponding yield stress (σbC ) and R-value (RC b
) are incorpo-
yield function is actually made up of six translated Hill48 yield
rated in f4 and f5.
σ functions in the plane principal stress space, as illustrated in
J (σ 1 = 22 , σ 2 = σ p2 C ): biaxial compression point, where
Fig. 2. By giving some particular values to the coefficients of
σC
C , σ = p2 . The yield stresses (σ and σ ) are incor-
σ 2 = σ p2 each part (f1 -f6 ), the present yield function shown in Eq. (3) can
1 2 1 2
porated in f5. be reduced to Hill48 (when ci = di = 0) or Mises (when ci = di = 0
K (σ 2 = σuC2 , σ 1 = 0): uniaxial compression point along the and ai = bi = −ei = −1) yield function.
direction of σ 2 and the corresponding yield stress (σuC2 ) and R- In this study, the reference space is defined by the rolling,
value (RC u2 ) are incorporated in f5 and f6. transverse and normal directions of sheet metals, which are
L (σ 1 = σs1 , σ 2 = − σ 1 ): biaxial loading point, where σ 1 = σs1 , adopted as the x, y and z axes, respectively. And the rolling
σ 2 = −σs1 . The yield stresses (σ 1 and σ 2 ) are incorporated in f6. direction is adopted as the reference direction.
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629 621

connected points A (uniaxial tension) and C (equi-biaxial ten-

sion) as two examples, with R-values at the two points and
from Eqs. (4) and (6), we have

∂ f /∂ σ2
RT
u1 = (7a)
−(∂ f /∂ σ1 + ∂ f /∂ σ2 )

∂ f /∂ σ2
Rb = (7b)
∂ f /∂ σ1

Since the same RT

u1 is used for both f1 and f6 , we have

∂ f1 /∂ σ2 ∂ f6 /∂ σ2
RT
u1 = = (7c)
−(∂ f1 /∂ σ1 + ∂ f1 /∂ σ2 ) −(∂ f6 /∂ σ1 + ∂ f6 /∂ σ2 )

Then it can be easily proved that the two slopes of the

Fig. 2 – The present yield function made up of six distorted
and translated Mises yield functions.
curved yield loci (f1 and f6 ) at the connected point are the
same. In other words, the yield locus of f1 and f2 at connected
point C is differentiable.
Similarly, from Eq. (7b), we have the following relationship
for Point C

2.2. Continuity, differentiability and convexity of the ∂ f1 /∂ σ2 ∂ f2 /∂ σ2

Rb = = (7d)
present yield function ∂ f1 /∂ σ1 ∂ f2 /∂ σ1

2.2.1. Continuity which means the differentiability can be ensured at Point C

As shown in Section 2.1, the two adjacent parts of the yield for f1 and f2 .
locus are connected by a connection point (C for f1 and f2 ; E The continuity for other connected points can be obtained
for f2 and f3 ; G for f3 and f4 ; I for f4 and f5 ; K for f5 and f6 ; and in a similar way.
A for f6 and f1 ), the yield stress of which is adopted for both
parts. For example, for point C we have 2.2.3. Convexity
The convexity or concavity of a mathematical function can be
f 1 ( σ1 = σ2 = σb ) = f 2 ( σ1 = σ2 = σb ) (5) determined from the character of its Hessian matrix H [15]:

⎡ ⎤
∂2 f ∂2 f
That is, the two adjacent parts of the yield locus go through ∂ X∂ Y ⎥
⎢ ∂ X2
the same point, which ensures the continuity of the piecewise H=⎣ ⎦ (8)
∂2 f ∂2 f
yield function at the connected yield function. The continuity ∂ Y∂ X ∂Y 2
for other connected points can be obtained in the same way.
As shown in Eq. (4), since the yield function is quadratic,
2.2.2. Differentiability the resulting Hessian matrix is a constant matrix, as shown
In this study, associated flow rule is adopted and the R-value in Eq. (9):
mentioned above is defined as follows: 
In the field of sheet metal forming process, the R-value for 2a e
H= (9)
uniaxial tension is defined by the ratio of the plastic strain (ε 2 ) e 2b
along the width direction (which is perpendicular to the ten-
sile direction) to that along the normal direction of the sheet As a constant matrix, the convexity or concavity is com-
(ε 3 ). pletely determined. That is, the yield function will be com-
So for uniaxial stress state, Ru = ε 2 /ε 3 . Then according to the pletely convex or completely concave at any point. It should
law of volume constancy (ε 1 + ε 2 + ε 3 = 0) in plastic deforma- be noted that the convexity shown in this study is for the
tion, we have Ru = − ε 2 /(ε 1 + ε 2 ). The R-value for equi-biaxial whole yield locus rather than the locus for the yield function
tension is defined by the ratio of the plastic strain along the of each part. Even one part is convex for itself, i.e., the Hes-
direction of the second principal stress to that along the first sian is positive semi-definite, the convexity for the whole yield
principal stress, which means Rb = ε 2 /ε 1 locus (which is closed) may not be ensured in this part. Con-
Then according to the associated flow rule, we have versely, even one part is not convex (for example, a hyperbola)
for itself, the convexity for the whole yield locus might be en-
∂f sured. So the convexity should be ensured with additional in-
dεi = dλ ( i = 1, 2 ) (6)
∂ σi formation.
As mentioned above, three points for each part of the
For proportional loading, we have dε 2 /dε 1 = ε 2 /ε 1 . Then the yield function are from experiments. Taking f1 as an example,
R-value for the connected points shown in Fig. 1 and the ex- points A, B and C are from the uniaxial and biaxial tensile ex-
pression of the yield function f can be obtained. Taking the periments. For a stabilizing material, the inherent yield locus
622 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629

(experimental yield locus) will be convex [42]. So the three ex-

perimental points A, B and C will satisfy the convex condition,
3. Planar anisotropy
i.e., point B is located outside the segment AC.
3.1. Redefinition of the principal stresses for a complete
As discussed above, the convexity of f1, whose Hessian ma-
yield surface
trix is a consant matrix as shown in Eq. (9), will be uniquely
determined. Then according to the convexity of A, B and C as
An arbitrary stress state (σ xx , σ yy , σ xy ) can be represented by
analyzed above, it can be proved that f1 is convex.
two corresponding principal stresses (σ 1 , σ 2 ) and the relation-
The convextiy of f1 can also be proved with the reduc-
ship between the principal stress space (XY plane) and the
tion to absurdity: if f1 is not convex, then points A, B and C
reference space (xy plane). Due to the planar anisotropy, the
will be located on a concave locus, which will contradict to
resulting coefficients of the yield function will vary from this
the property of the stabilizing material. Therefore, f1 must be
relationship. In this study, a simple method is introduced to
convex. The convexity for other parts (f2 –f6 ) can be proved in
represent the planar anisotropy of sheet metals.
the same way.
For an arbitrary stress state (σ xx , σ yy , σ xy ), the two corre-
After the convexity for each part is ensured, the convex-
sponding principal stresses are denoted with σ 1 and σ 2 , which
ity for the whole yield function can be proved considering the
are obtained as
continuity and differentiability of the yield function, which

will not be presented in detail. 1 2 
σ1 , 2 = σxx + σyy ± σxx − σyy + 4σxy
2 (12)
2
2.3. Determination of material parameters
2σxy
With regard to a certain load case, although there are five co- tan 2ϕ = (13)
σx − σ y
efficients for each part of the yield function, in a certain load
where σ 1 and σ 2 are the two perpendicular principal stresses,
case, the solution process of them is straightforward and no
and the common relation of σ 1 ≥ σ 2 is not adopted here; and φ
nonlinear sets of equations are needed, since the yield func-
is the angle between the direction of σ 1 or σ 2 and the reference
tion is quadratic.
direction (the rolling direction).
Taking the load case where X and Y are in the rolling and
From Eq. (13), two values, φ 1 and φ 2 , can be obtained and
the transverse directions as an example (planes xy and XY are
the difference between them is π /2. Then the absolute values
identical to each other), for f1 in this principal stress coordi-
of the two angles are obtained as
nate, the normalized yield stresses at point A (σuT1 /σ̄ , 0) (uniax-
ial tension along the rolling direction), point B (σ p1 T /σ̄ , σ T / (2σ̄ ))  
p1
ϕi = ϕi  (i = 1, 2) (14)
(where σ 1 = 2σ 2 ) and point C (σbT /σ̄ , σbT /σ̄ ) (equi-biaxial ten-
sion) are adopted for determining the coefficients. Since the
Then another two angles φ   1 and φ   2 are defined as
rolling direction is adopted as the reference direction, we have
σ̄ = σuT1 . With the three yield stresses at points A, B and C men- 
ϕi if ϕi ≤ π /2
tioned above, we have ϕi = ( i = 1, 2 ) (15)
π − ϕi if ϕi > π /2

a1 + c1 + 1 = 0 (10a) π
where φ   i is set as the value less than or equal to 2.
Then another two angles are defined as

2
2  
T
a1 σ p1 /σuT1 + b1 σ p1
T
/(2σuT1 ) + c1 σ p1
T
/σuT1 + d1 σ p1
T
/(2σuT1 ) θ1 = min ϕ  1 , ϕ  2 (16a)

1
T T 2
+e1 σ p1 /σu1 + 1 = 0 (10b)  
2
θ2 = max ϕ  1 , ϕ  2 (16b)

2
where the smaller one between φ   1 and φ   2 is called θ 1 , while
(a1 + b1 + e1 ) σbT /σuT1 + (c1 + d1 )σbT /σuT1 + 1 = 0 (10c)
the larger one is called θ 2 .
∂f
According to the associated flow rule, dεi = dλ ∂ σ (i = 1, 2), Then the principal stress corresponding to θ 1 is called σ 1 ,
i
the R-values at points A (uniaxial tension along the rolling) and the other one is called σ 2 (corresponding to θ 2 ). In other
and B (the equi-biaxial tension) can be obtained as words, for the two principal stresses, the one whose direction
is closer to the reference direction is called σ 1 , and the other
∂ f /∂ σ2 d1 + e1 one is called σ 2 . The value ranges of the two angles can be
RT
u1 = = (11a)
−(∂ f /∂ σ1 + ∂ f /∂ σ2 ) −(2a1 + c1 + d1 + e1 ) easily obtained from Eqs. (15) and (16):

0 ≤ θ1 ≤ π /4 and π /4 ≤ θ2 ≤ π /2 (17)
∂ f /∂ σ2 (2b1 + e1 )(σbT /σuT1 ) + d1
Rb = = (11b)
∂ f /∂ σ1 (2a1 + e1 )(σbT /σuT1 ) + c1
According to the above definition, each stress state (σ xx ,
Then the five coefficients of f1 (a1 , b1 , c1 , d1 , e1 ) can be ob- σ yy , σ xy ) can be represented by two principal stresses and their
tained by solving sets of linear equations (made up of (Eqs. 10) corresponding angles, (σ 1 , σ 2 , θ 1 ) or (σ 1 , σ 2 , θ 2 ). In this study,
and (11)). The coefficients of other parts of the yield function, the vector (σ 1 , σ 2 , θ 1 ) is adopted to represent each stress state,
f2 –f6 , can be obtained similarly. which will be written as (σ 1 , σ 2 , θ ) for simplicity.
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629
The trigonometric function is adopted to express the re-
lation between the mechanical properties of the reference
points and θ . Since the orthotropic anisotropy has been con-
sidered in the definition of θ , it needs not be considered again
in the definition of the trigonometric function. In addition, an
angle θ (0 ≤ θ ≤ 45◦ ) defined with the above method will cor-
respond to a complete and closed yield locus in the principal
stress space, i.e., points A–L in Fig. 1 belong to the same prin-
cipal stress space for a given θ .
The yield stresses and the R-values of the reference points
can be generally expressed as

n functions for ensuring the differentiability of the mechanical
σ (θ ) = ( α0 + αi ( θ ) )
i=1

n 
R(θ ) = (β0 + βi (θ ) )
i=1
where α 0 and β 0 are constants, and α i (θ ) and β i (θ ) (0 ≤ θ ≤ 45◦ )
are trigonometric functions.
The equi-biaxial tension (or equi-compression) stress point
(point C or I in Fig. 1) is independent of the angle, i.e., σbT (θ ) =
σbT (0), σbC (θ ) = σbC (0). The two normal strain increments at the
equi-biaxial tension point can be expressed as
dε1 (θ ) = 0.5(dε1 (0) + dε2 (0)) + 0.5(dε1 (0) − dε2 (0) ) cos(2θ ) (19a)
dε2 (θ ) = 0.5(dε1 (0) + dε2 (0)) − 0.5(dε1 (0) − dε2 (0) ) cos(2θ ) (19b)
Then the R-value at the equi-biaxial tension (or equi-
compression) point under the stress space with a given θ can
be obtained:
(RT
b
(0) + 1) + (RT
b
(0) − 1) cos 2θ
RT
b (θ ) =
( RT
b
(0) + 1) − (RT
b
(0) − 1) cos 2θ
which means that only RT (0) is needed. The two strain ratios
b
at the equi-compression point can be obtained in the same
way.
3.2. Expression of the anisotropic properties
Two materials, Al2090-T3 [15,43] and 590HSS [44], are taken as
examples to construct the corresponding trigonometric func-
tions. The yield stresses and R-values of the two materials un-
der the uniaxial tension along the angles (named δ) of 0°, 15°,
30°, 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° off the rolling direction will be used
to calibrate the corresponding trigonometric functions. Four
mechanical properties, σ 0 , σ 15 , σ 30 , σ 45 , are used to calibrate
σ1 , and σ 45 , σ 60 , σ 75 , σ 90 are used to calibrate σ 2 . σ 45 ((σ 1 = σ 45 ,
σ 2 = 0, θ = 45◦ ) or (σ 1 = 0, σ 2 = σ 45 , θ = 45◦ )) is used for both σ 1
and σ 2 , so the continuity of σ 45 is guaranteed. Besides the con-
tinuity, the differentiability of the mechanical properties at
θ = δ = 45◦ for σ1 and σ 2 should also be guaranteed. So there
should be five coefficients for the trigonometric functions of
σ 1 and σ 2 .The same or different trigonometric functions can
623
be defined for each reference point. The trigonometric func-
tions in Eq. (21) are adopted for σ1 (σuT1 ) and σ2 (σuT2 ) of the above
two materials.
σ1 (θ ) = k0 + k11 cos θ + k12 sin θ + k13 cos 2θ + k14 sin 2θ (21a)
σ2 (θ ) = k0 + k21 cos θ + k22 sin θ + k23 cos 2θ + k24 sin 2θ (21b)
According to the above definition of θ , we have δ = θ for
σ 1 and δ = 90◦ − θ for σ 2 . Then Eq. (21c) shown below should
be adopted when solving the coefficients of the trigonometric
(18a) properties at θ = δ = 45◦ .
   
∂ σ1  ∂ σ2  ∂ σ1  ∂ σ2 

= = =
∂δ δ=45◦ ∂δ δ=45◦ ∂θ θ=45◦ ∂ (90 − θ ) θ=45◦
◦
(18b) ∂ σ2 
= − (21c)
∂ (θ ) 
θ=45 ◦
The coefficients (kij ) of Eqs. (21a) and (21b) were obtained
by solving sets of linear equations with the yield stresses
along different angles. In Eq. (21a) and (21b), five coefficients
are used, which account for the four experimental results
((σ 1 = σ 45 , σ 2 = 0, θ = 45◦ ) or (σ 1 = 0, σ 2 = σ 45 , θ = 45◦ )) and the
condition in Eq. (21c).
The trigonometric functions shown in Eq. (21) are also used
to represent R-values (R1 (RT T
u1 ) and R2 (Ru2 )) along different di-
rections and can be calibrated similarly, which will not be pre-
sented again. The calculated yield stresses and R-values based
on Eq. (21) are compared with the experimental results in Figs.
3 and 4.
In Figs. 3 and 4, in order to give clear comparison between
the experimental and the calculated results, the angle θ de-
fined in this study is converted to the real angle (δ) between the
loading and the rolling directions. Besides the loading condi-
tions adopted to calibrate the trigonometric function, the ex-
perimental and calculated yield stresses and R-values under
(20)
uniaxial tension along 22.5° and 67.5° for 590HSS are also plot-
ted. For comparison, the predicted yield stresses and R-values
with Hill48 yield function are also plotted. The parameters of
Hill48 yield function are calculated based on the anisotropic
stresses and R-values, respectively.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the established trigonometric
function can well describe the anisotropic properties includ-
ing yield stresses and R-values. No matter the parameters are
determined with stresses or R-values, the present yield func-
tion has higher accuracy than the Hill48 yield function. Com-
pared to the existing methods [41], it can be seen that the
above definition of angle θ makes the definition of the trigono-
metric function simple and arbitrary, since the orthotropic
anisotropy needs not be considered again in the trigonometric
functions.
4. Determination of the coefficients of the
plane stress yield function
As shown in Fig. 1, the reference points adopted for calibrat-
ing the present yield function include uniaxial tension (points
A and E), equi-biaxial tension (point C), uniaxial compression
624 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629

Fig. 3 – The calculated and experimental yield stresses and R-values of 2090-T3 along different directions.

Fig. 4 – The calculated and experimental yield stresses and R-values of 590HSS along different directions.

(points G and K), equi-biaxial compression (point I), and six

shape-control points (B, D, F, H, J and L). For points A and E, the
needed properties (σuT1 , RTu1 ) and (σu2 , Ru2 ) can be obtained from
T T

the common uniaxial tensile tests. For Point C, the needed

properties (σbT , RT
b
) can be obtained from the bulge tests, equi-
biaxial tensile tests of cruciform specimens, or tube expan-
sion tests [45–47]. For shape-control points B and D, the needed
yield stress can be obtained by the biaxial tensile tests of cru-
ciform specimens, the corresponding load ratio of which on
Fig. 5 – Biaxial loading tests along different directions.
the two arms of the specimen is 2:1 or 1:2. The biaxial yield
stresses of points B and D at different θ defined above can be
obtained by carring out biaxial tensile tests of the cruciform
specimens cutting off along different angles of the rolling di- the shear tests can also be used to obtain the needed yield
rection, as shown in Fig. 5. stress for points F and L together with the corresponding cal-
As to points F and L, the corresponding yield stresses can culation methods [41].
also be obtained from biaxial loading tests of cruciform speci- For the materials with tension/compression asymmetry,
mens, since the loading points in the second and fourth quad- the material properties at points G and K can be obtained with
rant have been obtained successfully by Lou et al. [49]. Besides, the existing compression tests for the research of Bauschinger
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629
effect. And as to the biaxial compression points H, I and J, the
corresponding material properties can be obtained with the
disk compression tests [15,26].
Although there are five parameters for each part of the
yield function, some of them are repeated. For example, point
C is the common point for f1 and f2 , the material parameters
of which are used for the two parts of the yield function.
For most sheet metals in industrial applications, the defor-
mation behavior is tension/compression symmetric like the
BCC (Body centered cubic) and FCC (Face centered cubic) ma-
terials shown in Section 5.1. For these kinds of materials, only
f1 , f2 and f3 need to be determined, while f4 , f5 and f6 can be
determined by symmetry. For f1 , f2 and f3, the yield stresses
and R-values at points A, C, E should be determined, while
the yield stresses at points B, D and F should be determined
with experimental data. The yield stress at point G can be
obtained from that of point A by symmetry. Therefore, for
BCC and FCC materials, 9 material properties are needed for
a given principal stress space. Four kinds of tests are needed
to determine the 9 properties, i.e., the uniaxial tension, equi-
biaxial tension, biaxial tension (the ratio of the first and sec-
ond principal stresses is 2:1) and tension-compression (the
ratio of the first and second principal stresses in the sheet
plane is 1:−1). In other words, although there are 15 param-
eters for f1 , f2 and f3, only 9 of them are independent. And
the solving of the parameters is simple since each function is
quadratic.
If anisotropy should be considered, the material param-
eters for different directions should be determined. Gener-
ally speaking, the rolling direction of sheet metal should be
marked before cutting from the rolled steel coil. When we
buy sheet metals, usually we ask the supplier to indicate the
rolling direction clearly. If the rolling direction is not given, it
can be determined by observing the microstructure. If the an-
gle between the direction of the principal stress and the rolling
direction is “θ ”, each material parameter will be the function
of “θ ”. The trigonometric function of “θ ” should be determined
with mechanical tests. The number of the parameters of the
trigonometric function depends the actual need. For materi-
als with complicated anisotropy such as the material 2090-T3
shown in Fig. 3, the trigonometric function with five parame-
ters are recommended. But for the material 590HSS shown in
Fig. 4, it is found that even if the trigonometric function with
three parameters is used, the anisotropy can also be described
reasonably.
For the case that anisotropy needs not be considered, the
rolling direction can be neglected and then the material prop-
erties can be obtained along any directions. The trigonometric
function will be a constant.
Table 2 – Mechianical properties of two materials.
Material Property Point A
5754O R-values 0.707
Normalized stress (σ1 /σ̄ , σ2 /σ̄ ) (1, 0)
2024O R-values 0.723
Normalized stress (σ1 /σ̄ , σ2 /σ̄ ) (1, 0)
625
For the stress state of equi-biaxial tension (σ 1 = σ 2 = σ b ),
from mechanics of materials it can be proved that σ 1 = σ 2 = σ b
for any directions of the principal stresses. So only one test is
needed for point C.
For the HCP (hexagonal close packing) material shown in
Section 5.2 which is tension/compression asymmetric, f1 –f6
should be determined with experimental data from points
A–L. If anisotropy is considered simultaneously, the trigono-
metric function should also be determined. And the number
of parameters of the trigonometric function depends on the
actual need, as discussed above. For the material with ten-
sion/compression asymmetry, there will be relatively more
parameters to be determined than the material with ten-
sion/compression symmetry. This point can also be found in
the existing yield functions.
No matter the material is tension/compression symmetric
or asymmetric, if the material properties under some stress
state are not important or need not be considered, the corre-
sponding parameters can be assumed or calculated from the
existing yield function without experiments.
However, if some material properties are very important,
they should be considered in determining the parameters of
the yield function. For example, the yield stress at point B
or D, which is close to the plane strain state, is very impor-
tant to some bending processes. It is because many mate-
rial points are in this stress state (or close to this state) dur-
ing some bending process, especially for the bending of wide
sheet. The properties under this stress can be incorporated
into the present yield function in this study, which, however,
cannot be considered in many existing yield functions.
5. Application
5.1. Application to materials with anisotropy of
tension/compression symmetry in 2D principal stress space
Two kinds of aluminum alloy sheet 2024O are adopted to ver-
ify the present yield function. The biaxial tensile tests under 9
different loading ratios of σ 1 to σ 2 (4:0, 4:1, 4:2, 4:3, 4:4, 3:4, 2:4,
1:4 and 0:4) were performed using cruciform specimens in a
biaxial tensile testing machine [48]. And the needed reference
points in the first quadrant of the principal stress space were
obtained, as shown in Table 2. Using the material properties
shown in Table 2, the coefficients of f1 and f2 in Eq. (4) are cal-
culated, as shown in Table 3. The above-defined angle θ of the
stress space is 0, i.e., the horizontal and vertical coordinates
of the stress space are along the rolling and transverse direc-
tions, respectively.
Point E Point C Point B Point D
0.956 0.966
(0, 0.993) (1.011, 1.016) (1.112, 0.538) (0.551, 1.121)
0.648 0.875
(0, 0.978) (0.972, 0.973) (1.022, 0.483) (0.552, 1.099)
626 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629

Fig. 6 – Comparisons between the plastic work contours based on the present yield function and the experimental results.

tion has higher accuracy in describing the plastic contours of

Table 3 – Coefficients of f1 and f2.
the two materials than other yield functions.

Material a b c d e
5.2. Application to the materials with anisotropy of
5754O f1 1.6115 0.2469 −2.6115 0.1433 −0.3966 tension/compression asymmetry
f2 0.2891 1.6277 0.1015 −2.6233 −0.4021
2024O f1 1.0159 0.0079 −2.0159 −0.0553 0.0486
For the materials with anisotropy of tension/compression
f2 −3.0366 −6.5957 −1.5072 5.4276 4.5458
asymmetry, the whole plastic work contours (f1 –f6 shown in
Fig. 1) in four quadrants of the plane principal stress space
should be determined for the present yield function. The
AZ31B Mg sheets (HCP) [49] are adopted to verify the present
The plastic work contours for the two materials in the bi- yield function and the mechanical properties of them are
axial tensile loading area (the first quadrant of the plane prin- shown in Table 4.
cipal stress space) based on the present yield function (Eq. (4)) Besides the experimental mechanical properties of the
are compared with the experimental results in Fig. 6. Besides three materials in Table 4, other corresponding values for
the reference points, other yield points under biaxial loading some reference points of the present yield function are also
condition are also plotted. Besides the present yield function, needed. The mechanical properties can be obtained from the
some other yield functions (Mises, Hill48, Hill79, Hill90, Hos- experimental results or the existing yield function. The latter
ford, Barlat89 and Yld2000-2d) widely used in industrial appli- one is adopted here. As one of the most famous anisotropic
cations are also plotted in Fig. 6. As shown in Fig. 6, the present yield functions which can predict the tension/compression
yield function can describe the experimental plastic work con- asymmetry of anisotropic sheet metals, the CPB06ex2 yield
tours of the 2024O and 5754O under biaxial tensile conditions function [33] is adopted to obtain the values of some ref-
accurately. It is shown that the present quadratic yield func- erence points without experimental results. The resulting
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629 627

Table 4 – Properties of AZ31B with anisotropy of tension/compression asymmetry [49].

Type Direction Normalized yield stress Strain ratio

Tension Compression Tension Compression

AZ31B RD 1 0.634 1.7 0.2

TD 1.171 0.671 4.3 0.4

points are determined experimentally, it is also expected that

Table 5 – Coefficients of the present yield function for ma-
the present yield function can well describe the experimental
terials with tension/compression asymmetry.
results because of its high flexibility. With the development of
experimental technology [45,46], the mechanical properties of
Material fi a b C d e
the reference points shown above can be obtained more easily.
AZ31B f1 1.2086 0.0830 −2.2086 −0.0423 −0.0460
f2 2.6209 3.3959 −1.3496 −4.8287 −0.9221
f3 −19.1211 −4.8933 −9.1573 4.8724 12.2024
f4 −6.3606 −1.9097 −1.8766 1.5260 4.2312
6. Summary and conclusions
f5 −1.2036 −0.5464 0.9916 1.1657 2.3307
f6 −0.1459 −1.0804 −0.8541 0.8154 −0.3301 A quadratic yield function is defined in the principal stress
space. As a piecewise function, the present yield function con-
sists of six parts, each of which is a quadratic function of prin-
cipal stresses. For the materials with tension/compression
symmetry, only three parts need to be determined. But for
those with tension/compression asymmetry, six parts are
needed. The present yield function has high flexibility which
ensures the ability to describe the anisotropic behaviors of
sheet metals with tension/compression symmetry or ten-
sion/compression asymmetry accurately. Although there are
many coefficients for the present yield function (5 for each
part), the solving process of them is straightforward. And
the needed mechanical properties for determining the coef-
ficients of the present yield function can be easily obtained
with the help of biaxial tensile tests.
A novel definition of the angle θ between the current prin-
cipal stress direction and the reference direction (the rolling
direction) is proposed. Then the anisotropy can be described
well. The corresponding trigonometric function between the
anisotropic properties (or the coefficients of the present yield
function) and the directions is simple. By considering an ad-
Fig. 7 – The plastic work contours based on the present
equate amount of mechanical properties in different direc-
yield function, Hill48 yield function and the experimental
tions, the ears in cylindrical deep drawing are expected to be
results for AZ31B.
predicted.
Since the yield function is quadratic, the related work such
as the calculation of forming limit will be simple. For the fu-
coefficients for each part of the present yield function are ture application in FEM, the implementation of the yield func-
listed in Table 5. The above-defined angle θ of the stress space tion will be easy and the evaluation of the yield function is
is 0. expected to be efficient. And the CPU time for the simulations
The plastic work contours determined by the present yield based on the present yield function is expected to be compa-
function (Eq. (4)) and Hill48 yield function are plotted in Fig. 7 rable with that based on the existing quadratic yield function
as well as the reference points from the experimental results. (for example, the Hill48 yield function). The implementation
As shown in Fig. 7, the present yield function can also of the present yield function into the FE software and the cor-
describe the plastic work contours of the material with ten- responding derivations such as the first and second deriva-
sion/compression asymmetry by constructing the whole yield tives of the yield function will be investigated in the future.
function in four quadrants in the plane principal stress space,
while the Hill48 yield function cannot.
Besides using the experimental results of existing yield Acknowledgments
functions, for the case that some reference points are lacked,
some reasonable assumptions can also be adopted. If more ex- This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
perimental results are obtained, for example, all the reference dation of China (Grant Nos. 51475003 and 51205004), Beijing
628 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629
Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 3152010), open project
of “State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing” of North-
western Polytechnical University (No. SKLSP201635) and Bei-
jing Education Committee Science and Technology Program
(Grant No. KM201510009004).
references
[1] M. Zhan, K. Guo, H. Yang, Advances and trends in plastic
forming technologies for welded tubes, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 29
(2) (2016) 305–315.
[2] B. Meng, M. Wan, X. Wu, et al., Inner wrinkling control in
hydrodynamic deep drawing of an irregular surface part
using drawbeads, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 27 (3) (2014) 697–707.
[3] X. Li, N. Song, G. Guo, et al., Prediction of forming limit curve
(FLC) for Al–Li alloy 2198-T3 sheet using different yield
functions, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 26 (5) (2013) 1317–1323.
[4] R. Hill, A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of
anisotropic metals, Proc. R. Soc. Lond A193 (1948) 281–297.
[5] T. Park, K. Chung, Non-associated flow rule with symmetric
stiffness modulus for isotropic-kinematic hardening and its
application for earing in circular cup drawing, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 49 (2012) 3582–3593.
[6] H. Wang, M. Wan, Y. Yan, X. Wu, Effect of the solving method
of parameters on the description ability of the yield criterion
about the anisotropic behavior, J. Mech. Eng. 49 (2013) 45–53.
[7] R. Hill, Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates, Math.
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 85 (1979) 179–191.
[8] R. Hill, Constitutive modelling of orthotropic plasticity in
sheet metals, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 38 (1990) 405–417.
[9] R. Hill, A user-friendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in
sheet metals, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 35 (1993) 19–25.
[10] F. Barlat, J. Lian, Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet
metals. 1. A yield function for orthotropic sheets under
plane-stress conditions, Int. J. Plast. 5 (1989) 5166.
[11] F. Barlat, D.J. Lege, J.C. Brem, A six-component yield function
for anisotropic materials, Int. J. Plast. 7 (1991) 693–712.
[12] F. Barlat, R.C. Becker, Y. Hayashida, Y. Maeda, M. Yanagawa,
K. Chung, J.C. Brem, D.J. Lege, K. Matsui, S.J. Murtha,
S. Hattori, Yielding description of solution strengthened
aluminum alloys, Int. J. Plast. 13 (1997) 385–401.
[13] F. Barlat, Y. Maeda, K. Chung, M. Yanagawa, J.C. Brem,
Y. Hayashida, D.J. Lege, K. Matsui, S.J. Murtha, S. Hattori,
R.C. Becker, S. Makosey, Yield function development for
aluminum alloy sheets, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45 (11–12) (1997)
1727–1763.
[14] D. Banabic, Sheet Metal Forming Processes Constitutive
Modeling and Numerical Simulation, Springer-verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, Dordrecht London New York, 2010.
[15] F. Barlat, J.C. Brem, J.W. Yoon, K. Chung, R.E. Dick, D.J. Lege,
F. Pourboghrat, S.-H. Choi, E. Chu, Plane stress yield function
for aluminum alloy sheets—Part 1: theory, Int. J. Plast. 19
(2003) 1297–1319.
[16] H. Wang, M. Wan, Forming limit of sheet metals based on
mixed hardening model, Sci. China Ser. E Technolog. Sci. 52
(5) (2009) 1202–1211.
[17] H. Wang, Y. Yan, M. Wan, X. Wu, Experimental investigation
and constitutive modeling for the hardening behavior of
5754O aluminum alloy sheet under two-stage loading, Int. J.
Solids Struct. 49 (26) (2012) 3693–3710.
[18] H. Wang, M. Wan, X. Wu, Y. Yan, The equivalent plastic
strain-dependent Yld2000-2d yield function and the
experimental verification, Comput. Mater. Sci. 47 (1) (2009)
12–22.
[19] H. Wang, M. Wan, Y. Yan, Effect of the flow stress–strain
relation on the forming limit of 5754O aluminum alloy,
Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 22 (10) (2012) 2370–2378.
[20] F. Barlat, H. Aretz, J.W. Yoon, M.E. Karabin, J.C. Brem, R.E. Dick,
Linear transformation based anisotropic yield function, Int. J.
Plast. 21 (2005) 1009–1039.
[21] J.W. Yoon, F. Barlat, R.E. Dick, M.E. Karabin, Prediction of six or
eight ears in a drawn cup based on a new anisotropic yield
function, Int. J. Plast. 22 (2006) 174–193.
[22] F. Kabirian, A.S. Khan, Anisotropic yield criteria in σ -τ stress
space for materials with yield asymmetry, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 67–68 (2015) 116–126.
[23] Y. Koh, D. Kim, D.Y. Seoka, J. Bak, S.W. Kim, Y.S. Lee, K. Chung,
Characterization of mechanical property of magnesium
AZ31 alloy sheets for warm temperature forming, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 93 (2015) 204–217.
[24] N. Chandola, R.A. Lebensohn, O. Cazacu, Combined effects of
anisotropy and tension–compression asymmetry on the
torsional response of AZ31 Mg, Int. J. Solids Struct. 58 (2015)
190–200.
[25] G. Tari, M.J. Worswick, Elevated temperature constitutive
behavior and simulation of warmforming of AZ31BD, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 221 (2015) 40–55.
[26] D.G. Taria, M.J. Worswicka, U. Alia, M.A. Gharghourib,
Mechanical response of AZ31B magnesium alloy:
experimental characterization and material modeling
considering proportional loading at room temperature, Int. J.
Plast. 55 (2014) 247–267.
[27] W. Muhammad, M. Mohammadi, J. Kang, R.K. Mishra, K. Inal,
An elasto-plastic constitutive model for evolving
asymmetric/anisotropic hardening behavior of AZ31B and
ZEK100 magnesium alloy sheets considering monotonic and
reverse loading paths, Int. J. Plast. 70 (2015) 30–59.
[28] A.S. Khan, S. Yu, Deformation induced anisotropic responses
of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Part I: experiments, Int. J. Plast. 38 (2012)
1–13.
[29] A.S. Khan, E. Pandey, T. Gnaupel-Herold, R.K. Mishra,
Mechanical response and texture evolution of AZ31 alloy at
large strains for different strain rates and temperatures, Int.
J. Plast. 27 (2011) 688–706.
[30] C. Liu, Y. Huang, M.G. Stout, On the asymmetric yield surface
of plastically orthotropic materials: a phenomenological
study, Acta Mater. 45 (1997) 2397–2406.
[31] O. Cazacu, F. Barlat, A criterion for description of anisotropy
and yield differential effects in pressure-insensitive metals,
Int. J. Plast. 20 (2004) 2027–2045.
[32] O. Cazacu, B. Plunkett, F. Barlat, Orthotropic yield criterion
for hexagonal close packed metals, Int. J. Plast. 22 (2006)
1171–1194.
[33] B. Plunkett, O. Cazacu, F. Barlat, Orthotropic yield criterion
for description of anisotropy in tension and compression of
sheet metals, Int. J. Plast. 24 (2008) 847–866.
[34] A.S. Khan, S. Yu, H. Liu, Deformation induced anisotropic
responses of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Part II: a strain rate and
temperature dependent anisotropic yield function, Int. J.
Plast. 38 (2012) 14–26.
[35] J.W. Yoon, Y. Lou, J. Yoon, M.V. Glazoff, Asymmetric yield
function based on the stress invariants for pressure sensitive
metals, Int. J. Plast. 56 (2014) 184–202.
[36] H. Wu, Anisotropic plasticity for sheet metals using the
concept of combined isotropic-kinematic hardening, Int. J.
Plast. 18 (2002) 1661–1682.
[37] H. Wu, H. Hong, Y. Shiao, Anisotropic plasticity with
application to sheet metals, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 41 (1999)
703–724.
[38] C. Sansour, I. Karsaj, J. Soric, A formulation of anisotropic
continuum elastoplasticity at finite strains. Part I: modelling,
Int. J. Plast. 22 (2006) 2346–2365.
 acta mechanica solida sinica 30 (2017) 618–629
[39] R.K. Verma, T. Kuwabara, K. Chung, A. Haldar, Experimental
evaluation and constitutive modeling of non-proportional
deformation for asymmetric steels, Int. J. Plast. 27 (2011)
82–101.
[40] W. Hu, A novel quadratic yield model to describe the feature
of multi-yield-surface of rolled sheet metals, Int. J. Plast. 23
(2007) 2004–2028.
[41] H. Vegter, A.H. Boogaard, A plane stress yield function for
anisotropic sheet material by interpolation of biaxial stress
states, Int. J. Plast. 22 (2006) 557–580.
[42] A.S. Khan, S. Huang, Continuum Theory of Plasticity, Wiley,
1995.
[43] H. Aretz, A non-quadratic plane stress yield function for
orthotropic sheet metals, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 168
(2005) 1–9.
[44] F. Yoshida, H. Hamasaki, T. Uemori, A user-friendly 3D yield
function to describe anisotropy of steel sheets, Int. J. Plast. 45
(2013) 119–139.
629
[45] T. Kuwabara, S. Ikeda, T. Kuroda, Measurement and analysis
of differential work-hardening in cold-rolled steel sheet
under biaxial tension, J. Mater. Process Technol. 80–81 (1998)
517–523.
[46] T. Kuwabara, Advances in experiments on metal sheets and
tubes in support of constitutive modeling and forming
simulations, Int. J. Plast. 23 (2007) 385–419.
[47] T. Kuwabara, F. Sugawara, Multiaxial tube expansion test
method for measurement of sheet metal deformation
behavior under biaxial tension for a large strain range, Int. J.
Plast. 45 (2013) 103–118.
[48] X. Wu, Investigation of the Plastic Deformation Behavior of
Anisotropic Sheet Metals Under Different Loading Paths,
Doctoral Dissertation, Beihang University, Beijing, China,
2004.
[49] X.Y. Lou, M. Li, R.K. Boger, S.R. Agnew, R.H. Wagoner,
Hardening evolution of AZ31B Mg sheet, Int. J. Plast. 23 (2007)
44–86.