30 views

Uploaded by a_abvabi2417

- Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.pdf
- Neuber_FEA
- C3 - Frac Model Input Data
- material
- 11Elasticity _183-197_
- Zhao - Finile Element Analysis of Three-point Bending of Sheet Metals (2002)
- What Are the Conditions to Check the Interstoy Drift Using CSI Etab
- G39
- Drawing Processs
- Anchors Masonry
- Neuber's Rule Accuracy in Predicting Notch Stress-strain
- KENTRACK-tanıtım
- 23.Contact Stress Analysis of Shrink-fitted Joints for Various Fit Forms via Finite Element Method
- Hooke's Law.pptx
- keph201
- Flexión
- 1-s2.0-S2213290215000231-main
- fall 17 engr b45 syllabus v1
- 2010-03 Mech Prop of Eng Matl 02 Tension.pdf
- 1468-6996_6_8_A06

You are on page 1of 22

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijplas

parameters of cyclic elasto-plasticity for

component layers of a bimetallic sheet

F. Yoshidaa,*, M. Urabeb, R. Hinoa,1, V.V. Toropovc

a

Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Hiroshima University, 1-4-1, Kagamiyama,

Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

b

Graduate School of Hiroshima University, Hiroshima University, 1-4-1, Kagamiyama,

Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan

c

School of Engineering, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK

Abstract

The present paper proposes a novel approach to the identiﬁcation of the mechanical prop-

erties of individual component layers of a bimetallic sheet. In this approach, a set of material

parameters in a constitutive model of cyclic elasto-plasticity are identiﬁed for the two layers of

the sheet simultaneously by minimizing the diﬀerence between the experimental results and

the corresponding results of numerical simulation. This method has an advantage of using the

experimental data (tensile load vs strain curve in the uniaxial tension test and the bending

moment vs curvature diagram in the cyclic bending test) for a whole bimetallic sheet but not

for individual component layers. An optimization technique based on the iterative multipoint

approximation concept is used for the identiﬁcation of the material parameters. This paper

describes the experimentation, the fundamentals and the technique of the identiﬁcation, and

the veriﬁcation of this approach using two types of constitutive models (the Chaboche-Rous-

selier and the Prager models) for an aluminum clad stainless steel sheet.

# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: B. Constitutive behaviour; B. Layered materials; B. Elastic–plastic material; C. Optimization

E-mail address: yoshida@mec.hiroshima-u.ac.jp (F. Yoshida).

1

Current address: Materials and Processing Research Center, NKK Co. Ltd., 1, Kokan-cho,

Fukuyama, Hiroshima 721-8510, Japan

0749-6419/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0749-6419(03)00063-9

2150 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

1. Introduction

such as stainless steel/aluminum, copper/steel, etc., have been widely used in many

industrial ﬁelds because of their excellent mechanical and functional properties (e.g.,

Kim and Yu, 1997; Yoshida, 1997). It is already known that the press-formability of

bimetallic sheets is quite diﬀerent from that of their individual component sheets

(e.g., Hawkins and Wright, 1971; Verguts and Sowerby, 1975; Semiatin and Piehler,

1979b,c; Majlessi and Dadras, 1983; Yoshida et al., 1995; Yoshida and Hino, 1997;

Yoshida and Urabe, 2000).

The prediction of the formability of a bimetallic sheet would be possible if the

mechanical properties of its individual component metals, as well as its layer thick-

ness ratio, are given (Yoshida et al., 1995; Yoshida and Hino, 1997). In order to

determine the mechanical properties, uniaxial tension tests are usually performed on

each metal layer taken from the bimetallic sheet by a mechanical or chemical pro-

cessing (Semiatin and Piehler, 1979a; Yoshida and Hino, 1997). However, such ten-

sion tests have the following drawbacks:

a mechanical or chemical processing is necessary for the preparation of the

specimens,

the stress–strain responses during cyclic loading cannot be obtained because

of the buckling of the sheet in compression, although it is very important for

sheet metal forming simulations to employ a constitutive model which

properly describes the cyclic behavior of sheet metals (Yoshida and Urabe,

1999; Yoshida, 2000; Wagoner et al., 2000; Chun et al., 2002a,b; Yoshida et

al., 2002; Yoshida and Uemori, 2002).

bimetallic sheet became possible without performing such a time-consuming process

of the removal of a layer, it would be a considerable technological achievement.

In order to identify a set of material parameters in a constitutive model of cyclic

elasto-plasticity, which describes the complicated stress–strain responses including

the deformation characterizations of the Bauschinger eﬀect and cyclic strain-hard-

ening, for monolithic sheet metals, the present authors (Yoshida et al., 1998) ﬁrst

proposed an idea of using cyclic bending tests. In that research, material parameters

were identiﬁed by minimizing the diﬀerence between the test results and the results

of the corresponding numerical simulation using an advanced optimization tech-

nique developed by Toropov et al. (1993).

Recently, similar approaches to material parameter identiﬁcation of sheet metals

from bending tests were reported by Zhao et al. (2001) and Geng et al. (2002).

As an extension of the cyclic bending method, the present paper proposes a novel

approach to the identiﬁcation of material parameters of the individual component

layers in a bimetallic sheet without the time-consuming process of removal of a

layer. A set of material parameters in a constitutive model of cyclic elasto-plasticity

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2151

are identiﬁed using two diﬀerent types of experimental data, namely, the tensile load

versus strain curve in the uniaxial tension test and the bending moment versus cur-

vature diagram in the cyclic bending test, for a whole bimetallic sheet but not for

individual component layers. This paper describes the experimentation, the funda-

mentals and the technique of the identiﬁcation, and the veriﬁcation of this approach

using an aluminum clad stainless steel sheet.

Fig. 1. In order to determine the stress–strain response for the two individual com-

ponent layers of a bimetallic sheet, at least two diﬀerent types of experimental data

of the mechanical response are required. In this research, the tensile load vs axial

strain curve in the uniaxial tension test and the bending moment vs curvature dia-

gram in the cyclic bending test have been used. A set of material parameters in a

constitutive model of cyclic elasto-plasticity are identiﬁed for the two layers of the

sheet simultaneously by minimizing the diﬀerence between the experimental results

and the corresponding results of numerical simulation.

2.1. Experimentation

For the experiments, a stainless steel clad aluminum sheet consisting of 1.2 mm

aluminum (A1100) layer and 0.55 mm stainless-steel (type-430SS) layer, as shown in

Fig. 2, was employed. In the cyclic bending test, as shown in Fig. 3, one end of a

specimen was clamped and rotated by a step motor, and the other end was moving

freely in x–y directions without rotation. The above condition of the test can be

regarded as uniform bending, in which the bending moment is uniformly distributed

in the longitudinal direction of the sheet. The bending moment was measured by a

load-cell, and the curvature of the specimen was determined from the surface strains

measured by strain gauges bonded on both surfaces of the specimen. The second

type of experiment (uniaxial tension) produces the tensile load vs strain curve.

In order to verify the identiﬁed material parameters, uniaxial tension tests were

also performed with the stainless steel specimen which had been taken from the clad

sheet, and its stress–strain curve was obtained. The stress–strain curve of the alu-

minum layer was determined using the rule of mixtures by use of the results of uni-

axial tension tests both for the clad sheet and the stainless steel layer.

two types of constitutive models were used, i.e., one was a model of cyclic plasticity

based on the model proposed by Chaboche and Rousselier (1983) (hereafter we call

it ‘the Chaboche–Rousselier model’), and the other was the linear kinematic hard-

ening model proposed by Prager (1956) (‘the Prager model’).

2152 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

: : :

The strain rate " is decomposed into elastic and plastic components, "e and "p , as

: : :

" ¼ "e þ "p : ð1Þ

The yield function f and the associated ﬂow rule are given by the equations:

1 1 : @f :

f ¼ ðS Þ : ðS Þ ðY þ RÞ2 ; "p ¼ l; ð2Þ

2 3 @S

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2153

Fig. 2. Stainless steel (type-430) clad aluminium (A1100) specimen used in the experiments.

where S and denote the stress deviatior and the backstress deviatior, respectively,

and Y and R stand for the initial yield stress and the isotropic hardening stress,

respectively. The evolution of the isotropic hardening stress is given by

: : : 2 : p : p 1=2

R ¼ bðQ RÞ" ; " ¼ " :" : ð3Þ

3

Chaboche and Rousselier (1983) have given the expression for the backstress evolu-

tion as a summation of several backstress components of the Armstrong and Frederick

(1966) type (so-called ‘A-F model’). Instead of many A-F components, here we use one

of the simplest expressions of the backstress which consists of one linear kinematic

hardening component and one A-F component (Yoshida, 1995), 1 and 2, as

¼ 1 þ 2 : ð4Þ

: 2 :

1 ¼ H0 " p : ð5Þ

3

: 2 : :

2 ¼ C a"p " 2 : ð6Þ

3

2154 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

The above constitutive model incorporates eight material parameters: two elastic

constants E (Young’s modulus) and (Poisson’s ratio); the initial yield stress Y;

parameters Q and b for the isotropic hardening rule; and three parameters a, C and

H0 for the kinematic hardening rules. If the linear kinematic hardening rule is

exclusively considered in this constitutive model, in which the material parameter of

plasticity is H0 only, it yields the Prager kinematic hardening model. The meanings

of these material parameters in both models—how they reﬂect shapes of calculated

stress–strain curves under cyclic straining—are schematically shown in Fig. 4(a)–(c).

For the analysis of uniaxial tension, the isostrain condition for both the compo-

nent layers of the sheet was assumed. The bending moment was calculated for a

given curvature based on the Kirchhoﬀ–Love hypothesis with the assumption of the

uniform bending under plane strain condition. The assumption has been veriﬁed by

comparing the bending moment versus curvature curve from a 3D FEM simulation

of bending and the one from the plane-strain uniform bending.

A set of material parameters in each of the above constitutive models were iden-

tiﬁed using two diﬀerent types of experimental data simultaneously, namely, the

tensile load vs strain curve (P vs ") in the uniaxial tension test and the bending

moment vs curvature diagram (M vs ) in the cyclic bending test. The identiﬁcation

was carried out by minimizing the diﬀerence between the experimental results and

the corresponding results of numerical simulation. To make clearer our idea of using

experimental data of uniaxial tension and cyclic bending, here we shall discuss how

strongly each material parameter reﬂects some speciﬁc mechanical responses in ten-

sion (load vs strain curve: P vs ") and bending (bending moment vs curvature dia-

gram: M vs ). Let us consider a two-ply laminate consisting of materials A and B,

Fig. 4. Schematic illustrations of cyclic stress–strain (–") responses calculated by constitutive models:

(a) the Chaboche–Rousselier model excluding isotropic hardening; (b) the Chaboche–Rousselier

model

including isotropic hardening; and (c) the Prager model, where H ~ i ¼ H0 = 1 þ H0 =Ei , i=A or B.

i i

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2155

whose layer thickness are tA and tB. For easier understanding, we shall begin our

discussion with non-isotropic hardening materials.

(i) Young’s moduli, EA and EB, can be directly determined from the linear

(elastic) parts of P–" relationship (see schematic illustration Fig. 5(a): P=K";

and Fig. 5(b): P=(tAEA+tBEB)") and M– relationship (see schematic

illustrations Fig. 6(a) and (b), where elastic bending rigidity, De, can be

explicitly determined as a function of elasticity parameters: EA, EB, A and B,

and layer thicknesses: tA and tB), since we have two linear equations from

them for two unknown values of EA and EB.

(ii) When calculating P–" curve using the Chaboche–Rousselier model, it will

show transient workhardening (highly nonlinear P–" relationship) just after

Fig. 5. Schematic illustrations of load vs strain (P vs ") responses under uniaxial tension: (a) experimental

result; and (b) calculated result by the Chaboche–Rousselier model.

2156 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

Fig. 6. Schematic illustrations of bending moment vs curvature (M vs k) responses under cyclic bending:

(a) non-isotropic-hardening materials; and (b) isotropic-hardening materials. Elastic bending rigidity, De,

can be explicitly determined as a function of elasticity parameters: EA, EB, A and B, and layer thick-

nesses: tA and tB. Slope D1 (asymptotic elastic-plastic rigidity) is a function of asymptotic hardening

ratios of plasticity, H0A and H0B , together with the elasticity parameters and the layer thicknesses.

the onset of yielding, and then it approaches a linear line given by the

equation [see schematic illustration in Fig. 5(b)]:

h i

~ 0 þ tB H

P ¼ ½tA ðYA þ aA Þ þ tB ðYB þ aB Þ þ tA H ~ 0 ð" "

Þ; ð7aÞ

A B

~i ¼ H0i

H ; ði ¼ A or BÞ: ð7bÞ

1 þ H0i =Ei

P=P*+k(""*), as shown in Fig. 5(a), we have the following relationships:

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2157

tA ðYA þ aA Þ þ tB ðYB þ aB Þ ¼ P

; ð8aÞ

~ 0 þ tB H

tA H ~ 0 ¼ k: ð8bÞ

A B

In these equations, it is impossible to split P* (and k) into two parts, one is the

contribution by material

A and the other by B, such as PA

¼ tA ðYA þ aA Þ and

A B

with

ð Eqs. (7) and (8), the following M– relationship:

y ydA ¼ M for a given ; ð9aÞ

ð

under the constraint of y dA ¼ 0; ð9bÞ

the determination of parameters (Y+a) and H0 , for each material, will become possible.

YA and YB, directly reﬂect the shapes of highly nonlinear parts of P–" curve, and

also M– diagram. It should be noted that the nonlinear M– relationship is not

only due to the materials’ nonlinear stress-strain characteristics, but also to the

behavior of propagation of plastic zone from the sheet surfaces to the neutral

surface with increasing bending curvature. Therefore, to identify parameters a

and C, experimental data of both P vs " and M vs are essential.

(iv) If materials exhibit cyclic hardening characteristics under cyclic bending [see

schematic illustration Fig 6(b)], it is directly related to parameters of isotropic

hardening, b and Q [refer to Fig. 4(b)].

From the above discussion, it has been clariﬁed that each material parameter

strongly reﬂects some speciﬁc mechanical responses in uniaxial tension and cyclic

bending. Therefore, it would be possible to identify these material parameters, for

individual component layers of a bimetallic sheet, from experimental data of uni-

axial tension and cyclic bending.

components of the vector x 2 RN . Then the optimization problem can be formulated

as follows (Toropov et al., 1993, 1997): Find the vector x that minimizes the objec-

tive function

XL

FðxÞ ¼

F ðxÞ

¼1

Ai 4 xi 4 Bi ði ¼ 1; . . . ; NÞ; ð10Þ

2158 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

which can be measured in the course of experiments and then obtained as a result of

the numerical simulation. F (x) is the dimensionless function:

( ) ( )

X

S

2

X

S

2

F ðxÞ ¼ Rs R x; s = Rs ð11Þ

s¼1 s¼1

which measures the deviation between the computed th individual response and the

observed one from the experiment. Here, the notations denote : a parameter which

deﬁnes the history of the process in the course of the experiment (e.g., the time or the

loading parameter), s ð ¼ 1; . . . ; L; s ¼ 1; . . . ; SÞ: the discrete values of for

Sth data point, Rs : the value of the -th measured response quantity

corresponding

to the value of the experiment history parameter s , R x; s : the value of the same

response quantity obtained from the numerical simulation.

: the weight coeﬃcient

which determines the relative contribution of information yielded by the -th set of

experimental data, Ai, Bi: side constraints, stipulated by some additional physical

considerations, which deﬁne the search region in the space RN of optimization

parameters.

The optimization problem (10) has the following characteristic features:

to calculate values of this function for the speciﬁc set of parameters x means

to use a nonlinear numerical (e.g. ﬁnite element) simulation of the process

under consideration, which may involve a large amount of computer time;

function values present some level of numerical noise, i.e., they can only be

estimated with a ﬁnite accuracy.

techniques would involve a large amount of computer time, and most importantly,

the convergence of the optimization cannot be guaranteed due to the presence of

numerically induced noise in the objective function values, and even more so, its

derivatives. To solve the problem, the iterative multipoint approximation concept

(Toropov et al., 1993) is used, where computationally expensive and noisy functions,

F (x), ( =1,. . .,L) are replaced by simpliﬁed noiseless functions obtained by the

least-squares ﬁtting. Further details of this technique used to solve the identiﬁcation

problem can be found in references by Toropov et al. (1993, 1997) and Yoshida et

al. (1998).

The speciﬁc form of the multipoint approximation technique, used in this work, is

based on the algorithm of sequential quadratic programming (SQP) which builds up

an approximation of the inverse of the Hessian matrix using the objective function

values and its derivatives. It should be noted that in the problems of parameter

identiﬁcation for nonlinear constitutive models the traditional use of ﬁnite diﬀer-

ences for evaluation of derivatives would spoil the convergence of the optimizer

because the accuracy of derivatives is severely aﬀected by the numerical noise. As

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2159

the approximations are constructed in each iteration to evaluate the derivatives only,

fairly simple approximation types can be used, e.g. quadratic polynomials without

cross-terms:

N

X

F~ k ðx; a Þ ¼ a 0 þ a 2ði1Þþ1 xi þ a 2ði1Þþ2 x2i ð12Þ

i¼1

which contains 2N+1 tuning parameters to be found in each iteration by the least-

squares surface ﬁtting.

which was found to be =0.3 for both the stainless steel and the aluminum layers

from the conventional measurements, was performed using the tension (tensile load

vs strain :P vs ") curve ( =1) and several individual bending/reversed bending

(bending moment vs curvature: M vs ) diagrams ( =2,. . ., L) which are regarded

as individual response quantities. As for Youngs’ moduli, they could be identiﬁed

directly from elastic parts of P–" and M– relationships, as already discussed in

Section 2.3; however, in the present work, Young’s modulus is also treated as one of

material parameters to be identiﬁed simultaneously. Here in the identiﬁcation

problem for the Chaboche–Rousselier model,

the optimization variables x =[x1,x2,. . .,x14] are the material parameters for

the two layers: ðE; Y; Q; b; H0 ; a; CÞstainless steel ; ðE; Y; Q; b; H0 ; a; CÞaluminum ,

the set of values of Rs corresponds to the set of values of the tensile load

Rs1 ¼ P (for =1); and experimental bending moment Rs ¼ Ms (for

=2,. . ., L) both

of which

are found from the experiment, Ð

the function R x; s corresponds to the calculated Ð tensile load R 1 ¼ y dA

(for =1), and bending moment R ¼ M ¼ y ydA (for =2, . . ., L),

the experiment history parameter s1 is the strain " s in uniaxial tension for

=1; and s (for =2, . . ., L) is the curvature s ,

the index is 1 for the uniaxial tension, 2 for the ﬁrst monotonic bending, 3

for the subsequent reversed bending, etc. in Eqs. Ð (10)–(12),

under bending, a constraint condition of y dA ¼ 0 (non axial load) is

considered.

1=

2=. . .=1) in the

formulation of the objective function F(x). In addition, for the discussion on the

eﬀect of the weighting coeﬃcients, the identiﬁcation for the case of weighting of

2=

3=. . .=0.5 (for cyclic bending) was partly carried

out.

The identiﬁcation of material parameters E, Y and H0 in the Prager model was also

performed, where x ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; . . . ; x6 ¼ ðE; Y; H Þstainless steel ; ðE; Y; H0 Þaluminum .

0

2160 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

The material parameters were identiﬁed using two sets of experimental data of the

bimetallic sheet, i.e., the tensile load vs strain curve (see Fig. 7); and the bending

moment vs curvature (see Fig. 8). Fig. 7(a) and (b) show the comparison of the experi-

mental results of the tensile load vs strain curve in uniaxial tension tests for the bime-

tallic sheet and the corresponding results calculated with the constitutive models of the

Chaboche–Rousselier type and the Prager type, respectively, incorporating the identi-

ﬁed sets of material parameters. The results of cyclic bending and the corresponding

Fig. 7. Comparisons of experimental curves of tensile load vs strain (P vs ") in uniaxial tension and the

result of simulations with the constitutive models incorporating the sets of material parameters identiﬁed

from uniaxial tension and cyclic bending tests of the bimetallic sheet: (a) the Chaboche–Rousselier model;

and (b) the Prager model.

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2161

Fig. 8. Comparisons of experimental diagrams of bending moment vs curvature (M vs k) and the results

of simulations with the constitutive models incorporating the sets of material parameters identiﬁed from

uniaxial tension and cyclic bending tests of the bimetallic sheet: (a) the Chaboche–Rousselier model; and

(b) the Prager model.

numerical simulations are shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b). The load vs strain curve cal-

culated with the Chaboche–Rousselier model ﬁts the experimental results well,

whereas the Prager model cannot simulate the nonlinear part of the curve near the

initial yield point [see Fig. 7(b)]. The sets of material parameters identiﬁed for both

the models are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The material parameter identiﬁcations were

carried out several times by changing the initial guesses of the parameters, and their

search regions [i.e., side constraints Ai and Bi in Eq. (10)], and consequently, it was

found that the diﬀerences in the obtained results between the trials were negligibly

small. This would be an indirect veriﬁcation of the uniqueness of solution for the

present problem. As already mentioned in Sections 2.2. and 2.3., each material

parameter clearly represents some of materials’ cyclic stress–strain characteristics

[see Fig. 4(a)–(c)], and it also directly reﬂects some of speciﬁc mechanical responses,

2162 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

Table 1

Identiﬁed material parameters in the Chaboche–Rousselier model for stainless steel clad aluminum sheet

Stainless steel 204.3 308.1 996 277.3 935 0 0

Table 2

Identiﬁed material parameters in the Prager model for stainless steel clad aluminum sheet

Stainless steel 234.1 538.1 7532

such as the transient and asymptotic workhardening behavior in P–" curve [see

Fig. 5(a) and (b)], the increase in bending-moment peaks under cyclic bending with

number of cycles [see Fig. 6(a) and (b), in our experiment, non-cyclic-hardening was

observed, and consequently, the optimizer gave us an answer of b and Q=0], etc.

This would be a reason why we have succeeded in obtaining a unique solution.

Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the stress–strain curves calculated with the models using the

identiﬁed material parameters for the stainless steel and the aluminum in the bime-

tallic sheet. Both the component metals exhibit almost no cyclic strain-hardening

because they possess large plastic prestrain induced during the cladding by the roll-

bonding process. In order to check the accuracy of this identiﬁcation method, the

calculated stress–strain curves for the individual component metals were compared

with the experimental stress–strain curves [see Fig. 10(a) and (b)]. The results cal-

culated with the Chaboche–Rousselier model agree fairly well with those obtained in

the experiments. However, by the Prager model, the predicted strain-hardening

coeﬃcient H0 ¼ d=d"p for the stainless steel is apparently larger than the experi-

mental value. It is not attributed to the problem of the identiﬁcation procedure, but

to the fact that the Prager model cannot describe the nonlinear stress–strain rela-

tionship near the initial yield point. Fig. 11 shows the surface strain responses (strain

of the aluminum versus one of the stainless steel) during cyclic bending calculated by

the Chaboche–Rousselier model together with the corresponding experimental

results. These simulated results agree with those obtained in experiments.

There might be several reasons for a certain discrepancy between the experimental

stress—strain curves and the calculated results shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b). For the

case of the Chaboche–Rousselier model, the discrepancy is not due to the material

model itself, but for the case of Prager model, as already mentioned above, less

ﬂexible bi-linear modeling strongly aﬀects the result. Even when using exclusively

the experimental stress–strain curve of the stainless steel for the optimization, a

certain discrepancy due to bi-linear modeling in the Prager model still remains, while

good result is obtained by the Chaboche–Rousselier model [see Fig. 12(a) and (b)].

As far as the Chaboche–Rousselier model is concerned, the agreements between the

experimental data and the corresponding results of numerical simulations, both for

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2163

Fig. 9. Cyclic stress–strain responses, for the stainless steel and aluminium layers in the bimetallic sheet,

calculated with the constitutive models incorporating the sets of material parameters identiﬁed from uni-

axial tension and cyclic bending tests of the bimetallic sheet: (a) the Chaboche–Rousselier model; and

(b) the Prager model.

the uniaxial tension (Fig. 7) and the cyclic bending (Fig. 8) of the bimetallic sheet,

are rather good. Hence, it would be concluded that the assumption of equally

weighted (

1=

2=. . .=1) response quantities of uniaxial tension ( =1) and each

bending/unbending ( =2, 3, . . .) is acceptable, and small change of the weighting

parameters might have minor eﬀect. For the case of the Prager model, on the con-

trary, the values of weighting coeﬃcients may have some eﬀect on the results. For

2164 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

Fig. 10. Comparisons of the stress–strain curves in uniaxial tension and the calculated results with the

constitutive models for the stainless steel (SS) and aluminum (Al) layers in the bimetallic sheet: (a) the

Chaboche–Rousselier model; and (b) the Prager model. The sets of material parameters were identiﬁed

using the experimental data of uniaxial tension and cyclic bending.

example, when using the smaller values of weighting coeﬃcients for cyclic bending,

slightly smaller value of strain-hardening coeﬃcient H0 was obtained [e.g., for the

case of

1=1 (for uniaxial tension) and

2=

3=. . .=0.5 (for cyclic bending),

H0 =6743, while for the equally weighted case H0 =7532]. Even so, the main cause of

the discrepancy in this model was not the bad choice of the weighting parameters,

but less ﬂexible model itself. The residual stress which had been induced in each

metal during cladding by roll-bonding process would also aﬀect the results, since the

eﬀect of the residual stress on P–" curve would not just the same as that on M–

diagram, however, its details were not examined in the present work. Another pos-

sible reason for the discrepancy would be the non-J2 eﬀect (or anistropy) of the

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2165

Fig. 11. Comparison of experimental surface strains [strain of the aluminum (Al) versus that of the

stainless steel (SS)] during cyclic bending and the calculated result with the Chaboche–Rousselier model

incorporating the sets of material parameters identiﬁed from uniaxial tension and cyclic bending tests of

the bimetallic sheet.

materials. In the present work, the yield function was assumed to be J2 (von Mises)

type. However, it is well known that some metals are not J2 type, e.g., aluminum

and its alloys are rather Tresca-material (e.g., Shiratori et al., 1976a,b; Kanetake et

al., 1981), and in some cases texture-induced anisotropy would also exist. Since the

plane-strain ﬂow stress, which appears under sheet bending, is directly related to the

types of yield function employed in the calculation, the choice of yield function is

very important for the material parameter identiﬁcation using sheet bending

experiments. Generally speaking, to obtain the proper material parameters of plas-

ticity, the experimental data of enough large strain are essential (at least, a strain

value where the transient workhardening [or transient Bauschinger eﬀect] ﬁnishes is

necessary, and ‘‘how large?’’ is also dependent on applications, e.g., for ordinal sheet

metal forming the required strain would be level of more than 0.2, but for structural

element applications it would not be so large). Furthermore, if the component

materials have signiﬁcant cyclic hardening nature, data of enough numbers of

bending cycles, until the cyclic hardening stabilization takes place, will be necessary.

In order to illustrate the convergence of the optimization process, the change of

the square root of the objective function F(x) as a function of the number of itera-

tions is shown in Fig. 13, in both cases of using the Chaboche–Rousselier and the

Prager models. From this ﬁgure, it is found that the objective function approaches to

a small asymptotic value after some 10 iterations in both the cases. The CPU time for

the identiﬁcation with the Chaboche–Rousselier model was about 26 min by EWS

SUN Ultra 1 (140 MHz) (SPEC fp95: 7.9), and 9 min in the case of using the Prager

model. Such a great diﬀerence in CPU time depending on the type of constitutive

models is attributed to the diﬀerence of the numbers of material parameters to be

identiﬁed (14 parameters for the Chaboche–Rousselier model and six parameters for

2166 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

Fig. 12. Comparisons of the stress–strain curve in uniaxial tension and the calculated results with the

constitutive models for the stainless steel layer in the bimetallic sheet: (a) the Chaboche–Rousselier model;

and (b) the Prager model. The sets of material parameters were identiﬁed using exclusively the experi-

mental data of uniaxial tension of the stainless steel (E=204.0 GPa, Y=358.1 MPa, a =206.3 MPa,

C=1525, H01 ¼ 30:0 MPa for the Chaboche–Rosselier model; and E=204.2 GPa, Y=528.7 MPa, H01 ¼

5999 MPa for the Prager model, cf. Tables 1 and 2).

the Prager model). About 90% of the CPU time was consumed by the calculation of

bending moment.

Furthermore, instead of using the set of experimental data of tensile load vs strain

in uniaxial tension and bending moment vs curvature in cyclic bending, as discussed

above, we may use the other mechanical responses, e.g., the bending moment vs

surface strains in cyclic bending for both the stainless and aluminum layers. Fig. 14

shows the calculated stress–strain curves for the stainless steel and the aluminum by

the constitutive model which incorporates the identiﬁed material parameters using

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2167

Fig. 13. Change of the square root of the objective function F(x) with increasing number of iteration.

Fig. 14. Comparison of the stress–strain curves and the simulated results with the Chaboche–Rousselier

model incorporating the identiﬁed set of material parameters for the stainless steel (SS) and aluminum

(Al) layers in the bimetallic sheet. The material parameter identiﬁcation is based on the experimental data

of surface strains.

only the surface strain data, together with the experimental stress–strain curves. In

Fig. 14, a certain discrepancy between the simulated stress–strain curves and the

experimental results is found, whereas the simulated results for the bending moment

and curvature agree well with the experimental results (see Fig. 15). One of the rea-

sons for the discrepancy is that the strain in the cyclic bending is not large enough

for the determination of plastic properties. Especially for the bimetallic sheet, strain

in the stainless steel layer is much smaller than in the aluminum layer because of the

shift of the neutral surface from the mid-plane of the sheet (Verguts and Sowerby,

1975; Majlessi and Dadras, 1983). If the curvature in the cyclic bending test had

2168 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

Fig. 15. Comparison of experimental diagram of bending moment versus curvature and the simulated

result with the constitutive model incorporating the identiﬁed set of material parameters. The material

parameter identiﬁcation is based on the experimental data of surface strains.

been large enough, the results of the identiﬁcation would have been better. However,

in practice, it is not so easy to give large surface strains by bending for thin sheet

metals, therefore, the use of experimental data of both uniaxial tension and cyclic

bending is recommended for material parameter identiﬁcation for bimetallic sheets.

5. Concluding remarks

ponent layers in a bimetallic sheet by a mixed experimental–numerical approach has

been presented. As an example, for a stainless steel clad aluminum sheet, a set of

material parameters in each of two constitutive models of cyclic elasto-plasticity: a

nonlinear kinematic/isotropic hardening model (the Chaboche–Rousselier model)

and a linear kinematic hardening model (the Prager model), have been successfully

identiﬁed by using the experimental data of the uniaxial tension and cyclic bending.

It should be noted that an advanced optimization technique based on the iterative

multipoint approximation concept allows us to solve the present identiﬁcation

problem within an acceptable calculation time. By this new approach to material

parameter identiﬁcation, the determination of mechanical properties of a bimetallic

sheet has become possible without performing a time-consuming process of the

removal of a layer from the sheet for the preparation of the specimens. It is a con-

siderable technological achievement. Moreover, it should be emphasized that this

approach allows us to identify material parameters not only for the monotonic

deformation but also for the cyclic behavior characterized by the Bauschinger eﬀect

and the cyclic hardening nature of materials.

F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170 2169

Acknowledgements

The present work has been done within a Royal Society joint project ‘Optimiza-

tion and Inverse Problems of Large Deformation Plasticity’ between University of

Bradford and Hiroshima University, as well as a Monbukagakusho (The Ministry

of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan) project, grant-in aid

for scientiﬁc research No. 12555029.

References

Armstrong, P.J., Frederick, C.O., 1966. A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger

eﬀect (GEGB report RD/B/N731). Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories.

Chaboche, J.L., Rousselier, G., 1983. On the plastic and viscoplastic constitutive equations, part I and II.

ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 105, 153–164.

Chun, B.K., Jinn, J.T., Lee, J.K., 2002a. Modeling the Bauschinger eﬀect for sheet metals, part I: theory.

Int. J. Plasticity 18, 571–595.

Chun, B.K., Jinn, J.T., Lee, J.K., 2002b. Modeling the Bauschinger eﬀect for sheet metals, part II:

applications. Int. J. Plasticity 18, 597–616.

Geng, L., Shen, Y., Wagoner, R.H., 2002. Anisotropic hardening equations derived from reverse-bending

testing. Int. J. Plasticity 18, 743–767.

Hawkins, R., Wright, J.C., 1971. Mechanical properties and press-formability of copper/mild steel sand-

wich sheet materials. J. Inst. Metal. 99, 357–371.

Kanetake, K., Tozawa, Y., Kato, T., Aiba, S., 1981. Eﬀect of texture on deformation behavior of alumi-

num sheets. J. Jpn Inst. Light Metals 31, 307–312.

Kim, J.-K., Yu, T.-X., 1997. Forming and failure behaviour of coated, laminated and sandwiched sheet

metals: a review. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 63, 33–42.

Majlessi, S.A., Dadras, P., 1983. Pure plastic bending of sheet laminates under plane strain condition. Int.

J. Mech. Sci. 25, 1–14.

Prager, W., 1956. A new method of analyzing stresses and strains in work-hardening plastic solids. J. Appl.

Mech. 23, 493–496.

Semiatin, N.L., Piehler, H.R., 1979a. Deformation of sandwich sheet materials in uniaxial tension. Metal.

Trans. 10A, 85–96.

Semiatin, N.L., Piehler, H.R., 1979b. Formability of sandwich sheet materials in plane strain compression

and rolling. Metal. Trans. 10A, 97–107.

Semiatin, N.L., Piehler, H.R., 1979c. Forming limits of sandwich sheet materials. Metal. Trans. 10A,

1107–1118.

Shiratori, E., Ikegami, K., Yoshida, F., 1976a. The subsequent yield surfaces after proportional preload-

ing of the Tresca-type material. Bulletin of the JSME 19, 1122–1128.

Shiratori, E., Ikegami, K., Yoshida, F., Kaneko, K., Koike, S., 1976b. The subsequent yield surfaces after

preloading under combined axial load and torsion. Bulletin of the JSME 19-134, 877–883.

Toropov, V.V., Filatov, A.A., Polynkin, A.A., 1993. Multiparameter stractural optimization using FE

and multipoint explicit approximates. Structral Optimization 6, 7–14.

Toropov, V.V., Yoshida, F., van der Giessen, E., 1997. Material parameter identiﬁcation for large plas-

ticity models. In: Sol, H., Oomens, C.W.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the EUROMECH Colloqium on

Material Identiﬁcation Using Mixed Numerical Experimental Methods. Kluwer Academic, pp. 81–92.

Verguts, H., Sowerby, R., 1975. The pure plastic bending of laminated sheet metals. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 17,

31–51.

Wagoner, R.H., Geng, L., Balakrishnan, V., 2000. Role of hardening law in springback. In: Khan, A.S.,

Zhan, H., Yuen Y. (Eds.), Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Plasticity and Its Current Applications. NEAT

Press, pp. 609–611.

Yoshida, F., Hino, R., Okada, T., 1995. Deformation and fracture of stainless-steel/aluminium sheet

2170 F. Yoshida et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 2149–2170

metal laminates in stretch bending/unbending. In: Tanimura, S., Khan, A.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the

5th International Symposium on Plasticity and Its Current Applications. Gordon and Breach, PP. 869–

872.

Yoshida, F., 1995. Ratchetting behaviour of 304 stainless steel at 650
C under multiaxially strain-con-

trolled and uniaxially/multiaxially stress-controlled conditions. European J. Mechanics, A/Solids 14,

97–117.

Yoshida, F., 1997.Deformation and fracture of sheet metal laminates in plastic forming. In: Hui,D. (Ed.),

Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Composite Engineering, pp. 61–64.

Yoshida, F., Hino, R., 1997. Forming limit of stainless steel-clad aluminium sheets under plane stress

condition. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 63, 66–71.

Yoshida, F., Urabe, M., Toropov, V.V., 1998. Identiﬁcation of material parameters in constitutive model

for sheet metals from cyclic bending tests. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 40, 237–249.

Yoshida, F., Urabe, M., 1999. Computer-aided process design for the tension levelling of metallic strips.

Journal of Materials Processing Technology 89/90, 218–223.

Yoshida, F., Urabe, M., 2000. Computer-aided process design for the tension levelling of clad sheet metal.

Key Engineering Materials 177-180, 503–508.

Yoshida, F., 2000. A constitutive model of cyclic plasticity. Int. J. Plasticity 16, 359–380.

Yoshida, F., Uemori, T., Fujiwara, K., 2002. Elastic-plastic behavior of steel sheets under in-plane cyclic

tension-compression at large strain. Int. J. Plasticity 18, 633–659.

Yoshida, F., Uemori, T., 2002. A model of large-strain cyclic plasticity describing the Bauschinger eﬀect

and workhardening stagnation. Int. J. Plasticity 18, 661–686.

Zhao, K.M., Lee, J.K., 2001. Generation of cyclic stress-strain curves for sheet metals. ASME, J. Eng.

Mater. Technol. 123, 391–397.

- Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.pdfUploaded byEmmanuel Del Rosario
- Neuber_FEAUploaded byRavi Chandran R
- C3 - Frac Model Input DataUploaded byAli Zareeforoush
- materialUploaded byAshutoshAparaj
- 11Elasticity _183-197_Uploaded byavishekpatel
- Zhao - Finile Element Analysis of Three-point Bending of Sheet Metals (2002)Uploaded bySsandra Marchi
- What Are the Conditions to Check the Interstoy Drift Using CSI EtabUploaded byRatul Ranjan
- G39Uploaded bynksonia
- Drawing ProcesssUploaded bydanvic
- Anchors MasonryUploaded byJason Vargas
- Neuber's Rule Accuracy in Predicting Notch Stress-strainUploaded bybatmanbittu
- KENTRACK-tanıtımUploaded bymkarasahin
- 23.Contact Stress Analysis of Shrink-fitted Joints for Various Fit Forms via Finite Element MethodUploaded byParag Naik
- Hooke's Law.pptxUploaded bySary Lim
- keph201Uploaded byTrilok Akhani
- FlexiónUploaded byJavier
- 1-s2.0-S2213290215000231-mainUploaded byManing Ballesteros
- fall 17 engr b45 syllabus v1Uploaded byapi-309001775
- 2010-03 Mech Prop of Eng Matl 02 Tension.pdfUploaded bySyarief Nahdi
- 1468-6996_6_8_A06Uploaded byAsad Assaad
- Chap 1 StrengthUploaded byVi Gan
- Kozicki Et Al-2014-International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsUploaded byAnonymous TsVU0qI
- 2010-09Uploaded byvirous08
- Material Properties 1Uploaded byPrabath De Silva
- Analysis and Modelling of CFT Members Moment Curvature AnalysisUploaded byMahdi Valaee
- A Comparative Finite Element Stress Analysis of Isotropic and Fusion Deposited 3D Printed PolymerUploaded byswongy
- Session07_ECS_Werkhausen.pdfUploaded bysuhas110
- Report_VTT-R-02199-10_FRAS-1-1-3_26Apr2010Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- COURSE MATERIAL.pdfUploaded byLalith Koushik Ganganapalli
- Puneet Final CorrectedUploaded byPuneet Sharma

- Theory of PlasticityUploaded bybabu1434
- Thermal Fatigue Ballot 12 01Uploaded byjudicejr
- xid-1576971_1Uploaded byPortia Shilenge
- Report_VTT-R-08651-12Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- 6 MomentumjUploaded bySoon Lee
- Fatigue Residual Strength of Circular Laminate Graphite–Epoxy Composite PlatesUploaded bytommasobrugo
- esfuerzo cortanteUploaded byjorge luis
- Usace Settlement AnalysisUploaded byjjahaddin
- Optimization of Process Parameters in Drilling EN8 Steel using Taguchi TechniqueUploaded byIJIRST
- Physics Notes Class 11 Chapter 9 Mechanical Properties of SolidsUploaded byBasharat Hunzai
- mom assignment.pdfUploaded byjar2
- stress_strain_in_pavementsUploaded byAjay Gupta
- RED07 Banerjee DraftUploaded byDong Dien Kha
- BiomechanicsUploaded byRamnarayan Meena
- Possible Effects of Stress on Steel Weld MicrostructuresUploaded byDarko Nikolovski
- Ce6306 Strength of Materials Lecture NotesUploaded byRakeshkumarceg
- R7220103 Strength of Materials - IIUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- rock brazilian testUploaded bym_k_tripathy
- D5379Uploaded byrsugarman
- QCS 2010 Section 4 Part 11 Alternative Methods for Testing PilesUploaded bybryanpastor106
- Strength of Materials (HE 306)Uploaded byAnu Parameswaran
- Analysis of Heat Flow Around Bolted JointsUploaded bynitsilcharassam
- RISA 3D User's Guide v11Uploaded byMuhammad Aquilur Rahman
- Design of Pressure VesselUploaded byHarshal Jadhav
- Practical Yield Line DesignUploaded byAbu Bidu
- High strength Mg-Zn-Y alloys containing quasicrystalline particles.Uploaded byLuis Aliaga
- Chapter 2 - General Fracture MechanicsUploaded byviv0102
- 03-2017Uploaded bysam
- Applying the Wheatstone Bridge CircuitUploaded byMichael Kang
- Composite Pavements-A Technical and Economic Analysis During the Pavement Type Selection ProcessUploaded byAjir Still Here