See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222549125

A new yield criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under plane-stress

conditions

Article  in  International Journal of Mechanical Sciences · May 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00139-5

CITATIONS READS
191 921

5 authors, including:

D. Banabic Toshihiko Kuwabara

Universitatea Tehnica Cluj-Napoca Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
47 PUBLICATIONS   2,070 CITATIONS    254 PUBLICATIONS   4,066 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tudor Balan Dan-Sorin Comsa

Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers Universitatea Tehnica Cluj-Napoca
94 PUBLICATIONS   1,064 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   1,689 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessing the Formability of Metallic Sheets by Means of Maximum Force Criteria (MFC) View project

Application of optimization techniques for calibration of damage models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dan-Sorin Comsa on 24 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

Non-quadratic yield criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under

plane-stress conditions
D. Banabica; b;∗ , T. Kuwabarac , T. Baland , D.S. Comsaa , D. Juleana
a
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 15 C. Daicoviciu,
Cluj-Napoca 3400, Romania
b
Stuttgart University, Institute of Metal Forming Technologies, 17 Holzgartenstrasse, Stuttgart 70174, Germany
c
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (alias Tokyo Noko Univ.), Department of Mechanical Systems
Engineering, 2-24-16, Nakacho, Kogane-shi, Tokyo 184-8588, Japan
d
LPMM—Laboratoire de Physique et Mecanique des Materiaux CER ENSAM de Metz, 4 rue A. Fresnel,
Metz 57070, France
Received 23 January 2003; received in revised form 28 May 2003; accepted 1 July 2003

Abstract

The paper presents a new yield criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under plane-stress conditions. The
criterion is derived from the one proposed by Barlat and Lian (Int. J. Plasticity 5 (1989) 51). Three additional
coe3cients have been introduced in order to allow a better representation of the plastic behaviour of the sheet
metals. The predictions of the new yield criterion are compared with the experimental data for an aluminium
alloy sheet and a steel sheet.
? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sheet metals; Anisotropy; Non-quadratic yield criterion

1. Introduction

The computer simulation of sheet metal forming processes needs a quantitative description of the
plastic anisotropy by the yield locus of the material. For taking into account the anisotropy, the
classical von Mises yield criterion must be modi:ed. A simple approximation for this purpose is
given by the quadratic Hill criterion [1]:



2 2r0 1 + r90 r0 2
1 − 1 2 +  = Y 2: (1)
1 + r0 1 + r0 r90 2

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: 0040-264-415051; fax: 0040-264-415467.
E-mail addresses: banabic@tcm.utcluj.ro, banabic@ifu.uni-stuttgart.de (D. Banabic).

0020-7403/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00139-5
798 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

Nomenclature
; ;  indices taking only the values 1 and 2
Ab ; Bb ; A’ ; B’ auxiliary functions used in the identi:cation procedure
a; h; p; M coe3cients of the Barlat Lian yield function
a; k coe3cients in the expression of the equivalent stress
C; n;  coe3cients in the Swift strain-hardening law
ex ; ey nominal strain components in the biaxial tension test
p
0 oFset of the plastic logarithmic strain used in experiments for estab-
lishing the uniaxial yield stress
p
˙’ component of the plastic strain-rate tensor along the longitudinal axis
of a specimen cut at the ’ angle with respect to the rolling direction
p
˙’+90◦ component of the plastic strain-rate tensor perpendicular to the lon-
gitudinal axis of a specimen cut at the ’ angle with respect to the
rolling direction
p
˙ in-plane components of the plastic strain-rate tensor
Hp ;  equivalent plastic strain-rate
Hp equivalent plastic strain
p p
x ; y logarithmic strain components in the biaxial tension test
F error-function used in the identi:cation procedure
Fx ; Fy loads measured in the biaxial tension test
;  functions of the stress components expressed in the system of plastic
orthotropy axes
 yield function
’ angle de:ning a direction in the plane of the sheet metal with respect
to the rolling direction
k1 ; k2 functions of the stress components expressed in the system of plastic
orthotropy axes (de:ned by Barlat and Lian)
 measurement error of stress
M; N; P; Q; R coe3cients in the expressions of the  and  functions
r coe3cient of normal anisotropy
exp
r’ experimentally measured coe3cient of plastic anisotropy associated
to a direction de:ned by the ’ angle
r’ coe3cient of plastic anisotropy associated to a direction de:ned by
the ’ angle
 true stress tensor
H equivalent stress
exp
’ experimentally measured uniaxial yield stress associated to a direction
de:ned by the ’ angle
1 ; 2 ; 3 principal stresses
b equibiaxial yield stress
exp
b equibiaxial yield stress obtained by experiments
CAL value of the true stress calculated by dividing the load to the
cross-sectional area of the gage
 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 799

FEM value of the true stress at the centre of the gage section calculated using
the :nite-element method
’ uniaxial yield stress associated to an in-plane direction de:ned by the ’
angle
x ; y true stress components in the biaxial tension test
exp exp
x ; y true stress components de:ning the yield locus in biaxial tension
t time variable
x; y rolling and transverse directions of the specimen used in the biaxial tension
test
Y yield parameter

Later on, several scientists have proposed more and more sophisticated yield functions for aniso-
tropic materials. Hill himself successively improved his criterion in 1979 [2] and 1990 [3]. In 1993
Hill stated [4] that none of them is able to represent the behaviour of a material exhibiting a tensile
yield stress almost equal in value in the rolling and transverse direction, while r-values vary strongly
with the angle to the rolling direction. Another important research direction in the :eld was initiated
by Hosford [5] who introduced a non-quadratic yield function for isotropic materials, based on the
results of polycrystal calculations. This criterion was later generalized to anisotropic materials [6]
and :nally yield functions emerged for any complex stress state [7,8]. During the last two decades, a
lot of yield functions were introduced in order to improve the :tting of the experimental results (see
Refs. [9–11]). Thus, Bassani [12] introduced a non-quadratic yield criterion. Gotoh [13] introduced a
fourth-degree polynomial yield function. Barlat and Richmond [14] introduced a new non-quadratic
function, including the shear stress components (extended by Barlat and Lian [15]). For taking into
account the shear stress, Barlat and Lian [15] proposed the following yield function:
f = a|k1 + k2 |M + a|k1 − k2 |M + (2 − a)|2k2 |M = 2eM ; (2)
where

2 1=2
x + hy x − hy
k1 = ; k2 = + p2 "2xy ; (3)
2 2
while a; h and p are material parameters.
Budiansky [16] prescribed a parametric expression in polar coordinates of the yield function.
Barlat et al. [7] developed a six-component yield function, by using a linear transformation of the
stress state (recently extended by Barlat et al. [17]). Kara:llis and Boyce [8] extended the Barlat
criterion [7] using a “weighted” linear transformation. Vegter et al. [18] proposed the representation
of the yield function with the help of Bezier’s interpolation using directly the test results (pure shear
point, uniaxial point, plain strain point and equi-biaxial point). A synthesis on these yield criteria is
presented in Refs. [9–11].
In this work, the precise description of complex yielding behaviour exhibited by sheet metals
is approached both from the theoretical and experimental viewpoints. A consistent experimental
technique is used to determine the yield surface of sheet metals, using a cruciform specimen in a
hydraulically servo-controlled biaxial tensile testing apparatus. Both an Al-killed IF-steel sheet and
800 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

an aluminum alloy sheet are investigated. Finally, the ability of the new criterion to model real
yielding behaviour is discussed, in the light of this analysis.

2. Equation of the yield surface

A yield surface is generally described by an implicit equation of the form

(;
H Y ) : =H − Y = 0; (4)
where H is the equivalent stress and Y is a yield parameter. In practice, Y may be chosen as one of
exp
the following parameters of the sheet metal: 0 (uniaxial yield stress along the rolling direction),
exp exp
90 (uniaxial yield stress along the transverse direction), 45 (uniaxial yield stress at 45◦ from
exp exp exp exp
the rolling direction), an average of 0 , 90 and 45 , or b (equi-biaxial yield stress). The
equivalent stress is de:ned by the following relationship:
H = [a( + )2k + a( − )2k + (1 − a)(2)2k ]1=2k ; (5)
where 0 6 a 6 1 and k ∈ N ∗ are material parameters, while  and  are quantities related to the
non-zero components of the stress tensor
 = M11 + N22 ;

 = (P11 − Q22 )2 + R2 12 21 : (6)
The coe3cients M; N; P; Q and R in Eqs. (6) are also material parameters. The components  (; =
1; 2) are expressed in the system of orthotropy axes (1 is the rolling direction—RD, 2 is the transverse
direction—TD, and 3 is the normal direction—ND).
The shape of the yield surface de:ned by Eqs. (4)–(6) is controlled by seven material param-
eters: k; a; M; N; P; Q and R. The exponent k has a distinct status. More precisely, its value is set
in accordance with the crystallographic structure of the material [5]: k = 3 for BCC alloys, and
k = 4 for FCC alloys. The other parameters are established in such a way that the constitutive
equations associated to the yield surface reproduce as well as possible the plastic behaviour of
the sheet metal. The procedure used to compute the coe3cients a; M; N; P; Q and R is described in
Section 4.
By increasing the number of material parameters, Eqs. (4)–(6) improve the Pexibility of the
Barlat–Lian yield criterion [15]. The convexity of the yield surface is ensured if 0 6 a 6 1 and
k ∈ N ∗ . This statement may be proven following the same approach as that used by Barlat and Lian
[15].

3. Flow rule

The Pow rule associated to the yield surface presented in the previous section is
p @
˙ =  ; ;  = 1; 2; (7)
@
 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 801

p
where ˙ are in-plane components of the plastic strain-rate tensor, and  ¿ 0 is a scalar multi-
plier. The values of the non-planar components of the plastic strain-rate tensor are restricted by the
plane-stress condition and the isochoric character of the plastic deformation
p p p p p p p
˙23 = ˙32 ≡ 0; ˙31 = ˙13 ≡ 0; ˙33 = −(˙11 + ˙22 ): (8)

Assuming a purely isotropic hardening of the material, only one scalar state parameter is needed in
order to describe the evolution of the yield surface. This parameter is the so-called equivalent plastic
strain computed as a time-integral of the equivalent plastic strain-rate
 t
p
H = Ḣ p dt: (9)
0

The equivalent plastic strain-rate is de:ned by equating the power developed by to the stress tensor
and the power associated to the equivalent stress
p
H Ḣ p =  ˙ : (10)

Using the homogeneity of the equivalent stress (see Eqs. (5) and (6)), one can prove that the scalar
multiplier  is in fact the equivalent plastic strain-rate. Thus, the Pow rule (7) becomes
p @
˙ = Ḣ p ; ;  = 1; 2: (11)
@

4. Identication procedure

The parameters a; M; N; P; Q and R in the expression of the equivalent stress are established in
such a way that the constitutive equation associated to the yield surface reproduce as well as possible
exp
the following characteristics of the orthotropic sheet-metal: 0 (yield stress obtained by a uniaxial
exp exp
tensile test along RD), 90 (yield stress obtained by a uniaxial tensile test along TD), 45 (yield
exp
stress obtained by a uniaxial tensile test along a direction equally inclined to RD and TD), b
exp
(yield stress obtained by an equi-biaxial tensile test along RD and TD), r0 (coe3cient of plastic
exp exp
anisotropy associated to RD), r90 (coe3cient of plastic anisotropy associated to TD), and r45
(coe3cient of plastic anisotropy associated to a direction equally inclined to RD and TD). There are
seven conditions acting on six material parameters. Due to this overconstraining, we have developed
an identi:cation procedure based on the minimization of the following error-function:

2
2
2
0 90 45
F(a; M; N; P; Q; R) = exp − 1 + exp − 1 + exp − 1
0 90 45

2
2
2
2
b r0 r90 r45
+ exp − 1 + exp − 1 + exp − 1 + exp − 1 ; (12)
b r0 r90 r45

where 0 ; 90 ; 45 ; b ; r0 ; r90 , and r45 are the uniaxial yield stresses, the equi-biaxial yield stress and
the coe3cients of plastic anisotropy predicted by the constitutive equation. In order to use the
802 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

function de:ned by Eq. (12) in a minimization procedure, we need some formulas for calculating
these quantities.

4.1. Prediction of the uniaxial yield stress

Let ’ ¿ 0 be the yield stress obtained by the uniaxial tensile test of a specimen cut at an angle
’ ∈ (0; 90◦ ) with the rolling direction. In this case, the non-zero components of the stress tensor
(expressed in the system of orthotropy axes) are given by the following relationships:

11 = ’ cos2 ’; 22 = ’ sin2 ’; 12 = 21 = ’ sin ’ cos ’: (13)

Eqs. (4)–(6) and (13) allow the obtention of a formula for evaluating the uniaxial yield stress at
diFerent angles with the rolling direction
Y
’ = ; (14)
[a(A’ + B’ )2k + a(A’ − B’ )2k + (1 − a)(2B’ )2k ]1=2k
where

A’ = M cos2 ’ + N sin2 ’;

B’ = (P cos2 ’ − Q sin2 ’)2 + R2 sin2 ’ cos2 ’: (15)

4.2. Prediction of the equibiaxial yield stress

Let b ¿ 0 be the yield stress obtained by an equi-biaxial tensile test along RD and TD. In this
case, the in-plane components of the stress tensor  are as follows:

11 = 22 = b ; 12 = 21 = 0: (16)

Eqs. (4)–(6) and (16) lead to a formula for evaluating the equi-biaxial yield stress
Y
b = ; (17)
[a(Ab + Bb )2k + a(Ab − Bb )2k + (1 − a)(2Bb )2k ]1=2k
where

Ab = M + N; Bb = |P − Q|: (18)

4.3. Prediction of the r-coeAcients

The coe3cient of plastic anisotropy associated to a direction inclined at an angle ’ ∈ (0; 90◦ ) with
the rolling direction is de:ned as follows:
p
˙’+90◦
r’ = p ; (19)
˙33
 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 803

p
where ˙’+90◦ is the component of the plastic strain-rate tensor associated to a direction perpendicular
p
to the longitudinal axis of the tensile specimen, and ˙33 is the component of the same tensor associated
to DN. By using the volume constancy condition, we can rewrite Eq. (19) in the form
p
˙’
r’ = p p − 1; (20)
˙11 + ˙22
p p
where ˙’ is the component of the plastic strain-rate tensor along the specimen axis. Further on, ˙’
may be expressed as
p p p
˙p’ = ˙11 cos2 ’ + ˙22 sin2 ’ + 2˙12 sin ’ cos ’: (21)

By using Eqs. (4), (11), (20), (21) and the homogeneity of the equivalent stress, we arrive at the
following expression of the plastic anisotropy coe3cient:
Y
r’ = − 1; (22)
’ [(@=@)(@=@11 + @=@22 ) + (@=@)(@=@11 + @=@22 )]

where ’ is given by Eq. (22) and

@  ’ 2k −1
= [a(A’ + B’ )2k −1 + a(A’ − B’ )2k −1 ];
@ Y
@  ’ 2k −1
= [a(A’ + B’ )2k −1 − a(A’ − B’ )2k −1 + 2(1 − a)(2B’ )2k −1 ];
@ Y
@ @
= M; = N;
@11 @22
@ P @ Q
= (P cos2 ’ − Q sin2 ’) = − (P cos2 ’ − Q sin2 ’): (23)
@11 B’ @22 B’

Eqs. (14), (17) and (22) are used to evaluate the quantities involved in the error-function F. We
have adopted the downhill simplex method proposed by Nelder and Mead (see Ref. [19]) for the
numerical minimization, because it does not need the calculation of the gradients. The minimization
procedure has been implemented into a computer programme. The numerical results presented in
Section 6 have been obtained using this programme.

5. Experimental method

5.1. Biaxial tensile testing apparatus and cruciform specimen

Fig. 1 shows the biaxial tensile testing apparatus used in the present study. This testing apparatus
has been originally designed and built by Kuwabara et al. [20] and Kuwabara and Van Bael [21].
Opposing hydraulic cylinders are connected to common hydraulic lines so that they are subjected
804 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

Fig. 1. Biaxial tensile testing apparatus.

to the same hydraulic pressure. The hydraulic pressure of each pair of opposing hydraulic cylinders
is servo-controlled independently. Displacements of opposing hydraulic cylinders are equalized using
the pantograph-type link mechanism proposed by Shiratori and Ikegami [22], so that the centre of
the cruciform specimen is always maintained at the centre of the testing apparatus during the biaxial
tensile tests. A load cell is included in each loading direction. Biaxial strain components in the gage
section of the specimen are measured using biaxial-strain gages. The outputs of loads and strains are
monitored continuously using A/D data acquisition and a personal computer, and saved on a disk
for future use.
Fig. 2 shows the cruciform specimen used in this study. Hereafter we de:ne the rolling and
transverse directions of the specimen as the x- and y-axes, respectively. Each arm of the specimen
has seven slits, 60 mm in length and 0:2 mm in width, at 7:5 mm intervals so as to exclude geometric
constraint on the deformation of the 60 mm × 60 mm square gage section. The slits are made by
laser-cutting. Nominal strain components, ex and ey , were measured using four biaxial strain gages
(Kyowa Dengyo, KFG-2-120-D-16-11) mounted on the centre lines of the specimen at (x; y) =
(±15 mm; 0) and (0; ±15 mm). The four values of the measured strains in each direction were
averaged, and the averaged value was taken to be the actual strain component in that direction. True
stress components, x and y , in the gage section were determined by dividing the measured loads
Fx (rolling direction) and Fy (transverse direction) by the current cross-sectional area of the gage
p p
section, determined from the measured values of logarithmic plastic strain components x and y
using the assumption of constant volume.
It has been con:rmed experimentally that the strain develops uniformly in the central
30 mm × 30 mm region of the gage section irrespective of load ratios (see Fig. 3 in Ref. [20]). In or-
der to check the accuracy of the stress measurements quantitatively, elastic-plastic FEM analyses have
been carried out for three diFerent linear loading paths with constant load ratios, Fx : Fy = 1:1; 2:1
D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 805

y
Units : mm
Rolling direction

Biaxial strain gage R1

7.5 O x
15

60 Slit width : 0.2

60
260

Fig. 2. Cruciform specimen.

Fig. 3. Yield surface for A6XXX-T4.

806 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the materials used in this study

Tensile direction ’exp (MPa) C ∗ (MPa) n∗ ∗ r’exp ∗∗

SPCE [20]
0◦ 180 522 0.21 0.004 2.01
22:5◦ 180 535 0.22 0.005 1.89
45◦ 188 525 0.20 0.004 1.52
67:5◦ 187 524 0.21 0.005 2.21
90◦ 184 491 0.19 0.004 2.42

A6XXX-T4 [21]
0◦ 128 533 0.36 0.015 0.78
22.5 126 512 0.35 0.014 0.63
45◦ 127 488 0.33 0.013 0.47
67.5 125 480 0.33 0.012 0.53
90◦ 126 496 0.34 0.013 0.53
∗
Approximated using  = C( + p )n for the plastic strain range p = 0:002– 0.05.
∗∗
Coe3cients of plastic anisotropy measured at uniaxial plastic strain p = 0:05– 0.06.

and 1:0, until the equivalent plastic strain in the gage section becomes 0.02 [23]. We have estimated
the measurement error of stress as  ≡ (CAL − FEM )=FEM ) × 100(%), where CAL is the value of
x (or y ) calculated by dividing the load Fx (or Fy ) by the corresponding cross-sectional area of
the gage section and FEM is the value of x (or y ) at the centre of the gage section calculated by
the FEM analysis. We have found that  = 1:3% for the load ratio 1:1;  = 2:2% (x ) and 3:8% (y )
for the load ratio 2:1, and  = 3:2% (x ) for the load ratio 1:0 (y was −10 MPa at the centre of
the gage section when x = 241:5 MPa). Thus, we have con:rmed that there are only small errors
in measured stress values.
The test materials are as-received Al-killed cold-rolled steel sheet (Ti-added IF-steel) 0:8 mm
thick (SPCE) [20] and 6000 series aluminum alloy sheet 1:0 mm thick (A6XXX-T4) [21]. The
exp exp
yield stresses, ’ , work hardening characteristics and r-values, r’ , obtained from uniaxial tensile
tests in the ’-degree directions to the rolling direction of the material are listed in Table 1. Here,
exp
it is noted that 0 was determined as a stress point giving the oFset logarithmic plastic strain,
p exp
0 = 0:002, in the rolling direction of the material, and ’ (’ = 22:5◦ ; 45◦ ; 67:5◦ and 90◦ ) were
exp
determined as values of uniaxial stress giving the same plastic work as that at 0 .

5.2. Experimental determination of the yield loci

First, a uniaxial tensile test in the rolling direction of the specimen was carried out using JIS
exp p
13B-type specimens and the uniaxial stress, 0 , at the oFset logarithmic plastic strain, 0 = 0:002,
exp
was determined. The uniaxial stress, 90 , in the transverse direction of the specimen was also
exp
determined as a yield stress at the same plastic work as that at 0 .
In biaxial tensile tests the tensile loads Fx and Fy were increased, being maintained in :xed
proportions, i.e. Fx : Fy =4:1; 2:1; 4:3; 1:1; 3:4; 1:2 and 1:4. Strain rates were (1.6 –2:6) × 10−4 s−1 .
exp exp exp
Then, the stress components, (x ; y ), were determined at the same plastic work as that at 0 .
D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 807

Fig. 4. Yield surface for SPCE.

Fig. 5. Distribution of the uniaxial yield stress for A6XXX-T4.

808 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

Table 2
Material parameters for A6XXX-T4 and SPCE sheet metals obtained by numerical identi:cation

A6XXX-T4 SPCE

a 0.695 0.208
M 0.441 0.581
N 0.532 0.558
P 0.535 0.497
Q 0.505 0.487
R 0.988 0.901
k 4 3
Y (MPa) 128 180
bexp (MPa) 126 183.5

Fig. 6. Distribution of the uniaxial yield stress for SPCE.

exp exp exp

Finally, a yield locus was determined by connecting a family of stress points (0 ; 0); (x ; y )
exp
and (0; 90 ), i.e. a contour of equal plastic work constructed in stress space.

6. Comparison with experiments

The predictions of the new yield criterion have been tested for two sorts of sheet metals: A6XXX-
T4 and SPCE. The theoretical results have been compared with the experimental data published in
Refs. [20,21].
Table 2 shows the values of the material parameters a; M; N; P; Q, and R obtained by numerical
exp
identi:cation for the two sorts of sheet metals. The corresponding values of k; Y and b are also
presented for completeness.
 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 809

Fig. 7. Distribution of the r-coe3cient for A6XXX-T4.

Fig. 8. Distribution of the r-coe3cient for SPCE.

The yield surfaces predicted by the new yield criterion for the A6XXX-T4 and SPCE sheet
metals are presented in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The experimental data are also plotted on the
diagrams. The predicted distribution of the uniaxial yield stress with respect to the angle with the
rolling direction is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for A6XXX-T4 and SPCE sheet metals, respectively.
810 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811

The predicted distribution of the r-coe3cient with respect to the angle with the rolling direction is
shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for A6XXX-T4 and SPCE sheet metals, respectively.

7. Conclusions

A new yield criterion derived from the one introduced by Barlat and Lian [15] has been proposed.
The new criterion has an increased Pexibility due to the fact that it uses seven coe3cients in order
to describe the yield surface. The minimization of an error-function has been used for the numerical
identi:cation of the coe3cients. The predicted yield surfaces for two materials (A6XXX-T4 and
SPCE) are in very good agreement with the experimental data obtained by Kuwabara et al. The
associated Pow rule predicts very accurately the distribution of the r-coe3cient and uniaxial yield
stress, respectively.

References

[1] Hill R. A theory of the yielding and plastic Pow of anisotropic metals. Proceedings of the Royal Society
1948;A193:281–97.
[2] Hill R. Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society 1979;85:179–91.
[3] Hill R. Constitutive modelling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids 1990;38:405–17.
[4] Hill R. A user-friendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
1993;15:19–25.
[5] Hosford WF. A generalized isotropic yield criterion. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1972;39:607–9.
[6] Hosford WF. On yield loci of anisotropic cubic metals. In: Proceedings of the Seventh North American Metalworking
Conference. Dearborn: SME; 1979. p. 191–7.
[7] Barlat F, Lege DJ, Brem JC. A six-component yield function for anisotropic materials. International Journal of
Plasticity 1991;7:693–712.
[8] Kara:llis AP, Boyce MC. A general anisotropic yield criterion using bounds and a transformation weighting tensor.
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1993;41:1859–86.
[9] Barlat F, Banabic D, Cazacu O. Anisotropy in sheet metals. In: Proceedings of the NUMISHEET 2002 Conference.
Jeju; 2002. p. 515 –24.
[10] Banabic D, Bunge HJ, Poehlandt K, Tekkaya AE. Formability of metallic materials. Springer, Berlin: Heidelberg;
2000.
[11] Barlat F, Cazacu O, Zyczkowski M, Banabic D, Yoon JW. Yield surface plasticity and anisotropy.
In: Raabe D, Chen L-Q, Barlat F, Roters F, editors. Continuum scale simulation of engineering
materials-fundamentals-microstructure-process applications. Berlin: Wiley-VCH; 2003.
[12] Bassani JL. Yield characterisation of metals with transversally isotropic plastic properties. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 1977;19:651–4.
[13] Gotoh M. A theory of plastic anisotropy used on a yield function of fourth order. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 1977;19:505–20.
[14] Barlat F, Richmond O. Prediction of tricomponent plane stress yield surfaces and associated Pow and failure behaviour
of strongly textured FCC polycrystalline sheets. Materials Science and Engineering 1987;91:15–29.
[15] Barlat F, Lian J. Plastic behaviour and stretchability of sheet metals. (Part I). A yield function for orthotropic sheet
under plane stress conditions. International Journal of Plasticity 1989;5:51–6.
[16] Budiansky B. Anisotropic plasticity of plane-isotropic sheets. In: Dvorak GJ, Shield RT, editors. Mechanics of
materials behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1984. p. 15 –29.
 D. Banabic et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 45 (2003) 797 – 811 811

[17] Barlat F, Becker RC, Hayashida Y, Maeda Y, Yanagawa M, Chung K, Brem JC, Lege DJ, Matsui K, Murtha
SJ, Hattori S. Yielding description for solution strengthened aluminium alloys. International Journal of Plasticity
1997;13:185–401.
[18] Vegter D, Drent P, Huetink J. A planar isotropic yield criterion based on mechanical testing at multiaxial stress
states. In: Proceedings of the NUMIFORM 1995 Conference. Ithaca; 1995. p. 354 – 60.
[19] Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical recipes in C. The art of scienti:c computing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
[20] Kuwabara T, Ikeda S, Kuroda K. Measurement and analysis of diFerential work hardening in cold-rolled steel sheet
under biaxial tension. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 1998;80 –81:517–23.
[21] Kuwabara T, Van Bael A. Measurement and analysis of yield locus of sheet aluminum alloy 6XXX. In: Gelin JC,
editor. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference and Workshop on Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet
Forming Processes. BesanYcon; 1999. p. 85 –90.
[22] Shiratori E, Ikegami K. Experimental study of the subsequent yield surface by using cross-shaped specimens. Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1968;16:373–94.
[23] Kuwabara T, Kuroda M, Tvergaard V, Nomura K. Use of abrupt strain path change for determining subsequent
yield surface: experimental study with metal sheets. Acta Materialia 2000;48:2071–9.

View publication stats